Of all the uncountable crimes Trump has committed, stealing the sanity of 70+ million people is by far the worst, most unforgivable, and most damaging.

I've been a turtle since the '70s.

https://youtu.be/MPGyGUmBLeY

"You bet your sweet ass I am."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_and_Honorable_Order_of_Turtles

Your video, Snake Dick, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 70 Badge!

Your video, Meanwhile, in america..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 70 Badge!

Your video, When A 70s/80s Song Comes On, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Adding video to channels (1sttube, 70s, Scifi, Terrible, Vintage) - requested by my15minutes.

behold, for i am @swampgirl 's *terrible vengeance

risen from the ashes of *vintage *70s *1stTube *scifi

Allways pushing the negative.


OK 2.8% death rate. A better way to say it 97.2% survival rate.

Granted you don't account for most vulnerable ( those over 70) which account for nearly 1/2 of deaths. So for those working age and school age is is 1.4 % death rate and rates get lower as you are younger.



Did you stop shopping?
Working?
Getting gas?

Enough data is out to say this is much to do about nothing unless you are old, then its a big deal.

Only fake news and Democrat leaders are pushing this BS. Mask up, go to work and pay you bills.

Well if yo believe the fake news then yea.

But for the educated......

from CDC latest update, survival rate greater than 99% for those under 70.

What is the difference from Masking up and going to the store?


Masks up and go vote.

So, if these (very soft) numbers are taken into account and this (highly infectious) disease continues to spread throughout the whole of the US, there's going to be this rough breakdown:

0-18: 2217 dead
20-49: 23,840 dead
50-69: 417,000 dead
70+: 3,029,400 dead

Total deaths nearing 3.5 million. And this is considered something to dismiss without concern?

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that there can be long term implications for people who are infected, but survive, too.

The US govt last week updated the survival rates (i.e., IF infected) for Covid19:

0-19 99.997%
20-49 99.98%
50-69 99.5%
70+ 94.6%


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Stop posting this unscientific propaganda, pedophilia supporter.

Notice not one reference on any of his "data" because he likely made it up like he usually does.

His data doesn't match any verified data either, and his graphs are intentionally confusing, including individual states and countries in a completely unscientific propaganda graph, some countries with populations in the 70-80000 range. My guess is it's improperly presented this way to hide how bad America has done, with well over half the slots being US states and many of the remaining countries having tiny populations and third world conditions. This is the superstition side of the argument, not science based or scientific at all.

We have >200000 deaths with just over 2% infected. Herd immunity takes 70-80% being infected and a stable virus that won't mutate enough to erase immunity. That's a minimum of 7-8 MILLION Americans dead and p to 21-24 million permanently disabled if we have 1.6 million ICU beds....hint, we don't, so multiply the deaths by 4-7 but lower the disabled numbers, they'll die instead. So far, there's no study that shows herd immunity is even possible, since this virus mutates every few months it's unlikely. I think sacrificing millions - 60 million or more to find out is outrageously insane.

Use real, verified data, we are at best 8th worst (only 7 countries have more deaths per 100000 and 8th highest death rate per infection too). Just look at India, with 4 times the US population, just over 1 million fewer cases than the US, and way less than half the deaths....IN FUCKING INDIA.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/05/899365887/charts-how-the-u-s-ranks-on-covid-19-deaths-per-capita-and-by-case-count

Because our population is so large, that puts us at number one in total deaths with 4% of the population but 25% of deaths....so > 6 times the global average per capita and the most reported deaths by far.

Fail Bobski. Only the most uneducated rubes fall for this ridiculous nonsense.

Our health care system was stretched beyond it's limits with under 2% of Americans infected over a 9 month period, and even so 200000 died (likely more), some from lack of access to hospitals because they had zero beds available in entire states.
His plan is now to allow 35-40 times that many people to get infected in the next few years, which would lead to 7.3 million dead if we could give them the same treatment and mortality rate, but we simply cannot. 15-20% need ICU beds and equipment, in Trump's plan 9/10 won't get it at best, all those people will die, bringing the mortality rate up to as high as 20% +-.

.70 (expected minimum effective infection rate) x 350000000(population) x .20 (probable mortality rate without ICU care) = likely 49 MILLION +- expected dead if all goes to plan under Trump's herd mentality plan....an apt name since he's lining up Americans and sending us to the killing floors.

So somewhere between an optimistic 7.3 million and a pessimistic 49 million dead sacrificed Americans is his best idea (he knows tested widespread vaccines are years off and only good until the virus mutates, which it has already), plus any collateral damage from no functional health care and other factors. I can't fathom where this 3 million number that's being tossed around comes from, it seems insanely optimistic and not based in reality.

In part, yes, but not the current class. The old thinking was just never allow fires. We know better now, but still suffer from 70 years of poor management.

Um....what? He is in charge of 57% of forests in California, the ones burning, and has not done a thing to "fix" them, and instead blames governors for his failures on Federal land the governor's don't control. This has nothing to do with cities, and Trump leads ALL American cities, moron. Not just Republican led cities, which are few and small.

Really? Prove it. I see Trump encouraging armed thugs to go out and kill, praising them when they do, and never denouncing the violence on the right, not even the terroristic bombers and arsonists. Conversely, I've seen every Democrat that gets air time denounce rioting, looting, arson, and violence from ANYONE.

He's supposed to be the leader, the man in charge....everything that happens is his fault. If he refuses responsibility, he refuses the ability to do anything about it and abdicated leadership.
This didn't happen under Obama, but the cities were democratic then....so clearly it's not Democratic leadership causing unrest, what has changed? Hmmmm....let me think.

Btw, most killings have been right wingers killing others including police, not liberals with a few exceptions at most.

If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?