Lockdown Fans: What Is Your Endgame Plan?

[candycorn]

I stated that about 2 pages ago dimwit. The only thing you've ever beaten is the "little buddy" you've referred to later.

Just admit you lost. Twice. Okay, little buddy?

No.

The CDC guidelines are based on science.

Which is what I said 25 pages ago....let science decide.

For some reason, you think this means waiting until 2024 or whatever. Again; you're either drunk or high or both. I think your BAL is about 17% which is still less than a fifth. LOL

 

[Mac-7]

I just popped in on my lunch break to see if any lockdown proponents bothered to answer my questions, or if they all just came crowding in to scream slogans and tell us, "All I need to know is Orange Man Bad!"

So I guess that clears it up: there is no one supporting continued lockdowns who is doing so because they want to save lives. They just want a chance to attack Trump. That's it, that's all, and they haven't given a single thought to what the effects of their demands might be, because it doesn't matter to them.

You are full of bovine feces as usual. Quite a few people told you exactly when the lockdowns can end. It’s a very simple answer. TESTING.

The pat answer. How many people do you want to test before you consider it safe? How often do you want to repeat the tests? How long is your Tested Safe good for?
Now once tested do you get chipped or carry an ID card?
What to you do with the people who test positive? Lock them away there and then?
TESTING is not the end all be all solution.

A vaccination is. That aside, let's not do testing! Let it run it's course. While we're at it, why bother trying to do anything about any disease! Woo hoo...

That seems to be the preferred GOP plan. Let the chips fall where they may. Meemaw and Pepaw will have to be sacrificed. As will the lower-paid, front-line workers who are not worth the cost and bother of testing.

Testing is for the rich and well-connected. And there are enough poor, uneducated Trump supporters who will think that is the way it has to be. Everything for the wealthy. Without them, we are nothing.

The GOP lives in the real world that needs a healthy economy to afford the wipe-every-nose welfare state that libs demand

 

[candycorn]

17% is closer to a fourth. Not a fifth.

I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you'd like.

?

Candycorn insisted that only 17% of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act aid went to regular American citizens, which he further claimed was "a fifth" of the package.

It's one fourth of the package, not a fifth.

You think 17% is closer to a fourth than a fifth?

Yes he does. He's a blob supporter. Need we say more?

 

[TemplarKormac]

17% is closer to a fourth. Not a fifth.

I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you'd like.

?

Candycorn insisted that only 17% of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act aid went to regular American citizens, which he further claimed was "a fifth" of the package.

It's one fourth of the package, not a fifth.

You think 17% is closer to a fourth than a fifth?

Actually yeah, it is less than a fifth. But less than a fifth (17% of 2.2 trillion) is $374 billion. Divide $374 billion by $1200 (the size of the base check being given out), and you get 311,666,667. Or that many Americans getting checks from the aid package.

I'm not gonna sit here and lie about getting the fractions right, that's what calculators are made for. But if you think an error like that invalidates my argument, guess again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

17% is closer to a fourth. Not a fifth.

I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you'd like.

?

Candycorn insisted that only 17% of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act aid went to regular American citizens, which he further claimed was "a fifth" of the package.

It's one fourth of the package, not a fifth.

You think 17% is closer to a fourth than a fifth?

Yes he does. He's a blob supporter. Need we say more?

17% is closer to a fourth. Not a fifth.

I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you'd like.

?

Candycorn insisted that only 17% of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act aid went to regular American citizens, which he further claimed was "a fifth" of the package.

It's one fourth of the package, not a fifth.

You think 17% is closer to a fourth than a fifth?

Actually yeah, it is less than a fifth. But less than a fifth is $374 billion. Divide $374 billion by $1200 (the size of the base check being given out), and you get 311,666,667. Or that many Americans getting checks from the aid package.

I'm not gonna sit here and lie about getting the fractions right, that's what calculators are made for. But if you think an error like that invalidates my argument, guess again.

 

[candycorn]

17% is closer to a fourth. Not a fifth.

I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you'd like.

?

Candycorn insisted that only 17% of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act aid went to regular American citizens, which he further claimed was "a fifth" of the package.

It's one fourth of the package, not a fifth.

You think 17% is closer to a fourth than a fifth?

Actually yeah, it is less than a fifth. But less than a fifth is $374 billion. Divide $374 billion by $1200 (the size of the base check being given out), and you get 311,666,667. Or that many Americans getting checks from the aid package.

I'm not gonna sit here and lie about getting the fractions right, that's what calculators are made for. But if you think an error like that invalidates my argument, guess again.

Looks like I beat you into submission my mathematically challenged friend. I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you like.

 

[TemplarKormac]

17% is closer to a fourth. Not a fifth.

I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you'd like.

?

Candycorn insisted that only 17% of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act aid went to regular American citizens, which he further claimed was "a fifth" of the package.

It's one fourth of the package, not a fifth.

You think 17% is closer to a fourth than a fifth?

Actually yeah, it is less than a fifth. But less than a fifth (17% of 2.2 trillion) is $374 billion. Divide $374 billion by $1200 (the size of the base check being given out), and you get 311,666,667. Or that many Americans getting checks from the aid package.

I'm not gonna sit here and lie about getting the fractions right, that's what calculators are made for. But if you think an error like that invalidates my argument, guess again.

Want to do the math yourself then, candycorn?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Looks like I beat you into submission my mathematically challenged friend. I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you like.

Oh cool. But you failed in defeating me on the substance of the thread itself.

So, losing this battle didn't lose me the war. But go ahead and grab the Kleenex and ingratiate yourself if you must.

 

[candycorn]

17% is closer to a fourth. Not a fifth.

I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you'd like.

?

Candycorn insisted that only 17% of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act aid went to regular American citizens, which he further claimed was "a fifth" of the package.

It's one fourth of the package, not a fifth.

You think 17% is closer to a fourth than a fifth?

Actually yeah, it is less than a fifth. But less than a fifth (17% of 2.2 trillion) is $374 billion. Divide $374 billion by $1200 (the size of the base check being given out), and you get 311,666,667. Or that many Americans getting checks from the aid package.

I'm not gonna sit here and lie about getting the fractions right, that's what calculators are made for. But if you think an error like that invalidates my argument, guess again.

Want to do the math yourself then, candycorn?

No shit brains; the error is in you thinking that less than a quarter of the bill going to regular Americans is a good thing. Again, if you think that regular Americans getting back less than $0.20 on the dollar they contributed is good while corporations that paid nothing benefit from bail out monies...you're pretty stupid.

 

[candycorn]

Looks like I beat you into submission my mathematically challenged friend. I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you like.

Oh cool. But you failed in defeating me on the substance of the thread itself.

So, losing this battle didn't lose me the war. But go ahead and grab the Kleenex and ingratiate yourself if you must.

What substance? I think science should decide. The CDC had some good guidelines based on science. For some reason, you think that means being locked down for 5 years. You were full of it yesterday and you're full of it it now. Nothing has changed except you have proven that you are mathematically illiterate which pairs well with your illiteracy on knowing what your own blob's CDC is recommending.

 

[NotYourBody]

I just popped in on my lunch break to see if any lockdown proponents bothered to answer my questions, or if they all just came crowding in to scream slogans and tell us, "All I need to know is Orange Man Bad!"

So I guess that clears it up: there is no one supporting continued lockdowns who is doing so because they want to save lives. They just want a chance to attack Trump. That's it, that's all, and they haven't given a single thought to what the effects of their demands might be, because it doesn't matter to them.

You are full of bovine feces as usual. Quite a few people told you exactly when the lockdowns can end. It’s a very simple answer. TESTING.

The pat answer. How many people do you want to test before you consider it safe? How often do you want to repeat the tests? How long is your Tested Safe good for?
Now once tested do you get chipped or carry an ID card?
What to you do with the people who test positive? Lock them away there and then?
TESTING is not the end all be all solution.

A vaccination is. That aside, let's not do testing! Let it run it's course. While we're at it, why bother trying to do anything about any disease! Woo hoo...

That seems to be the preferred GOP plan. Let the chips fall where they may. Meemaw and Pepaw will have to be sacrificed. As will the lower-paid, front-line workers who are not worth the cost and bother of testing.

Testing is for the rich and well-connected. And there are enough poor, uneducated Trump supporters who will think that is the way it has to be. Everything for the wealthy. Without them, we are nothing.

The GOP lives in the real world that needs a healthy economy to afford the wipe-every-nose welfare state that libs demand

GOP red states are most dependent on the federal government.

Maybe if they could get their shit together and start working they wouldn't be such a drain on our healthy economy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

17% is closer to a fourth. Not a fifth.

I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you'd like.

?

Candycorn insisted that only 17% of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act aid went to regular American citizens, which he further claimed was "a fifth" of the package.

It's one fourth of the package, not a fifth.

You think 17% is closer to a fourth than a fifth?

Actually yeah, it is less than a fifth. But less than a fifth is $374 billion. Divide $374 billion by $1200 (the size of the base check being given out), and you get 311,666,667. Or that many Americans getting checks from the aid package.

I'm not gonna sit here and lie about getting the fractions right, that's what calculators are made for. But if you think an error like that invalidates my argument, guess again.

Looks like I beat you into submission my mathematically challenged friend. I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you like.

And you said "The blob had some good guidelines to follow," if I recall correctly. I got you to say that in similar form twice (EDIT: three times now) already.

But yeah, celebrate a meaningless victory. I care not. I won the overall debate.

Wanna laugh? Go right ahead. It doesn't make the situation any better for you.

 

[Unkotare]

Nothing has changed except you have proven that you are mathematically illiterate ...

The term you are looking for is "innumerate."

 

[TemplarKormac]

What substance? I think science should decide.

Science says that for this virus to be successfully defeated, you would need to maintain these measures for at least 2 to 5 years. More than any working American living paycheck to paycheck can reasonably stand. More than any small business owner can take being shut down.

That's the substance.

Acknowledge your defeat. I have beaten you into submission by getting you to admit THREE times now that the CDC (which, ironically, is part of Trump's Administration) and Trump himself had good guidelines to follow. I can quote you exactly if you would like to insist you said otherwise.

But hey, math. I know you need to salvage something from this rout I handed you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For some reason, you think that means being locked down for 5 years.

Of course. I have read multiple peer-reviewed studies saying as much, and I cited two of them to you the other night. So if you follow the science, you wind up getting at minimum a 2-year lockdown, or at most, a 5-year lockdown.

 

[Unkotare]

It is only too obvious what needs to be done. Someone is going to have to assemble a team of intrepid adventurers and shrink them down to a microscopic size so that they may engage in hand to hand combat with the evil Baron Von Virus and vanquish him for the good of all mankind. Why are people too stupid to see this?

 

[Mac-7]

I just popped in on my lunch break to see if any lockdown proponents bothered to answer my questions, or if they all just came crowding in to scream slogans and tell us, "All I need to know is Orange Man Bad!"

So I guess that clears it up: there is no one supporting continued lockdowns who is doing so because they want to save lives. They just want a chance to attack Trump. That's it, that's all, and they haven't given a single thought to what the effects of their demands might be, because it doesn't matter to them.

You are full of bovine feces as usual. Quite a few people told you exactly when the lockdowns can end. It’s a very simple answer. TESTING.

The pat answer. How many people do you want to test before you consider it safe? How often do you want to repeat the tests? How long is your Tested Safe good for?
Now once tested do you get chipped or carry an ID card?
What to you do with the people who test positive? Lock them away there and then?
TESTING is not the end all be all solution.

A vaccination is. That aside, let's not do testing! Let it run it's course. While we're at it, why bother trying to do anything about any disease! Woo hoo...

That seems to be the preferred GOP plan. Let the chips fall where they may. Meemaw and Pepaw will have to be sacrificed. As will the lower-paid, front-line workers who are not worth the cost and bother of testing.

Testing is for the rich and well-connected. And there are enough poor, uneducated Trump supporters who will think that is the way it has to be. Everything for the wealthy. Without them, we are nothing.

The GOP lives in the real world that needs a healthy economy to afford the wipe-every-nose welfare state that libs demand

GOP red states are most dependent on the federal government.

Maybe if they could get their shit together and start working they wouldn't be such a drain on our healthy economy.

Ok if you think so lets cut of all federal spending for welfare and leave it entirely to the states

I’m for it but knowing libs I bet they are against it

 

[TemplarKormac]

No.

The CDC guidelines are based on science.

Let me deal the killing blow to your argument, math whiz.

So were Trump's guidelines, which ironically, were advised by the CDC guidelines.

But you insist Trump doesn't listen to science.

Keep swingin' little buddy.

 

[Mac-7]

It is only too obvious what needs to be done. Someone is going to have to assemble a team of intrepid adventurers and shrink them down to a microscopic size so that they may engage in hand to hand combat with the evil Baron Von Virus and vanquish him for the good of all mankind. Why are people too stupid to see this?

They better be martial arts experts because being chinese the virus is sure to know kung fu

 

[TemplarKormac]

17% is closer to a fourth. Not a fifth.

I can keep pointing out more mathematical failures on your part if you'd like.

?

Candycorn insisted that only 17% of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act aid went to regular American citizens, which he further claimed was "a fifth" of the package.

It's one fourth of the package, not a fifth.

You think 17% is closer to a fourth than a fifth?

Actually yeah, it is less than a fifth. But less than a fifth (17% of 2.2 trillion) is $374 billion. Divide $374 billion by $1200 (the size of the base check being given out), and you get 311,666,667. Or that many Americans getting checks from the aid package.

I'm not gonna sit here and lie about getting the fractions right, that's what calculators are made for. But if you think an error like that invalidates my argument, guess again.

Want to do the math yourself then, candycorn?

Still haven't answered the question, have we, little buddy?