Carlton Supporters Club
Trumpled (Alternative Leading) - Printable Version

+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (/thread-2312.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384

Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - madbluboy - 09-04-2016

(09-04-2016, 09:11 PM)Lods link Wrote:Why is this election race even a contest still? ???

Because both candidates  are terrible.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - flyboy77 - 09-04-2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3ARRQpyzA

re Killary's health.....

Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - LP - 09-05-2016

(09-04-2016, 07:14 AM)Mav link Wrote:Letter from the Directors of the CDC and NIH:
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/09/cdc_director_how_not_to_fight_the_zika_virus_opini.html

Some critical thinking will help you there Mav.

If there are 16800 cases, assuming 50/50 men and women will mean 8400 women. At any one time in the USA 4% of all women are pregnant, 4% of 8400 is 336 but that report states 1595 pregnant women with Zika. By definition if there were 1595 is pregnant women infected with Zika that would be 4% of all Zika cases, which would have to be 39875 female cases of Zika infection and assuming a 50/50 distribution of sexes 79850 cases in total.

Where does the 16800 cases come from that has a massive number of 1595 pregnant women, that would need about 19% of women in that group to be pregnant which is 5X the US average?

They must be rooting for Zika! Big Grin

Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 09-05-2016

Hmmm ... let me see.  Do I side with some guy tapping away on a calculator or the Director of the world-renowned CDC?  Tough one, that.  Maybe I'll go with the CDC guy.  By the way, do you think that the CDC might prioritise testing pregnant women or that pregnant women might be more likely to seek out testing and advice?

Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - cookie2 - 09-05-2016

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election/donald-trump-closing-gap-on-hillary-clinton-as-november-vote-looms-20160904-gr8qbi.html

Gee, I'd just about written off the Trumpster but maybe that was a premature extrapolation?

I will be over there about a month before the election so it may be a very interesting visit.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Lods - 09-05-2016

(09-05-2016, 01:35 AM)cookie2 link Wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election/donald-trump-closing-gap-on-hillary-clinton-as-november-vote-looms-20160904-gr8qbi.html

Gee, I'd just about written off the Trumpster but maybe that was a premature extrapolation?

I will be over there about a month before the election so it may be a very interesting visit.

This is the key point... Wink
Quote:However, Mrs Clinton maintained healthy leads in key battleground states including Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina.


Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 09-05-2016

Yep.  Gore received half a million more votes than Bush in 2000.  A national opinion poll isn't as useful a predictor as polls in battleground states.  When you look at electoral college votes, Trump needs to win a large proportion of the battleground states.  The "electoral math", as the Yanks say, favour her.  She can win by sweeping the "rust belt states" (the north-eastern industrial states like Pennsylvania and Ohio), the Eastern seaboard (including Florida with its 29 electoral college votes), or the increasingly Latino states in the south-west such as Nevada, Colorado and Arizona.  She can afford to keep all those strategies going for now as she is blitzing Trump when it comes to fundraising and this forces him to spread his time and effort.  Then she can concentrate on the strongest strategy in the final run home.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - madbluboy - 09-05-2016

The polls don't  mean anything, if they did  Trump wouldn't  have got this far. America  doesn't  trust Hilary and that will show in November.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - spf - 09-05-2016

Anyone would think there were only two candidates running, guess it comes down to who the media elect.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - LP - 09-05-2016

Mav you really need to read this stuff before you post, your link supports my case not yours!

(09-05-2016, 12:35 AM)Mav link Wrote:Hmmm ... let me see.  Do I side with some guy tapping away on a calculator or the Director of the world-renowned CDC? Tough one, that. Maybe I'll go with the CDC guy.
The numbers are important, they can be trusted when opinions cannot, and if an expert or the media publishes rubbery or misleading numbers they should be called to account! If you had used a calculator you might better off! Big Grin

(09-05-2016, 12:35 AM)Mav link Wrote:By the way, do you think that the CDC might prioritise testing pregnant women or that pregnant women might be more likely to seek out testing and advice?
That is not what was stated or contained in the very article that the count links to, you coloured that to suit your argument. Further, given that Zika is a notifiable condition and spreads not just by mosquito but is also sexually transmitted, the referenced stats should not favor a specific sex.

But surprisingly in the stats link an interesting footnote;
Quote:§Only includes cases meeting the probable or confirmed CSTE case definition and does not include asymptomatic infections unless the case is a pregnant woman with a complication of pregnancy
They exclude people from the count who are asymptomatic(healthy carriers) unless they are pregnant with a complication, which introduces a selection bias. Women who were pregnant, had tested positive with Zika, but had no symptoms or pregnancy complications are excluded from the figures!

As an aside, people who are asymptomatic have antibodies to the virus, some of the very new research is suggesting it may well be the Zika antibodies and not the virus that are doing the damage in the 2nd trimester. If that is true the concern is that the immunisation might do as much harm as it does good if the timing is wrong! No wonder they want money quickly, the cure might be worse than the disease! It would be the first time in history humans have tried to fix something and made things worse! All in all it's shouts patience is a virtue.

That CDC statement is basically arguing a case for more money as I outlined earlier. The article even discusses having to remove funds from other far more immediate and serious health threats to fund the Zika fight.

That is scaremongering at it's finest, scientists playing politics to get funding, they should be working for the GOP!