I feel like I'm back in primary school with Foxy's "I know you are but what am I" attempted refutation.

That's the third time the link to that article has been posted on this thread. Clearly Foxy et al want it to be true. Indeed they need it to be true.

You see, these people have convinced themselves that they are smarter, more cognoscente than those stupid Trump supporters. So every time they get it wrong, its a body blow to their already fragile self-esteem. So Foxy finds someone who is similarly looking for a salve for his self-esteem and asserts that they really are smarter than the Trumpites and desperately sighs that they have proof.

But what evidence does that article provide? None.

It simply asserts (a claim without evidence) that the Trumpites are wrong and then makes up 'reasons' to explain that. But it doesn't SHOW they are wrong.

Unlike the Foxy's et al who, as I showed, constantly get it wrong and then move on, having learned nothing, to the next anti-Trump assertion.

They've spent the past half decade (at least) desperately misunderstanding the world around them and need reassurance that they didn't.

Josephus,

It seems, according to the increasingly fraught SR, that its impossible to advocate for the unborn AND advocate for the "the sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans?". It seems its gotta be one or t'other. Just pick one and all the others have to be thrown under the bus. Quite why you can't advocate for multiple groups is unclear but if a Methodist minister says it, who are we to argue?

Dills.

mhaze,

You still don't get it.

Anyone but Trump!

The man's unfit for office.

It's that simple!

Stop joining the crazies.

SR,

I'll do the bible story first since its the easiest and therefore even you have a chance to understand it.

A while back Paul/LM were jollying it up that Trump had held up an upside down bible. What he fool he is, eh? The usual assertions that Trump gets it wrong and all his followers are fools. They'd apparently got it from some meme machine and they'd accepted it without the need to check.

So I went and found the actual photos and showed that they'd got it wrong. As is their want (like your's) they didn't acknowledge or comment on their laughable error, just moved on to the next screw-up.

_________________________________________________________________

You now say I got the projections wrong. But don't show that.

Were the projections as I posted them or not? Answer...I correctly listed those projections. That the projections were wrong is a different issue. The problem was that, at the time, no one realised how badly the democrat states were going to screw-up.

As to it being a normal flu season, in the case of Australia it has been, at least in terms of deaths.

_________________________________________________________________

So SR, you're going to try to skate over the fact that you hopelessly, comically, ignoramously, got confused between the CFR and IFR when you tried to work out potential Victorian death rate. As I said, SR, you should avoid using numbers wherever possible. It just makes you look even more foolish.

But it did serve to prove that you don't know what the difference between the two (CFR/IFR) is and therefore why you're so confused about the WHO's earlier errors.

I've really lost interest in trying to educate you on this. You see, if you had come back acknowledging any one of the monumental errors you've made in this thread, especially that last hilarious one, then there'd be some hope that education might help. But alas...

TRUMP AHEAD BY 1% (WITH 4% UNDECIDED) ACCORDING TO A VERY SIGNIFICANT POLLSTER

Good news is that the collective polls at http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

indicate Biden is a reduced 6.9% ahead.
_____________

Bad news is that Rusmussen Reports,

that was a very accurate pollster in 2016 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/how_we_did

NOW INDICATES http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep16

"Trump Takes First Lead Wednesday, September 16, 2020

President Trump has now edged to a one-point lead over Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the latest Rasmussen Reports’ weekly White House Watch survey. While statistically insignificant, it’s the first time Trump has been ahead.

The new national telephone and online survey finds the president with a 47% to 46% lead over Biden among Likely U.S. Voters. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while four percent (4%) remain undecided..."

"Undecided" is always a critical, but unpredicatable, element in polling.

Pete

mhaze, I just read an article that persons who previously voted Democrats are leaving their former position and switching to Republicans. Imagine the civil war that Democrats will instigate if Trump wins.

Further to the comment above, at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9249&page=0#310837

I'd say that after initial optimism Trump would receive a well-earned loss, a Trump win is now a 50/50 proposition.

The dynamics of non-compulsory voting are different and more prone to deliver surprises.

Trumps mainly white, male, working to middle class BASE feel embattled and are encouraged to vote for him. They don't fear the rigged postal delays or stand for hours in the rain/snow for booths in Democrat leaning areas.

Their concerns are more continuity and management of what's Good For The Economy/Their Own Jobs than small "l" liberal causes or foreign policy.

Also the US electorate historically vote for the President "Devil" they know - meaning TWO TERMS.

Hence in recent history:

Two term Presidents have included:

- Reagan

- (Bill) Clinton

- (George W.) Bush, and

- Obama.

So I'd say that after initial optimism Trump will lose, a Trump win is now a 50/50 proposition.