|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 02 2023 00:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 00:20 Magic Powers wrote:On September 01 2023 21:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 01 2023 17:59 Uldridge wrote:On September 01 2023 16:13 RenSC2 wrote:As an example of going backwards being much easier than going forwards, let's take healthcare as an example. If you want to pass a healthcare bill, you need a certain percentage of the senate to agree on a specific bill (also the house, but we'll ignore them for this). + Show Spoiler +Some senators want a public option (Medicare for anyone who wants it) that will compete with private insurance. Other senators want Medicare for all and destroy the private insurance companies. Some want Medicare to be wildly expanded and improved from its current form. Others want it to only cover a part of healthcare (like emergency room visits only). You can get down into the nitty gritty of it and each senator that is pro expansion of medicare would want it to look a little bit different.
These are all senators that generally agree on the basic premise of expanding Medicare to more people (it is currently only for the elderly). In reality, you also have plenty of senators who don't want to expand Medicare at all and may even want to shrink it or destroy it.
Then you have all the pork. Some senator from X state wants certain provisions that protect insurance companies in his state. Another senator wants to protect pharmaceutical manufacturers in his state. Some senator might want to create jobs in his state and demands a customer support call-center be created in his state.
You get 100 different people all pulling in different directions. You can ignore about 40 of them in the senate, but ignoring them will often anger another 10 or so. It takes a huge amount of work and compromise so the bill that passes is some major compromise that satisfies nobody. The ACA (Obamacare) enshrined profits for insurance companies, but also did some things to get everyone onto an insurance plan (can't reject applicants for pre-existing conditions or cancel people's insurance when they get majorly sick). It took a ton of work and compromise to get that watered down bill, but it was still better than what existed previously.
Then look at what happened early in Trump's term. The Republicans gained control and they said they'd "repeal and replace" the ACA. Repeal was relatively easy. All they needed to do was get enough people to vote to repeal the ACA. Can they get enough senators to vote against a monstrosity of a bill? They almost did. They also never even got close to the "replace" part because that part is difficult. Rather than voting to remove something they didn't like, they'd have to actually work together and create something they did want. That was never going to happen on the Republican side when it comes to Healthcare. But it is a great example of how easy it is to destroy something that was extremely difficult to build. I really appreciate the example given, but I'm looking into it now, just to understand the nuances of the inner workings of congress. Repeals have been not only unsuccessful, unless I'm missing somthing, but the effort to repeal has been substantial. 67 times voting to repeal, starting from 2010. All failed. From 2010 until 2017 when Republicans took control of all three branches of government a ton of bills were created to repeal the ACA that everyone knew Obama wouldn't sign into law and were a complete waste of time. Republicans had a majority in the house and congress, but not enough to override a presidential veto so they knew every single ones of these bills would fail before it was even drafted. The intention of all of those bills was to make Obama and democrats look bad. It was never about repealing the ACA because they knew Obama would veto it before they started. I'm not sure if it makes sense to say that, just because Obama could always veto the bills, that means Republicans had no intention of ending the ACA. The purpose of continuously proposing a futile bill is to signal an intention. While they try and fail, at least they tried. If they don't even try, everyone will think they have their minds elsewhere. That would be likely to cost them votes. In principle I'd agree with you. In reality if your intention was to repeal the ACA and you couldn't do that because Obama vetoed it every time you would have passed it easily when Trump became president. We know that didn't happen and that infighting destroyed all the bills to repeal and replace. Republicans could have spent those six years working out all the gaps and had something on Trump's desk to sign but they didn't.
That's really interesting. I was surprised to hear this so I looked up articles for confirmation. Quickly came across one that confirms your version exactly as you're describing it.
Healthcare was never big on the GOP's agenda. Obama on the other hand had worked on it very diligently and built the ACA, in large part through negotiation with Republicans. A number of compromises had to be made to get it through, but at least the plan actually worked.
Many years after the law passed there was still no replacement from the Republican side, and Trump wasn't a negotiator type of person.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/03/why-trump-republicans-failed-repeal-obamacare/618337/
|
|
|
Northern Ireland22452 Posts
On September 02 2023 04:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 03:59 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2023 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 01 2023 04:05 oBlade wrote:On August 31 2023 23:36 JimmiC wrote:
Trump is 77 and super overweight with a horrible diet. He is pretty much in the same boat for chances of dying if not higher. I pulled some actuarially tables earlier but its difficult to do it exactly without more medical information. But there is a pretty decent chance that at least one of them (hell even bother though I wouldn't bet the parlay) die before the end of the next term.
The big difference is if Biden dies his supporters will blame his age as will the reps. If Trump dies his supporters will blame the dems and the others will blame age and diet. Hmmm who is more realistic?
edit: So yeah at 77 you life expectancy is 9.32 years and being over weight costs you 2-4 years. at 80 its 7.74. So they are basically the same. Each year there is like a 5-9% chance of each one of them dying. If Trump dies, we will blame whoever shot or exploded him. His "horrible diet" of diet coke, not drinking alcohol or smoking or doing drugs while taking statins long-term aside, it's apparent he's in better health than Biden was when he was 77, compare their levels of activity and ability to speak and move and be active while having their wits about them. His father lived close to 100. Biden falls asleep, can't speak, and does what he's told. If he dies in office, we won't be blaming his age but a gust of wind. The reason it's more relevant in his case is his VP lacks the basic competence you'd expect of a high schooler. Republicans have to actually be competent to a higher standard in order to have any chance against a machine of people who vote D no matter what without talking or thinking about any issues, because everyone else is doing it and the media lockstep guides them to vote that way. That applies to Republicans' VPs also, they can't afford to put people as incompetent as Harris on the ticket because they won't just get voted for anyway. While both sides need to consider who the VP is - since Biden and Trump are both old - the assertion that Trump will outlive Biden is unfounded. Experts have actually run the numbers and found that Biden is more likely to outlive Trump: "Biden is expected to outlive Trump, even though he is three years older. The reasons are that Biden has an exceptional health profile for a man his age (e.g., ideal Body Mass Index [BMI], physically active, few prescription medications, no identifiable lethal conditions, excellent cholesterol profile, low inflammation). He also has a family history of longevity. Trump also shares most of this profile, except his obesity and sedentary lifestyle work against his familial longevity history and his otherwise healthy biological profile." https://www.icaa.cc/media/presidential_lifespan_and_healthspan-draft_for_release_1.pdfSo if you want to say you're concerned about both of them dying in office, I'd agree that that's valid. But don't overreach by saying Biden is more likely to die before Trump. Biden might die first, because anyone *could* die before Trump, but it's absolutely hypocritical when a Republican points out Biden's age and mortality. Thanks for linking source, I love to dissect experts to an audience. When they come on TV wearing a scarf around their neck (Elon fell for this absurd fashion thing too) to tell me doing the same will prevent the spread of a respiratory virus, no matter how much I yell back at the TV, nobody's listening. Firstly, my concern for Biden dying is that it's much more dangerous due to his flippant and reckless choice of a running mate. If his VP were Trump, for example, I wouldn't be as worried because his death wouldn't be such a disastrously high consequence event. Harris in the Oval Office wouldn't be a wonderful story like Veep or Designated Survivor. Disagree as I might with Pence, a collapse of order in the event of him assuming the presidency wasn't likely. I don't care who is going to die first per se as long as it's not in office. And of natural causes. For example, for the sake of argument Trump might have a higher risk of dying, but you have to subtract dying of assassination, because you can't maintain an argument where you shouldn't vote for someone for president because they might get assassinated and die in office, because something more ethical would be voting for whoever wins and just not assassinating them instead. Biden has fallen on the Air Force One steps and at the Air Force Academy graduation. Either the Air Force specifically hates him or something else is going on. He walks like a Diablo 1 zombie and isn't much better in the coherency department, either. These are visual things anyone can see plainly and can't be gaslit away. I am concerned foremost not with his mortality, but his health as it relates to basic fitness for office. He repeatedly shows issues speaking. We all seem to know other people are calling the shots. In your case, it's not a problem if he dies because Harris takes over and maybe the same people are calling the shots, so it's status quo MIC corporatist state forever. Maybe there's a logic to that, that they're equally puppets and so his poor choice of running mate given the risks of his age aren't relevant. But I prefer leaders to empty shells. Here's what's suspect with the paper's methods and your presentation of it if you're interested: 0) Just as a footnote you're taking a source whose conclusion is their age isn't an issue for either of them and using it to tell me Trump's going to die first. 1) This is from 3 years ago. You might say, oBlade, that's no time at all, but it's potentially like 20% of their life expectancy at the time. How about an updated analysis that factors in Biden falling down the stairs and Trump potentially losing 30 lbs (says Walter Reed measured him at 244lb). Also would like to see Trump's cholesterol and CAC levels now. 2) The Sullivan method appears to apply to populations to estimate useful life expectancy apart from the crippled years. Not to soothsay an individual's fortune. As a mathematician you can't keep falling for stuff like this. The main force influencing these favorable survival estimates is familial longevity. Socioeconomic factors contributing to this conclusion are that both have access to excellent health care, high income, they are highly educated, and both are married. appears to receive excellent medical care, practices some preventive health behaviors (e.g. takes a multivitamin, screening tests and immunizations appear up to date) and is married This is not causative at an individual level. You can't take an unmarried 80 year old and say bing bing bong, you're going to live 5 more years, and then say oh wait you're married, you have 8 more years, oh you went to university 60 years ago, you have 11 more years, but your other friend only has 5, just from looking at a population distribution. Trump has been married 3 times. His life expectancy going to increase 3x? Did the experts account for that, I wonder? ***3) The death curve flattens at the tail end of human age. That means if you make it far enough, after everyone drops like flies, there's not many flies left to drop so it looks like you're going to live longer. Here's an example from the paper illustrating (but the authors were either too stupid to notice or thought we would be): men in the U.S. that are Biden’s age have, on average, about 9 years of healthy life remaining while men in the U.S. that are Trump’s age have an average of 10.9 years of healthy life remaining. Note how before considering their morbidities and so forth, Trump has a lower life expectancy despite being younger. Before considering any further variables besides age and sex and race I think? Basic demographics. This is simply a statistical restatement of the fact that Biden is older than Trump. Because he's already lived 3-4 more years, he couldn't have died in that time. So if Trump was 74 (about) and he had 10.9 years, then he's dying at an average of 84.9, for example, and if Biden was 77 (about), and he had 9 years, then he's dying at an average of 86. The difference of their ages of 3 and the difference of their life expectancies (in this basic naive example) is 1.9. So the older guy is going to live 1.1 more years. This effect doesn't disappear. When you sit there smugly telling me actually Trump is going to die before Biden, and Republicans are hypocrites, all you're actually doing is repackaging the fact that a person can't die in the years they've lived since they were the age of a person younger than them because they already lived those years.Before, if we WAITED until Trump was 77 too, which he is now, we'd go oh look, Trump is 77, his life expectancy is 86! Such amazing insight of math! People who are young, have more chances to die before they're old, than people who are already old, who have 0 chances left to die before they're old because they're already old! 4) Paper doesn't know what it believes about diet Based on the available data, Trump has two major documented health issues, obesity and a level of physical activity defined as sedentary. There is suggestive evidence that his dietary and sleep habits are unfavorable, but in the absence of definitive evidence for both of these covariates, it is assumed here that these are non-issues. Remember, his dietary habits are unfavorable but that's a non-issue for our calculations. Also, what are unfavorable sleep habits? This is probably referencing Trump's own claim that he only sleeps like 4-6 hours a night. In my world if someone can chew bubble gum and kick ass for 18 hours a day without needing more sleep than that, he's probably in better shape than the fucking guy who takes naps and keeps falling asleep in public and has spent 40% of his term on vacation. But again, I'm not an expert.5) Paper thinks a teetotaler might die because his brother died from alcoholism (I'd hate to see the non-experts!) However, family history is not destiny (two of his brothers have died younger than expected) and Trump’s poor lifestyle (unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity) may be catching up with him. So his dad lives to his 90s, his mom to her 80s, but one of his brothers barely made it past 70 and the other died of alcoholism which is the literal reason Trump never touches it. A comparable review of the medical information on Trump yielded a consensus that he too is in possession of a familial propensity for exceptional longevity, but this optimistic outlook based on family history alone is mitigated by the president’s main acquired risk factors—obesity, a poor diet, a lack of physical activity, and evidence of subclinical cardiovascular disease from his cardiac CT tests—and the fact that both of his brothers died at significantly younger ages than what would have been projected for them Hey, I thought diet was a non-issue. So Trump might have the Shatner genes that give you a super long period of energetic/livable years. But his brother was an alcoholic. From the standpoint of basic logic this is called irrelevant information to the point at hand. We should sleep sounder knowing Trump ISN'T going to die of alcoholism at the age of 43. Keep in mind that similar projections for exceptional longevity would have also been made for Trump’s two brothers, and neither survived even close to the observed longevity of their father. This is about the part of the doctors' paper where I was tempted to raze a medical school. Maybe Trump is at risk of premature death due to Dietcokeism. 6) Sedentary lifestyle? Sedentary Golf? 3 rallies a day? Where did this evaluation come from except gossip? Seems to be at odds with basic reality. I'm not saying Biden is inactive as far as he might go to the gym whereas Trump doesn't, but a lot of the negatives around the evaluation of Trump stem from this meme of "sedentary" which is not a tacit assumption I can let through. In whose judgment is he sedentary. Not all people on the high end of the BMI scale are necessarily couch potatoes. Seems again facially evident Trump is hardly sedentary. There's no further source or justification for this determination (or for his diet for that matter) so it's just going to be an agree to disagree matter. 7) Gambler's fallacy Trump currently exhibits no life limiting impairments although he is obese. This means he is at risk for severe illness if he were to contract Covid-19, and he is at risk for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Trump not being impaired sounds like a good thing. They brush off Biden's issues with aneurysms saying it was 3 decades ago, so all gone, I mean that's great for him. But Trump did get Covid and I don't think he did experience severe illness. The paper plays it off that Biden had his problems before, so he's in the clear, and Trump is a ticking time bomb because he's never had any issues but admittedly CAC and cholesterol. He's obese by 0.1 BMI in that paper. 8) Evidence of absence requirement Trump has a family history of Alzheimer’s dementia on his father’s side (onset approximately age 87 years). Although this is considered common and late onset (over 40% of 85-year-olds have dementia), this still increases Trump’s risk for dementia versus the average male. Apparently, Trump scored 30/30—a common score on the MoCA. A score of 26/30 or higher is considered normal but does not completely rule out dementia So his father lived old enough to be so healthy that he ended up dying of Alzheimer's. There have been concerns about his cognitive function in the media and among many health professionals, such that 71 health professionals jointly wrote a letter to his personal physician urging detailed cognitive testing. Millions of us would like to test someone else, and we have more tangible evidence than family history. • Biden life expectancy estimate using a combined risk factor approach = 96.8 years (average is 87.4 years) I want to bet you or anyone else $1000 that he will die before then but I'm weighing the issue of having to wait even 16.7 years. Wait you believe he’s 215 pounds? You do not remember him being rushed to the hospital and on breathing machines with Covid? Trump as VP? Trump and competent? He is clearly overweight I have you not seen some one who is actually 6’3 215 pounds. Maybe he lost 30 pounds? Have you looked at a picture from then and now? You think you couldn’t tell 30 pounds? 244 is probably light. This does answer the question if Trump believers think he’s trolling or believe him, if you believe his weight this makes sense why you believe his dumb election lies and that he was not wrong about the weather the sharpie line was always there…, If it was not so dangerous it would hilarious.
Was this a mistype and you meant to compare Biden and Trump’s respective VPs?
Based on the rest of your post I’m assuming you didn’t mean that Biden’s death with Trump waiting in the wings would be no cause for worry.
I’m actually curious if we’ll see a Pence or equivalent theoretical stabilising influence/nod to another voting demographic this time around, or if the bill will be a Trump and Trump-lite kind of package.
Perhaps via ambition or extreme generosity Pence himself will come back despite ‘hang Mike Pence’ and being thrown under the bus for his temerity to adhere to the bare minimum levels of propriety and decorum.
|
Norway28443 Posts
eh I saw fairly reputable, not pro-trump norwegian media report that he had lost like 20-25 lbs at some point post-presidency (going down from 244). Honestly with how little muscle he has I can buy that he's something like 6'1 and 220 or whatever. Some of those golfing pictures makes him look like he's 260+ but it's not like he's ever shirtless and I've never seen his legs or thighs and with his attitude towards exercise ('humans have a finite amount of energy to spend so if you exercise you die sooner') I can totally picture his legs being on the skinny side, and most pictures of him in a suit make him look slightly chunky but honestly normal for a guy his age, not morbidly obese, even if I understand that it's funny to use that description on the world's vainest man.
Biden has certainly lived a healthier life with a better diet and more exercise, but completely avoiding alcohol is actually a pretty big deal. The reasons why Trump is a disaster shitbag of a human isn't actually related to his cheeseburger consumption anyway.
|
On September 02 2023 03:59 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2023 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 01 2023 04:05 oBlade wrote:On August 31 2023 23:36 JimmiC wrote:
Trump is 77 and super overweight with a horrible diet. He is pretty much in the same boat for chances of dying if not higher. I pulled some actuarially tables earlier but its difficult to do it exactly without more medical information. But there is a pretty decent chance that at least one of them (hell even bother though I wouldn't bet the parlay) die before the end of the next term.
The big difference is if Biden dies his supporters will blame his age as will the reps. If Trump dies his supporters will blame the dems and the others will blame age and diet. Hmmm who is more realistic?
edit: So yeah at 77 you life expectancy is 9.32 years and being over weight costs you 2-4 years. at 80 its 7.74. So they are basically the same. Each year there is like a 5-9% chance of each one of them dying. If Trump dies, we will blame whoever shot or exploded him. His "horrible diet" of diet coke, not drinking alcohol or smoking or doing drugs while taking statins long-term aside, it's apparent he's in better health than Biden was when he was 77, compare their levels of activity and ability to speak and move and be active while having their wits about them. His father lived close to 100. Biden falls asleep, can't speak, and does what he's told. If he dies in office, we won't be blaming his age but a gust of wind. The reason it's more relevant in his case is his VP lacks the basic competence you'd expect of a high schooler. Republicans have to actually be competent to a higher standard in order to have any chance against a machine of people who vote D no matter what without talking or thinking about any issues, because everyone else is doing it and the media lockstep guides them to vote that way. That applies to Republicans' VPs also, they can't afford to put people as incompetent as Harris on the ticket because they won't just get voted for anyway. While both sides need to consider who the VP is - since Biden and Trump are both old - the assertion that Trump will outlive Biden is unfounded. Experts have actually run the numbers and found that Biden is more likely to outlive Trump: "Biden is expected to outlive Trump, even though he is three years older. The reasons are that Biden has an exceptional health profile for a man his age (e.g., ideal Body Mass Index [BMI], physically active, few prescription medications, no identifiable lethal conditions, excellent cholesterol profile, low inflammation). He also has a family history of longevity. Trump also shares most of this profile, except his obesity and sedentary lifestyle work against his familial longevity history and his otherwise healthy biological profile." https://www.icaa.cc/media/presidential_lifespan_and_healthspan-draft_for_release_1.pdfSo if you want to say you're concerned about both of them dying in office, I'd agree that that's valid. But don't overreach by saying Biden is more likely to die before Trump. Biden might die first, because anyone *could* die before Trump, but it's absolutely hypocritical when a Republican points out Biden's age and mortality. Thanks for linking source, I love to dissect experts to an audience. When they come on TV wearing a scarf around their neck (Elon fell for this absurd fashion thing too) to tell me doing the same will prevent the spread of a respiratory virus, no matter how much I yell back at the TV, nobody's listening. Firstly, my concern for Biden dying is that it's much more dangerous due to his flippant and reckless choice of a running mate. If his VP were Trump, for example, I wouldn't be as worried because his death wouldn't be such a disastrously high consequence event. Harris in the Oval Office wouldn't be a wonderful story like Veep or Designated Survivor. Disagree as I might with Pence, a collapse of order in the event of him assuming the presidency wasn't likely. I don't care who is going to die first per se as long as it's not in office. And of natural causes. For example, for the sake of argument Trump might have a higher risk of dying, but you have to subtract dying of assassination, because you can't maintain an argument where you shouldn't vote for someone for president because they might get assassinated and die in office, because something more ethical would be voting for whoever wins and just not assassinating them instead. Biden has fallen on the Air Force One steps and at the Air Force Academy graduation. Either the Air Force specifically hates him or something else is going on. He walks like a Diablo 1 zombie and isn't much better in the coherency department, either. These are visual things anyone can see plainly and can't be gaslit away. I am concerned foremost not with his mortality, but his health as it relates to basic fitness for office. He repeatedly shows issues speaking. We all seem to know other people are calling the shots. In your case, it's not a problem if he dies because Harris takes over and maybe the same people are calling the shots, so it's status quo MIC corporatist state forever. Maybe there's a logic to that, that they're equally puppets and so his poor choice of running mate given the risks of his age aren't relevant. But I prefer leaders to empty shells. Here's what's suspect with the paper's methods and your presentation of it if you're interested: 0) Just as a footnote you're taking a source whose conclusion is their age isn't an issue for either of them and using it to tell me Trump's going to die first. 1) This is from 3 years ago. You might say, oBlade, that's no time at all, but it's potentially like 20% of their life expectancy at the time. How about an updated analysis that factors in Biden falling down the stairs and Trump potentially losing 30 lbs (says Walter Reed measured him at 244lb). Also would like to see Trump's cholesterol and CAC levels now. 2) The Sullivan method appears to apply to populations to estimate useful life expectancy apart from the crippled years. Not to soothsay an individual's fortune. As a mathematician you can't keep falling for stuff like this. Show nested quote +The main force influencing these favorable survival estimates is familial longevity. Socioeconomic factors contributing to this conclusion are that both have access to excellent health care, high income, they are highly educated, and both are married. Show nested quote +appears to receive excellent medical care, practices some preventive health behaviors (e.g. takes a multivitamin, screening tests and immunizations appear up to date) and is married This is not causative at an individual level. You can't take an unmarried 80 year old and say bing bing bong, you're going to live 5 more years, and then say oh wait you're married, you have 8 more years, oh you went to university 60 years ago, you have 11 more years, but your other friend only has 5, just from looking at a population distribution. Trump has been married 3 times. His life expectancy going to increase 3x? Did the experts account for that, I wonder? ***3) The death curve flattens at the tail end of human age. That means if you make it far enough, after everyone drops like flies, there's not many flies left to drop so it looks like you're going to live longer. Here's an example from the paper illustrating (but the authors were either too stupid to notice or thought we would be): Show nested quote +men in the U.S. that are Biden’s age have, on average, about 9 years of healthy life remaining while men in the U.S. that are Trump’s age have an average of 10.9 years of healthy life remaining. Note how before considering their morbidities and so forth, Trump has a lower life expectancy despite being younger. Before considering any further variables besides age and sex and race I think? Basic demographics. This is simply a statistical restatement of the fact that Biden is older than Trump. Because he's already lived 3-4 more years, he couldn't have died in that time. So if Trump was 74 (about) and he had 10.9 years, then he's dying at an average of 84.9, for example, and if Biden was 77 (about), and he had 9 years, then he's dying at an average of 86. The difference of their ages of 3 and the difference of their life expectancies (in this basic naive example) is 1.9. So the older guy is going to live 1.1 more years. This effect doesn't disappear. When you sit there smugly telling me actually Trump is going to die before Biden, and Republicans are hypocrites, all you're actually doing is repackaging the fact that a person can't die in the years they've lived since they were the age of a person younger than them because they already lived those years.Before, if we WAITED until Trump was 77 too, which he is now, we'd go oh look, Trump is 77, his life expectancy is 86! Such amazing insight of math! People who are young, have more chances to die before they're old, than people who are already old, who have 0 chances left to die before they're old because they're already old! 4) Paper doesn't know what it believes about diet Show nested quote +Based on the available data, Trump has two major documented health issues, obesity and a level of physical activity defined as sedentary. There is suggestive evidence that his dietary and sleep habits are unfavorable, but in the absence of definitive evidence for both of these covariates, it is assumed here that these are non-issues. Remember, his dietary habits are unfavorable but that's a non-issue for our calculations. Also, what are unfavorable sleep habits? This is probably referencing Trump's own claim that he only sleeps like 4-6 hours a night. In my world if someone can chew bubble gum and kick ass for 18 hours a day without needing more sleep than that, he's probably in better shape than the fucking guy who takes naps and keeps falling asleep in public and has spent 40% of his term on vacation. But again, I'm not an expert.5) Paper thinks a teetotaler might die because his brother died from alcoholism (I'd hate to see the non-experts!) Show nested quote +However, family history is not destiny (two of his brothers have died younger than expected) and Trump’s poor lifestyle (unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity) may be catching up with him. So his dad lives to his 90s, his mom to her 80s, but one of his brothers barely made it past 70 and the other died of alcoholism which is the literal reason Trump never touches it. Show nested quote +A comparable review of the medical information on Trump yielded a consensus that he too is in possession of a familial propensity for exceptional longevity, but this optimistic outlook based on family history alone is mitigated by the president’s main acquired risk factors—obesity, a poor diet, a lack of physical activity, and evidence of subclinical cardiovascular disease from his cardiac CT tests—and the fact that both of his brothers died at significantly younger ages than what would have been projected for them Hey, I thought diet was a non-issue. So Trump might have the Shatner genes that give you a super long period of energetic/livable years. But his brother was an alcoholic. From the standpoint of basic logic this is called irrelevant information to the point at hand. We should sleep sounder knowing Trump ISN'T going to die of alcoholism at the age of 43. Show nested quote +Keep in mind that similar projections for exceptional longevity would have also been made for Trump’s two brothers, and neither survived even close to the observed longevity of their father. This is about the part of the doctors' paper where I was tempted to raze a medical school. Maybe Trump is at risk of premature death due to Dietcokeism. 6) Sedentary lifestyle? Sedentary Golf? 3 rallies a day? Where did this evaluation come from except gossip? Seems to be at odds with basic reality. I'm not saying Biden is inactive as far as he might go to the gym whereas Trump doesn't, but a lot of the negatives around the evaluation of Trump stem from this meme of "sedentary" which is not a tacit assumption I can let through. In whose judgment is he sedentary. Not all people on the high end of the BMI scale are necessarily couch potatoes. Seems again facially evident Trump is hardly sedentary. There's no further source or justification for this determination (or for his diet for that matter) so it's just going to be an agree to disagree matter. 7) Gambler's fallacy Show nested quote + Trump currently exhibits no life limiting impairments although he is obese. This means he is at risk for severe illness if he were to contract Covid-19, and he is at risk for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Trump not being impaired sounds like a good thing. They brush off Biden's issues with aneurysms saying it was 3 decades ago, so all gone, I mean that's great for him. But Trump did get Covid and I don't think he did experience severe illness. The paper plays it off that Biden had his problems before, so he's in the clear, and Trump is a ticking time bomb because he's never had any issues but admittedly CAC and cholesterol. He's obese by 0.1 BMI in that paper. 8) Evidence of absence requirement Show nested quote +Trump has a family history of Alzheimer’s dementia on his father’s side (onset approximately age 87 years). Although this is considered common and late onset (over 40% of 85-year-olds have dementia), this still increases Trump’s risk for dementia versus the average male. Show nested quote +Apparently, Trump scored 30/30—a common score on the MoCA. A score of 26/30 or higher is considered normal but does not completely rule out dementia So his father lived old enough to be so healthy that he ended up dying of Alzheimer's. Show nested quote +There have been concerns about his cognitive function in the media and among many health professionals, such that 71 health professionals jointly wrote a letter to his personal physician urging detailed cognitive testing. Millions of us would like to test someone else, and we have more tangible evidence than family history. Show nested quote +• Biden life expectancy estimate using a combined risk factor approach = 96.8 years (average is 87.4 years) I want to bet you or anyone else $1000 that he will die before then but I'm weighing the issue of having to wait even 16.7 years.
Your post is very long, so I'll try my best to reply as efficiently as possible. Normally, I'd split everything up into direct quotes for ideal clarity, but I think that'd make this dialogue even longer and more unwieldy.
1. I understand that VP matters, especially since both potential presidents might die in office. So in your case, you'd need to worry about both Biden and Harris, and in my case, I'd need to worry about both Trump and whoever he chooses as his runningmate. This has nothing to do with the false assertion that Biden is more likely to die than Trump though.
2. Neither president is going to get assassinated, no matter what Tucker Carlson claims, and it's hilarious that the party of guns that just tried violently overthrowing the government would accuse the other side of being more likely to kill a political leader. I'd tell Republicans to ask Pence what he thinks, but Pence might still be worried about being hanged by his own party, like they tried to do on January 6th.
3. Biden has fallen down; so has Trump. Biden has shown cognitive decline; so has Trump. Biden has messed up his words; so has Trump. Trump definitely has a serious issue that Biden doesn't have, though: Trump is morbidly obese. Trump lied about his height and significantly lied about his weight - he's slightly shorter than 6'3'' and significantly larger than 250 pounds. Taft, our heaviest president, was around 330 pounds, which is almost certainly heavier than Trump. However, the next heaviest was Cleveland at around 260 pounds, which might be lighter than Trump. Trump is literally the second or third heaviest president we've ever had, and I'm not interested in debating the obvious veracity of this statement. Please don't bring up the nonsensical 244-pound or 215-pound claims again; there have been countless individuals who have accurate heights and weights recorded - some of whom are standing in the same picture as Trump - so we know that Trump's reported height and weight are bullshit.
4. I didn't say that the analysis proved causation. The analysis is a clear refutation of what you and other Republicans have asserted, and the analysis actually uses medical considerations by experts instead of a random person on the internet splicing a video where it looks like Biden tried to shake hands with nobody (or any of the other misleading "gotcha" clips).
5. Your third point (which you went out of your way to highlight as " ***3 ") is largely accurate, about 80-year-olds likely outliving 77-year-olds, on average, but I have no idea why you think the authors are stupid for writing that. There's nothing wrong or mistaken there. Trump (or anyone that is Trump's age) could indeed die before he reaches Biden's current age. You spent a lot of time writing about this point, but it's not an actual rebuttal to anything. And that's also assuming all other factors are equal, which we know is not true here, because Trump has a significant health issue that Biden doesn't have (his weight).
6. The word "rallies" doesn't appear in the PDF at all, so I'm assuming that you're asserting that Trump speaks at 3 rallies a day as evidence that his lifestyle isn't sedentary. Except he's only spoken at 6 rallies this whole year, 25 rallies in 2022, 7 rallies in 2021, and so on ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post–2016_election_Donald_Trump_rallies ). He went to more rallies when he ran for president in 2020, but also I have no idea why you think that speaking at a rally for an hour or so means he doesn't live a sedentary lifestyle for the other 99% of his life. Unless you think he hiked to every rally or something?
7. Your remark about gambler's fallacy is incorrect. Since Trump is obese, he could be more significantly affected if he developed a new condition that would otherwise only moderately affect someone who's in better shape. Comorbidities, by definition, are not necessarily independent factors; they could further affect one's reaction to a new health issue, and it depends on what the issue is.
I feel like this covers most of the points you were making. I think a sizable portion of your post assumed that Trump doesn't have obesity though, and I'm not going to go back and forth with you on debating if Trump is above or below 250 pounds. He is clearly heavier than 250 pounds. Trump is also shorter than 6'3'', but even if he were 6'3'', he'd still be obese with a weight of 250 pounds (based only on the BMI number, which would be 31.2, which is greater than the threshold of 30). I'm happy to discuss other things, but I'm going to immediately dismiss anything contingent upon Trump being less than 250 pounds.
|
Within the realm of the info available to us and the age of both people, I think we can reasonably consider Trump and Biden equivalent medical risks.
|
On September 02 2023 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Within the realm of the info available to us and the age of both people, I think we can reasonably consider Trump and Biden equivalent medical risks.
I'm fine with leaving it at that. Both are very old, both their ages are clearly showing, and both their runningmates will be a relevant part of the conversation for the upcoming election.
|
|
|
On September 02 2023 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Within the realm of the info available to us and the age of both people, I think we can reasonably consider Trump and Biden equivalent medical risks. I'm fine with leaving it at that. Both are very old, both their ages are clearly showing, and both their runningmates will be a relevant part of the conversation for the upcoming election.
yeah, i see it as: both could have a stroke and/or heart attack that is lights out at their age. At a certain age, each day is rolling the dice and there's not really a good way to predict how things play out.
That being said, I imagine Biden has a lot more medical auditing than Trump currently does. I think its very likely that presidents have regular MRI and stuff like that in a regular audit sort of way, which would catch a ton of things that would otherwise go unnoticed.
With Trump's wealth, he could totally afford to just have a weekly full-body MRI, but who knows.
|
It's been about 2.5 years, and I found the graphic at the bottom of this article interesting, for perspective on Jan. 6 charges.
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-jan-6-proud-boys-prison-sentence-58173200af1664716cbaec8ed2c2a145
1132 people charged with offenses.
786 were convicted of crimes related to the attack
620 of these have been sentenced
1 has been acquitted
The rest are pending for various reasons.
The feds do not like to lose, with almost a 99.9% conviction rate with charges in relation to Jan. 6. Best of luck to the remainder, including the higher profile people in Trump's circle who have been charged.
|
On September 02 2023 04:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 03:59 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2023 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 01 2023 04:05 oBlade wrote:On August 31 2023 23:36 JimmiC wrote:
Trump is 77 and super overweight with a horrible diet. He is pretty much in the same boat for chances of dying if not higher. I pulled some actuarially tables earlier but its difficult to do it exactly without more medical information. But there is a pretty decent chance that at least one of them (hell even bother though I wouldn't bet the parlay) die before the end of the next term.
The big difference is if Biden dies his supporters will blame his age as will the reps. If Trump dies his supporters will blame the dems and the others will blame age and diet. Hmmm who is more realistic?
edit: So yeah at 77 you life expectancy is 9.32 years and being over weight costs you 2-4 years. at 80 its 7.74. So they are basically the same. Each year there is like a 5-9% chance of each one of them dying. If Trump dies, we will blame whoever shot or exploded him. His "horrible diet" of diet coke, not drinking alcohol or smoking or doing drugs while taking statins long-term aside, it's apparent he's in better health than Biden was when he was 77, compare their levels of activity and ability to speak and move and be active while having their wits about them. His father lived close to 100. Biden falls asleep, can't speak, and does what he's told. If he dies in office, we won't be blaming his age but a gust of wind. The reason it's more relevant in his case is his VP lacks the basic competence you'd expect of a high schooler. Republicans have to actually be competent to a higher standard in order to have any chance against a machine of people who vote D no matter what without talking or thinking about any issues, because everyone else is doing it and the media lockstep guides them to vote that way. That applies to Republicans' VPs also, they can't afford to put people as incompetent as Harris on the ticket because they won't just get voted for anyway. While both sides need to consider who the VP is - since Biden and Trump are both old - the assertion that Trump will outlive Biden is unfounded. Experts have actually run the numbers and found that Biden is more likely to outlive Trump: "Biden is expected to outlive Trump, even though he is three years older. The reasons are that Biden has an exceptional health profile for a man his age (e.g., ideal Body Mass Index [BMI], physically active, few prescription medications, no identifiable lethal conditions, excellent cholesterol profile, low inflammation). He also has a family history of longevity. Trump also shares most of this profile, except his obesity and sedentary lifestyle work against his familial longevity history and his otherwise healthy biological profile." https://www.icaa.cc/media/presidential_lifespan_and_healthspan-draft_for_release_1.pdfSo if you want to say you're concerned about both of them dying in office, I'd agree that that's valid. But don't overreach by saying Biden is more likely to die before Trump. Biden might die first, because anyone *could* die before Trump, but it's absolutely hypocritical when a Republican points out Biden's age and mortality. Thanks for linking source, I love to dissect experts to an audience. When they come on TV wearing a scarf around their neck (Elon fell for this absurd fashion thing too) to tell me doing the same will prevent the spread of a respiratory virus, no matter how much I yell back at the TV, nobody's listening. Firstly, my concern for Biden dying is that it's much more dangerous due to his flippant and reckless choice of a running mate. If his VP were Trump, for example, I wouldn't be as worried because his death wouldn't be such a disastrously high consequence event. Harris in the Oval Office wouldn't be a wonderful story like Veep or Designated Survivor. Disagree as I might with Pence, a collapse of order in the event of him assuming the presidency wasn't likely. I don't care who is going to die first per se as long as it's not in office. And of natural causes. For example, for the sake of argument Trump might have a higher risk of dying, but you have to subtract dying of assassination, because you can't maintain an argument where you shouldn't vote for someone for president because they might get assassinated and die in office, because something more ethical would be voting for whoever wins and just not assassinating them instead. Biden has fallen on the Air Force One steps and at the Air Force Academy graduation. Either the Air Force specifically hates him or something else is going on. He walks like a Diablo 1 zombie and isn't much better in the coherency department, either. These are visual things anyone can see plainly and can't be gaslit away. I am concerned foremost not with his mortality, but his health as it relates to basic fitness for office. He repeatedly shows issues speaking. We all seem to know other people are calling the shots. In your case, it's not a problem if he dies because Harris takes over and maybe the same people are calling the shots, so it's status quo MIC corporatist state forever. Maybe there's a logic to that, that they're equally puppets and so his poor choice of running mate given the risks of his age aren't relevant. But I prefer leaders to empty shells. Here's what's suspect with the paper's methods and your presentation of it if you're interested: 0) Just as a footnote you're taking a source whose conclusion is their age isn't an issue for either of them and using it to tell me Trump's going to die first. 1) This is from 3 years ago. You might say, oBlade, that's no time at all, but it's potentially like 20% of their life expectancy at the time. How about an updated analysis that factors in Biden falling down the stairs and Trump potentially losing 30 lbs (says Walter Reed measured him at 244lb). Also would like to see Trump's cholesterol and CAC levels now. 2) The Sullivan method appears to apply to populations to estimate useful life expectancy apart from the crippled years. Not to soothsay an individual's fortune. As a mathematician you can't keep falling for stuff like this. The main force influencing these favorable survival estimates is familial longevity. Socioeconomic factors contributing to this conclusion are that both have access to excellent health care, high income, they are highly educated, and both are married. appears to receive excellent medical care, practices some preventive health behaviors (e.g. takes a multivitamin, screening tests and immunizations appear up to date) and is married This is not causative at an individual level. You can't take an unmarried 80 year old and say bing bing bong, you're going to live 5 more years, and then say oh wait you're married, you have 8 more years, oh you went to university 60 years ago, you have 11 more years, but your other friend only has 5, just from looking at a population distribution. Trump has been married 3 times. His life expectancy going to increase 3x? Did the experts account for that, I wonder? ***3) The death curve flattens at the tail end of human age. That means if you make it far enough, after everyone drops like flies, there's not many flies left to drop so it looks like you're going to live longer. Here's an example from the paper illustrating (but the authors were either too stupid to notice or thought we would be): men in the U.S. that are Biden’s age have, on average, about 9 years of healthy life remaining while men in the U.S. that are Trump’s age have an average of 10.9 years of healthy life remaining. Note how before considering their morbidities and so forth, Trump has a lower life expectancy despite being younger. Before considering any further variables besides age and sex and race I think? Basic demographics. This is simply a statistical restatement of the fact that Biden is older than Trump. Because he's already lived 3-4 more years, he couldn't have died in that time. So if Trump was 74 (about) and he had 10.9 years, then he's dying at an average of 84.9, for example, and if Biden was 77 (about), and he had 9 years, then he's dying at an average of 86. The difference of their ages of 3 and the difference of their life expectancies (in this basic naive example) is 1.9. So the older guy is going to live 1.1 more years. This effect doesn't disappear. When you sit there smugly telling me actually Trump is going to die before Biden, and Republicans are hypocrites, all you're actually doing is repackaging the fact that a person can't die in the years they've lived since they were the age of a person younger than them because they already lived those years.Before, if we WAITED until Trump was 77 too, which he is now, we'd go oh look, Trump is 77, his life expectancy is 86! Such amazing insight of math! People who are young, have more chances to die before they're old, than people who are already old, who have 0 chances left to die before they're old because they're already old! 4) Paper doesn't know what it believes about diet Based on the available data, Trump has two major documented health issues, obesity and a level of physical activity defined as sedentary. There is suggestive evidence that his dietary and sleep habits are unfavorable, but in the absence of definitive evidence for both of these covariates, it is assumed here that these are non-issues. Remember, his dietary habits are unfavorable but that's a non-issue for our calculations. Also, what are unfavorable sleep habits? This is probably referencing Trump's own claim that he only sleeps like 4-6 hours a night. In my world if someone can chew bubble gum and kick ass for 18 hours a day without needing more sleep than that, he's probably in better shape than the fucking guy who takes naps and keeps falling asleep in public and has spent 40% of his term on vacation. But again, I'm not an expert.5) Paper thinks a teetotaler might die because his brother died from alcoholism (I'd hate to see the non-experts!) However, family history is not destiny (two of his brothers have died younger than expected) and Trump’s poor lifestyle (unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity) may be catching up with him. So his dad lives to his 90s, his mom to her 80s, but one of his brothers barely made it past 70 and the other died of alcoholism which is the literal reason Trump never touches it. A comparable review of the medical information on Trump yielded a consensus that he too is in possession of a familial propensity for exceptional longevity, but this optimistic outlook based on family history alone is mitigated by the president’s main acquired risk factors—obesity, a poor diet, a lack of physical activity, and evidence of subclinical cardiovascular disease from his cardiac CT tests—and the fact that both of his brothers died at significantly younger ages than what would have been projected for them Hey, I thought diet was a non-issue. So Trump might have the Shatner genes that give you a super long period of energetic/livable years. But his brother was an alcoholic. From the standpoint of basic logic this is called irrelevant information to the point at hand. We should sleep sounder knowing Trump ISN'T going to die of alcoholism at the age of 43. Keep in mind that similar projections for exceptional longevity would have also been made for Trump’s two brothers, and neither survived even close to the observed longevity of their father. This is about the part of the doctors' paper where I was tempted to raze a medical school. Maybe Trump is at risk of premature death due to Dietcokeism. 6) Sedentary lifestyle? Sedentary Golf? 3 rallies a day? Where did this evaluation come from except gossip? Seems to be at odds with basic reality. I'm not saying Biden is inactive as far as he might go to the gym whereas Trump doesn't, but a lot of the negatives around the evaluation of Trump stem from this meme of "sedentary" which is not a tacit assumption I can let through. In whose judgment is he sedentary. Not all people on the high end of the BMI scale are necessarily couch potatoes. Seems again facially evident Trump is hardly sedentary. There's no further source or justification for this determination (or for his diet for that matter) so it's just going to be an agree to disagree matter. 7) Gambler's fallacy Trump currently exhibits no life limiting impairments although he is obese. This means he is at risk for severe illness if he were to contract Covid-19, and he is at risk for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Trump not being impaired sounds like a good thing. They brush off Biden's issues with aneurysms saying it was 3 decades ago, so all gone, I mean that's great for him. But Trump did get Covid and I don't think he did experience severe illness. The paper plays it off that Biden had his problems before, so he's in the clear, and Trump is a ticking time bomb because he's never had any issues but admittedly CAC and cholesterol. He's obese by 0.1 BMI in that paper. 8) Evidence of absence requirement Trump has a family history of Alzheimer’s dementia on his father’s side (onset approximately age 87 years). Although this is considered common and late onset (over 40% of 85-year-olds have dementia), this still increases Trump’s risk for dementia versus the average male. Apparently, Trump scored 30/30—a common score on the MoCA. A score of 26/30 or higher is considered normal but does not completely rule out dementia So his father lived old enough to be so healthy that he ended up dying of Alzheimer's. There have been concerns about his cognitive function in the media and among many health professionals, such that 71 health professionals jointly wrote a letter to his personal physician urging detailed cognitive testing. Millions of us would like to test someone else, and we have more tangible evidence than family history. • Biden life expectancy estimate using a combined risk factor approach = 96.8 years (average is 87.4 years) I want to bet you or anyone else $1000 that he will die before then but I'm weighing the issue of having to wait even 16.7 years. Wait you believe he’s 215 pounds? You do not remember him being rushed to the hospital and on breathing machines with Covid? Trump as VP? Trump and competent?
I remember as president they gave him basically everything possible as a prophylactic at the time, maybe some antiviral and also monoclonal antibodies. Don't think he was on a breathing machine, he gave a video speech from isolation with a little bit raspy voice. In 2020.
On September 02 2023 04:32 JimmiC wrote:
He is clearly overweight I have you not seen some one who is actually 6’3 215 pounds. Maybe he lost 30 pounds? Have you looked at a picture from then and now? You think you couldn’t tell 30 pounds? 244 is probably light.
6'3" and 215 pounds is overweight by the extraordinarily scientific metric of BMI. That was just a jab to bring out the people with no sense of humor.
There was a pic though this year that I can't locate now, he was walking out of a car or something and some people said it must be an AI or photoshopped because he looked too good. It doesn't particularly matter, he's big and as long as he's not getting bigger he's fine.
On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
2. Neither president is going to get assassinated, no matter what Tucker Carlson claims, and it's hilarious that the party of guns that just tried violently overthrowing the government would accuse the other side of being more likely to kill a political leader.
The "party of guns" (i.e., party of the constitution) probably should have fired at least a single gun if they wanted to violently overthrow... themselves... right?
The "side" of the party of FDR has attacked Rand Paul, Congressmen en masse wounding Steve Scalise, a councilwoman in NJ, a lawyer in New Hampshire, attacked the White House causing the president to flee to a secure bunker, commandeered land and destroyed public and private buildings in Washington and Seattle, and frankly riot in any city when they don't get their way. Even when they're apparently in power. We can see who's more violent. Imagine what they'd be up to if people DIDN'T have guns.
What you're referencing is not something that "just" happened (as long as you meant "just" as in "immediately preceding") it was 2.5 years ago, and it wasn't an attempt to violently overthrow the government any more than pushing someone off an airplane is an attempt to teach them to fly. And it's fading just like every non-issue that gets initially blown up by the clickbait cycle news that jumps on one side for political reasons... until the facts eventually and inevitably come out.
On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
3. Biden has fallen down; so has Trump. Biden has shown cognitive decline; so has Trump. Biden has messed up his words; so has Trump. Trump definitely has a serious issue that Biden doesn't have, though: Trump is morbidly obese.
I have not seen Trump fall down, or stumble with words and speak gibberish the way Biden has, nor frankly seen his cognition decline. Biden's videos aren't spliced and misleading, it's just him attempting to speak. McConnell and Fetterman are in the same boat. Also, Trump is not morbidly obese. You're using words with no regard to what they actually mean. "Morbidly obese" doesn't mean "Trump is overweight, and also I really hate him." Morbidly obese also doesn't mean "he's obese, which is a morbidity." Morbidly obese means severe obesity, BMI over 40, 100lb or more overweight. Trump's ideal weight is not 150lb.
On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:6. The word "rallies" doesn't appear in the PDF at all, so I'm assuming that you're asserting that Trump speaks at 3 rallies a day as evidence that his lifestyle isn't sedentary. Except he's only spoken at 6 rallies this whole year, 25 rallies in 2022, 7 rallies in 2021, and so on ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post–2016_election_Donald_Trump_rallies ). He went to more rallies when he ran for president in 2020, but also I have no idea why you think that speaking at a rally for an hour or so means he doesn't live a sedentary lifestyle for the other 99% of his life. Unless you think he hiked to every rally or something?
Yeah he did more rallies in 2020. The paper you're citing is FROM 2020. Why do I think? How do I know? Is that the best we have?
How do I know you aren't on drugs? Someone claims he's sedentary, show me how and why. Not "you can't prove the other 99% of the time he's not." Maybe Biden is sedentary for the 99% of the time he's napping when he's not at the gym supposedly in the morning. Neither of them are sedentary until someone defines that and then provides some evidence. Your paper doesn't. Just goes "he has a lifestyle that would be defined as sedentary." What is defined as sedentary and why does Trump meet that - crickets. Omits a lot for one of his only 3 key risk factors.
On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
7. Your remark about gambler's fallacy is incorrect. Since Trump is obese, he could be more significantly affected if he developed a new condition that would otherwise only moderately affect someone who's in better shape. Comorbidities, by definition, are not necessarily independent factors; they could further affect one's reaction to a new health issue, and it depends on what the issue is.
You're correct, I mixed two points in a way that wasn't clear. My point about covid specifically was he's obese so he could be at risk of severe problems from covid according to them - but then he got covid and seemed fine.
Every time he's fine they seem to say yeah that just means there is another big problem headed his way instead.
The gambler's fallacy was meant to be in reference to their general assertions about his cardiovascular health (plaque and cholesterol) and risk of dementia. It's like if Biden lived in a house that got robbed 5 times, including two very serious aneurysm robberies, so he's probably not going to get robbed again, whereas Trump lives in a huge beautiful obese house that is just waiting to get robbed even though he's never been robbed before. I'm unconvinced. Both of their houses have fine security. The problem is that if Biden's house gets robbed again, he will move out and an incompetent former prosecutor will move in and cause the neighborhood to enter nuclear war.
On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I feel like this covers most of the points you were making. I think a sizable portion of your post assumed that Trump doesn't have obesity though, and I'm not going to go back and forth with you on debating if Trump is above or below 250 pounds. He is clearly heavier than 250 pounds. Trump is also shorter than 6'3'', but even if he were 6'3'', he'd still be obese with a weight of 250 pounds (based only on the BMI number, which would be 31.2, which is greater than the threshold of 30). I'm happy to discuss other things, but I'm going to immediately dismiss anything contingent upon Trump being less than 250 pounds.
Your own paper you brought and and presented and cited as if you had actually read it uses the 2019 Walter Reed report of 6'3" 244lb. So - thank you for immediately dismissing your own article. If you don't believe a government hospital that a report from the doctor experts you so trust referenced, you shouldn't have wasted our time bringing it up. Find another actual source or stop theorycrafting his weight. At the official 244lb 6'3" he's at 30.1. Since the doctors hid their exact methodology, for all I know this means that at 29.9 BMI he lives 10 years and at 30.1 he's in the obese category so he lives 5 years. I am not saying he is or isn't obese. He's heavy, he's overweight. What I am saying is if you have an arbitrary line to measure the ratio of people's height and weights in a POPULATION, and then have one INDIVIDUAL in the population who at a certain height is 5 pounds over the line into a dangerous new category of unhealthy and therefore he's at super high risk compared to someone 5 pounds lighter, this is a gross misapplication of statistics.
This whole discussion is predicated on a metric that's never been scientific in order to answer a fortunetelling question of how long a person will live which is also not reliable or scientific. BMI doesn't differentiate muscle and fat, and disproportionately calls short people overweight also if I recall correctly. I will close with just a guess that in any other context about someone's health you wouldn't be saying they're gonna get sick and die of a serious illness with a BMI of 30.1 compared to 29.9 but that they have many chances to live a productive and healthy life despite being a bit larger.
|
United States24449 Posts
"It doesn't particularly matter, he's big and as long as he's not getting bigger he's fine."
I'm not about fat shaming but I'm not sure why you think being particularly overweight (which he is) is fine.
Being too fat: Reduces quality of life, increases risk of other health problems
Lying about your weight: Just silly.
|
On September 03 2023 04:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 04:32 JimmiC wrote:On September 02 2023 03:59 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2023 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 01 2023 04:05 oBlade wrote:On August 31 2023 23:36 JimmiC wrote:
Trump is 77 and super overweight with a horrible diet. He is pretty much in the same boat for chances of dying if not higher. I pulled some actuarially tables earlier but its difficult to do it exactly without more medical information. But there is a pretty decent chance that at least one of them (hell even bother though I wouldn't bet the parlay) die before the end of the next term.
The big difference is if Biden dies his supporters will blame his age as will the reps. If Trump dies his supporters will blame the dems and the others will blame age and diet. Hmmm who is more realistic?
edit: So yeah at 77 you life expectancy is 9.32 years and being over weight costs you 2-4 years. at 80 its 7.74. So they are basically the same. Each year there is like a 5-9% chance of each one of them dying. If Trump dies, we will blame whoever shot or exploded him. His "horrible diet" of diet coke, not drinking alcohol or smoking or doing drugs while taking statins long-term aside, it's apparent he's in better health than Biden was when he was 77, compare their levels of activity and ability to speak and move and be active while having their wits about them. His father lived close to 100. Biden falls asleep, can't speak, and does what he's told. If he dies in office, we won't be blaming his age but a gust of wind. The reason it's more relevant in his case is his VP lacks the basic competence you'd expect of a high schooler. Republicans have to actually be competent to a higher standard in order to have any chance against a machine of people who vote D no matter what without talking or thinking about any issues, because everyone else is doing it and the media lockstep guides them to vote that way. That applies to Republicans' VPs also, they can't afford to put people as incompetent as Harris on the ticket because they won't just get voted for anyway. While both sides need to consider who the VP is - since Biden and Trump are both old - the assertion that Trump will outlive Biden is unfounded. Experts have actually run the numbers and found that Biden is more likely to outlive Trump: "Biden is expected to outlive Trump, even though he is three years older. The reasons are that Biden has an exceptional health profile for a man his age (e.g., ideal Body Mass Index [BMI], physically active, few prescription medications, no identifiable lethal conditions, excellent cholesterol profile, low inflammation). He also has a family history of longevity. Trump also shares most of this profile, except his obesity and sedentary lifestyle work against his familial longevity history and his otherwise healthy biological profile." https://www.icaa.cc/media/presidential_lifespan_and_healthspan-draft_for_release_1.pdfSo if you want to say you're concerned about both of them dying in office, I'd agree that that's valid. But don't overreach by saying Biden is more likely to die before Trump. Biden might die first, because anyone *could* die before Trump, but it's absolutely hypocritical when a Republican points out Biden's age and mortality. Thanks for linking source, I love to dissect experts to an audience. When they come on TV wearing a scarf around their neck (Elon fell for this absurd fashion thing too) to tell me doing the same will prevent the spread of a respiratory virus, no matter how much I yell back at the TV, nobody's listening. Firstly, my concern for Biden dying is that it's much more dangerous due to his flippant and reckless choice of a running mate. If his VP were Trump, for example, I wouldn't be as worried because his death wouldn't be such a disastrously high consequence event. Harris in the Oval Office wouldn't be a wonderful story like Veep or Designated Survivor. Disagree as I might with Pence, a collapse of order in the event of him assuming the presidency wasn't likely. I don't care who is going to die first per se as long as it's not in office. And of natural causes. For example, for the sake of argument Trump might have a higher risk of dying, but you have to subtract dying of assassination, because you can't maintain an argument where you shouldn't vote for someone for president because they might get assassinated and die in office, because something more ethical would be voting for whoever wins and just not assassinating them instead. Biden has fallen on the Air Force One steps and at the Air Force Academy graduation. Either the Air Force specifically hates him or something else is going on. He walks like a Diablo 1 zombie and isn't much better in the coherency department, either. These are visual things anyone can see plainly and can't be gaslit away. I am concerned foremost not with his mortality, but his health as it relates to basic fitness for office. He repeatedly shows issues speaking. We all seem to know other people are calling the shots. In your case, it's not a problem if he dies because Harris takes over and maybe the same people are calling the shots, so it's status quo MIC corporatist state forever. Maybe there's a logic to that, that they're equally puppets and so his poor choice of running mate given the risks of his age aren't relevant. But I prefer leaders to empty shells. Here's what's suspect with the paper's methods and your presentation of it if you're interested: 0) Just as a footnote you're taking a source whose conclusion is their age isn't an issue for either of them and using it to tell me Trump's going to die first. 1) This is from 3 years ago. You might say, oBlade, that's no time at all, but it's potentially like 20% of their life expectancy at the time. How about an updated analysis that factors in Biden falling down the stairs and Trump potentially losing 30 lbs (says Walter Reed measured him at 244lb). Also would like to see Trump's cholesterol and CAC levels now. 2) The Sullivan method appears to apply to populations to estimate useful life expectancy apart from the crippled years. Not to soothsay an individual's fortune. As a mathematician you can't keep falling for stuff like this. The main force influencing these favorable survival estimates is familial longevity. Socioeconomic factors contributing to this conclusion are that both have access to excellent health care, high income, they are highly educated, and both are married. appears to receive excellent medical care, practices some preventive health behaviors (e.g. takes a multivitamin, screening tests and immunizations appear up to date) and is married This is not causative at an individual level. You can't take an unmarried 80 year old and say bing bing bong, you're going to live 5 more years, and then say oh wait you're married, you have 8 more years, oh you went to university 60 years ago, you have 11 more years, but your other friend only has 5, just from looking at a population distribution. Trump has been married 3 times. His life expectancy going to increase 3x? Did the experts account for that, I wonder? ***3) The death curve flattens at the tail end of human age. That means if you make it far enough, after everyone drops like flies, there's not many flies left to drop so it looks like you're going to live longer. Here's an example from the paper illustrating (but the authors were either too stupid to notice or thought we would be): men in the U.S. that are Biden’s age have, on average, about 9 years of healthy life remaining while men in the U.S. that are Trump’s age have an average of 10.9 years of healthy life remaining. Note how before considering their morbidities and so forth, Trump has a lower life expectancy despite being younger. Before considering any further variables besides age and sex and race I think? Basic demographics. This is simply a statistical restatement of the fact that Biden is older than Trump. Because he's already lived 3-4 more years, he couldn't have died in that time. So if Trump was 74 (about) and he had 10.9 years, then he's dying at an average of 84.9, for example, and if Biden was 77 (about), and he had 9 years, then he's dying at an average of 86. The difference of their ages of 3 and the difference of their life expectancies (in this basic naive example) is 1.9. So the older guy is going to live 1.1 more years. This effect doesn't disappear. When you sit there smugly telling me actually Trump is going to die before Biden, and Republicans are hypocrites, all you're actually doing is repackaging the fact that a person can't die in the years they've lived since they were the age of a person younger than them because they already lived those years.Before, if we WAITED until Trump was 77 too, which he is now, we'd go oh look, Trump is 77, his life expectancy is 86! Such amazing insight of math! People who are young, have more chances to die before they're old, than people who are already old, who have 0 chances left to die before they're old because they're already old! 4) Paper doesn't know what it believes about diet Based on the available data, Trump has two major documented health issues, obesity and a level of physical activity defined as sedentary. There is suggestive evidence that his dietary and sleep habits are unfavorable, but in the absence of definitive evidence for both of these covariates, it is assumed here that these are non-issues. Remember, his dietary habits are unfavorable but that's a non-issue for our calculations. Also, what are unfavorable sleep habits? This is probably referencing Trump's own claim that he only sleeps like 4-6 hours a night. In my world if someone can chew bubble gum and kick ass for 18 hours a day without needing more sleep than that, he's probably in better shape than the fucking guy who takes naps and keeps falling asleep in public and has spent 40% of his term on vacation. But again, I'm not an expert.5) Paper thinks a teetotaler might die because his brother died from alcoholism (I'd hate to see the non-experts!) However, family history is not destiny (two of his brothers have died younger than expected) and Trump’s poor lifestyle (unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity) may be catching up with him. So his dad lives to his 90s, his mom to her 80s, but one of his brothers barely made it past 70 and the other died of alcoholism which is the literal reason Trump never touches it. A comparable review of the medical information on Trump yielded a consensus that he too is in possession of a familial propensity for exceptional longevity, but this optimistic outlook based on family history alone is mitigated by the president’s main acquired risk factors—obesity, a poor diet, a lack of physical activity, and evidence of subclinical cardiovascular disease from his cardiac CT tests—and the fact that both of his brothers died at significantly younger ages than what would have been projected for them Hey, I thought diet was a non-issue. So Trump might have the Shatner genes that give you a super long period of energetic/livable years. But his brother was an alcoholic. From the standpoint of basic logic this is called irrelevant information to the point at hand. We should sleep sounder knowing Trump ISN'T going to die of alcoholism at the age of 43. Keep in mind that similar projections for exceptional longevity would have also been made for Trump’s two brothers, and neither survived even close to the observed longevity of their father. This is about the part of the doctors' paper where I was tempted to raze a medical school. Maybe Trump is at risk of premature death due to Dietcokeism. 6) Sedentary lifestyle? Sedentary Golf? 3 rallies a day? Where did this evaluation come from except gossip? Seems to be at odds with basic reality. I'm not saying Biden is inactive as far as he might go to the gym whereas Trump doesn't, but a lot of the negatives around the evaluation of Trump stem from this meme of "sedentary" which is not a tacit assumption I can let through. In whose judgment is he sedentary. Not all people on the high end of the BMI scale are necessarily couch potatoes. Seems again facially evident Trump is hardly sedentary. There's no further source or justification for this determination (or for his diet for that matter) so it's just going to be an agree to disagree matter. 7) Gambler's fallacy Trump currently exhibits no life limiting impairments although he is obese. This means he is at risk for severe illness if he were to contract Covid-19, and he is at risk for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Trump not being impaired sounds like a good thing. They brush off Biden's issues with aneurysms saying it was 3 decades ago, so all gone, I mean that's great for him. But Trump did get Covid and I don't think he did experience severe illness. The paper plays it off that Biden had his problems before, so he's in the clear, and Trump is a ticking time bomb because he's never had any issues but admittedly CAC and cholesterol. He's obese by 0.1 BMI in that paper. 8) Evidence of absence requirement Trump has a family history of Alzheimer’s dementia on his father’s side (onset approximately age 87 years). Although this is considered common and late onset (over 40% of 85-year-olds have dementia), this still increases Trump’s risk for dementia versus the average male. Apparently, Trump scored 30/30—a common score on the MoCA. A score of 26/30 or higher is considered normal but does not completely rule out dementia So his father lived old enough to be so healthy that he ended up dying of Alzheimer's. There have been concerns about his cognitive function in the media and among many health professionals, such that 71 health professionals jointly wrote a letter to his personal physician urging detailed cognitive testing. Millions of us would like to test someone else, and we have more tangible evidence than family history. • Biden life expectancy estimate using a combined risk factor approach = 96.8 years (average is 87.4 years) I want to bet you or anyone else $1000 that he will die before then but I'm weighing the issue of having to wait even 16.7 years. Wait you believe he’s 215 pounds? You do not remember him being rushed to the hospital and on breathing machines with Covid? Trump as VP? Trump and competent? I remember as president they gave him basically everything possible as a prophylactic at the time, maybe some antiviral and also monoclonal antibodies. Don't think he was on a breathing machine, he gave a video speech from isolation with a little bit raspy voice. In 2020. Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 04:32 JimmiC wrote:
He is clearly overweight I have you not seen some one who is actually 6’3 215 pounds. Maybe he lost 30 pounds? Have you looked at a picture from then and now? You think you couldn’t tell 30 pounds? 244 is probably light. 6'3" and 215 pounds is overweight by the extraordinarily scientific metric of BMI. That was just a jab to bring out the people with no sense of humor. There was a pic though this year that I can't locate now, he was walking out of a car or something and some people said it must be an AI or photoshopped because he looked too good. It doesn't particularly matter, he's big and as long as he's not getting bigger he's fine. Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
2. Neither president is going to get assassinated, no matter what Tucker Carlson claims, and it's hilarious that the party of guns that just tried violently overthrowing the government would accuse the other side of being more likely to kill a political leader. The "party of guns" (i.e., party of the constitution) probably should have fired at least a single gun if they wanted to violently overthrow... themselves... right? The "side" of the party of FDR has attacked Rand Paul, Congressmen en masse wounding Steve Scalise, a councilwoman in NJ, a lawyer in New Hampshire, attacked the White House causing the president to flee to a secure bunker, commandeered land and destroyed public and private buildings in Washington and Seattle, and frankly riot in any city when they don't get their way. Even when they're apparently in power. We can see who's more violent. Imagine what they'd be up to if people DIDN'T have guns. What you're referencing is not something that "just" happened (as long as you meant "just" as in "immediately preceding") it was 2.5 years ago, and it wasn't an attempt to violently overthrow the government any more than pushing someone off an airplane is an attempt to teach them to fly. And it's fading just like every non-issue that gets initially blown up by the clickbait cycle news that jumps on one side for political reasons... until the facts eventually and inevitably come out. Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
3. Biden has fallen down; so has Trump. Biden has shown cognitive decline; so has Trump. Biden has messed up his words; so has Trump. Trump definitely has a serious issue that Biden doesn't have, though: Trump is morbidly obese. I have not seen Trump fall down, or stumble with words and speak gibberish the way Biden has, nor frankly seen his cognition decline. Biden's videos aren't spliced and misleading, it's just him attempting to speak. McConnell and Fetterman are in the same boat. Also, Trump is not morbidly obese. You're using words with no regard to what they actually mean. "Morbidly obese" doesn't mean "Trump is overweight, and also I really hate him." Morbidly obese also doesn't mean "he's obese, which is a morbidity." Morbidly obese means severe obesity, BMI over 40, 100lb or more overweight. Trump's ideal weight is not 150lb. Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:6. The word "rallies" doesn't appear in the PDF at all, so I'm assuming that you're asserting that Trump speaks at 3 rallies a day as evidence that his lifestyle isn't sedentary. Except he's only spoken at 6 rallies this whole year, 25 rallies in 2022, 7 rallies in 2021, and so on ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post–2016_election_Donald_Trump_rallies ). He went to more rallies when he ran for president in 2020, but also I have no idea why you think that speaking at a rally for an hour or so means he doesn't live a sedentary lifestyle for the other 99% of his life. Unless you think he hiked to every rally or something? Yeah he did more rallies in 2020. The paper you're citing is FROM 2020. Why do I think? How do I know? Is that the best we have? How do I know you aren't on drugs? Someone claims he's sedentary, show me how and why. Not "you can't prove the other 99% of the time he's not." Maybe Biden is sedentary for the 99% of the time he's napping when he's not at the gym supposedly in the morning. Neither of them are sedentary until someone defines that and then provides some evidence. Your paper doesn't. Just goes "he has a lifestyle that would be defined as sedentary." What is defined as sedentary and why does Trump meet that - crickets. Omits a lot for one of his only 3 key risk factors. Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
7. Your remark about gambler's fallacy is incorrect. Since Trump is obese, he could be more significantly affected if he developed a new condition that would otherwise only moderately affect someone who's in better shape. Comorbidities, by definition, are not necessarily independent factors; they could further affect one's reaction to a new health issue, and it depends on what the issue is. You're correct, I mixed two points in a way that wasn't clear. My point about covid specifically was he's obese so he could be at risk of severe problems from covid according to them - but then he got covid and seemed fine. Every time he's fine they seem to say yeah that just means there is another big problem headed his way instead. The gambler's fallacy was meant to be in reference to their general assertions about his cardiovascular health (plaque and cholesterol) and risk of dementia. It's like if Biden lived in a house that got robbed 5 times, including two very serious aneurysm robberies, so he's probably not going to get robbed again, whereas Trump lives in a huge beautiful obese house that is just waiting to get robbed even though he's never been robbed before. I'm unconvinced. Both of their houses have fine security. The problem is that if Biden's house gets robbed again, he will move out and an incompetent former prosecutor will move in and cause the neighborhood to enter nuclear war. Show nested quote +On September 02 2023 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I feel like this covers most of the points you were making. I think a sizable portion of your post assumed that Trump doesn't have obesity though, and I'm not going to go back and forth with you on debating if Trump is above or below 250 pounds. He is clearly heavier than 250 pounds. Trump is also shorter than 6'3'', but even if he were 6'3'', he'd still be obese with a weight of 250 pounds (based only on the BMI number, which would be 31.2, which is greater than the threshold of 30). I'm happy to discuss other things, but I'm going to immediately dismiss anything contingent upon Trump being less than 250 pounds. Your own paper you brought and and presented and cited as if you had actually read it uses the 2019 Walter Reed report of 6'3" 244lb. So - thank you for immediately dismissing your own article. If you don't believe a government hospital that a report from the doctor experts you so trust referenced, you shouldn't have wasted our time bringing it up. Find another actual source or stop theorycrafting his weight. At the official 244lb 6'3" he's at 30.1. Since the doctors hid their exact methodology, for all I know this means that at 29.9 BMI he lives 10 years and at 30.1 he's in the obese category so he lives 5 years. I am not saying he is or isn't obese. He's heavy, he's overweight. What I am saying is if you have an arbitrary line to measure the ratio of people's height and weights in a POPULATION, and then have one INDIVIDUAL in the population who at a certain height is 5 pounds over the line into a dangerous new category of unhealthy and therefore he's at super high risk compared to someone 5 pounds lighter, this is a gross misapplication of statistics. This whole discussion is predicated on a metric that's never been scientific in order to answer a fortunetelling question of how long a person will live which is also not reliable or scientific. BMI doesn't differentiate muscle and fat, and disproportionately calls short people overweight also if I recall correctly. I will close with just a guess that in any other context about someone's health you wouldn't be saying they're gonna get sick and die of a serious illness with a BMI of 30.1 compared to 29.9 but that they have many chances to live a productive and healthy life despite being a bit larger.
As I said before, I'm ignoring your statements that are based on Trump's fake height and weight. Also, a paper referencing those reported numbers yet still coming to the conclusion that Trump's obesity is a serious issue is an even worse situation for Trump, as it's working with values that are even better than the real-life scenario. That means that Trump is even more at risk than what the cited paper concludes.
The January 6th insurrection (in 2021) isn't recent enough for you, yet the Rand Paul attack from 2020 was worth citing? Not to mention the insanity of thinking these are comparable events in the first place, in terms of political violence or sheer numbers of people present. Thinking that January 6th "wasn't an attempt to violently overthrow the government" is absurd. I guess those Trump supporters brought guns and other weapons - and threatened to kill political leaders as they entered into their building - just as a big joke.
Trump has fallen down, his speech is consistently slurred, and I already cited a direct example of people misrepresenting a Biden situation (the shaking hands clip). Again, Biden has plenty of similar cognitive issues to Trump, which is why the whole premise for my posting about this is to call out hypocrisy - not to say that Biden has no problems.
"Yeah he did more rallies in 2020. The paper you're citing is FROM 2020." The paper has nothing to do with the new lie you casually threw out there, which I refuted with the actual list of his rallies. You tried countering the fact that Trump is sedentary with the assertion that he takes part in 3 rallies a day, when in reality it's been ~0-2 per month for several years. Who are you kidding? The paper from 2020 didn't even know Trump would be even more sedentary now than he was in 2020, which means the paper's cautioning of Trump was when Trump was as fit as he was going to get (based on your single criterion of "number of rallies"). In other words, things may have been getting even worse for Trump, not better, since 2020, unless there are other criteria you want to consider besides how many rallies Trump has been attending. I don't even know why you think the number of rallies even matters, but you're digging your own grave; you're the one creating these awkward conditions and then actually being wrong about them, not me.
"How do I know you aren't on drugs?" I don't understand the point of asking me this question.
"Maybe Biden is sedentary for the 99% of the time he's napping when he's not at the gym supposedly in the morning. Neither of them are sedentary until someone defines that and then provides some evidence. Your paper doesn't." Except the paper goes into such detail, contrasting Biden's lifestyle with Trump's. For example, the paper says things like this about Biden (and points out that Trump doesn't do this): "Biden has a healthy BMI, and practices excellent health habits, particularly eating a healthy diet and vigorous exercise. This includes aerobic activity and strength training, which are very important for healthy aging."
"BMI doesn't differentiate muscle and fat" I absolutely agree that BMI is not an ideal predictor of health, and I am more than happy to not talk about BMI anymore, as that would circle back to Trump's height and weight.
"My point about covid specifically was he's obese so he could be at risk of severe problems from covid according to them - but then he got covid and seemed fine. Every time he's fine they seem to say yeah that just means there is another big problem headed his way instead." That's how probability and comorbidities work though. Having a greater risk of severe effects isn't a guarantee, and being overweight can be a problem for multiple future issues (not just covid).
"The gambler's fallacy was meant to be in reference to their general assertions about his cardiovascular health (plaque and cholesterol) and risk of dementia." But those two things are actually linked, so where is the fallacy? The risk of dementia is significantly higher for people who have poor cardiovascular health. The CDC, NIH, Dementia and Alzheimer's organizations, and many other medical groups have made these statements. Here is one such example: "Brain Health Is Connected to Heart Health - Did you know that the health of your brain and your heart are connected? By keeping your heart healthy, you also lower your risk for brain problems such as stroke and dementia." https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/brain_health.htm
|
On September 03 2023 04:53 oBlade wrote:
This whole discussion is predicated on a metric that's never been scientific in order to answer a fortunetelling question of how long a person will live which is also not reliable or scientific. BMI doesn't differentiate muscle and fat, and disproportionately calls short people overweight also if I recall correctly. I will close with just a guess that in any other context about someone's health you wouldn't be saying they're gonna get sick and die of a serious illness with a BMI of 30.1 compared to 29.9 but that they have many chances to live a productive and healthy life despite being a bit larger.
BMI is supposed to be calculated by figuring out what percent of somebody's bodyweight is fat. Yes, the simplistic BMI calculation people get is flawed in that regard, but for those people it's not an issue. The Olympic athlete that comes up as overweight/obese for such a simple calculation knows it's ignoreable because the truth is evident.
|
On September 03 2023 12:05 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2023 04:53 oBlade wrote:
This whole discussion is predicated on a metric that's never been scientific in order to answer a fortunetelling question of how long a person will live which is also not reliable or scientific. BMI doesn't differentiate muscle and fat, and disproportionately calls short people overweight also if I recall correctly. I will close with just a guess that in any other context about someone's health you wouldn't be saying they're gonna get sick and die of a serious illness with a BMI of 30.1 compared to 29.9 but that they have many chances to live a productive and healthy life despite being a bit larger. BMI is supposed to be calculated by figuring out what percent of somebody's bodyweight is fat. Yes, the simplistic BMI calculation people get is flawed in that regard, but for those people it's not an issue. The Olympic athlete that comes up as overweight/obese for such a simple calculation knows it's ignoreable because the truth is evident.
In before Trump claims to have won the Olympics, narrowly beating George Santos in a track and field event that doesn't actually exist.
|
If Trump is the usher for fascism in the US as Democrats insist (and they are basically right imo) it makes me wonder:
If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist?
It would seem to create a bit of a dilemma/paradox where the only way to protect the US from being ruled by a fascist would be to disregard its democracy. As such I'm curious where people here fall on that possibility.
Poll: If Trump wins, should Biden peacefully transfer power to Trump?Yes (15) 79% No (2) 11% I don't know (2) 11% 19 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ No
☐ Yes
☐ I don't know
Indications are this is going to be a perpetual question people opposing Republicans have to ask themselves with the names changing but not the core question about whether the US should/will empower a fascist if their democracy votes for it.
|
United States41385 Posts
No good options. Personally I favour discretely tossing a grenade into the Supreme Court chambers in a video game. Then lame duck Biden can stack it on the way out.
|
On September 05 2023 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Trump wins the election, should Biden just peacefully transfer power over the US's nuclear arsenal and military to a fascist?
Yes. There's no sense cancelling democracy to protect democracy. It's one thing to disqualify him from office for treason. It's quite another to let him run but then cancel the election if you don't like the outcome.
|
The statements "...Trump is the usher for fascism" and "...should Biden peacefully transfer power over... to a fascist" don't connect, for me. I can see Trump damaging the US' political structures in such a way as to allow fascism to take significant hold (...an usher for fascism), but I don't see Trump himself as a fascist. He gives too much of a shit about what people think of him and doesn't seem to have strong actual direction. You have to have an agenda to be a fascist, and I have a hard time seeing Trump's agenda outside of making himself look big and important. "Make America Great Again" was Trump's hope for Trump, not America.
With that as context, yeah Biden should peacefully transfer power over if he loses, because he's not handing power over to a fascist, just a populist fascism-enabler. Presumably the structures that hold US democracy together will continue to withstand his assaults and remain a democracy. Foregoing a democratic election and/or ignoring its result would just be admitting you have no expectation that US democracy would continue to hold against trump.
|
"I have a problem with authoritarianism. Therefore I will make the US into an autocracy to prevent an authoritarian coming into power"
Nope
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
