1 hour ago, sameaglesfan said:

2 of them are absolutely true, the other is a matter of opinion. Oh I forgot, an official poll worker is allowed to stop what they are doing go outside and hand out water (a highly likely scenario), but no one else is. The GA laws are designed to suppress voting because its the only way to keep the state red (without doing away with elections all together, which let's face it is what republicans ultimately want). Most republicans even admit this. The ones that don't are either intellectually dishonest or stone cold retards. 

47 minutes ago, Gannan said:

2 of them are absolutely true, the other is a matter of opinion. Oh I forgot, an official poll worker is allowed to stop what they are doing go outside and hand out water (a highly likely scenario), but no one else is. The GA laws are designed to suppress voting because its the only way to keep the state red (without doing away with elections all together, which let's face it is what republicans ultimately want). Most republicans even admit this. The ones that don't are either intellectually dishonest or stone cold retards. 

Guess we know which category you fall into 

biden is doing such an amazing job that there really isn't much to talk about around here. he's been near perfect thus far. not like that ahole who proceeded him with his daily...hell, hourly... f-ups. 

joe is truly making america great once more!       

2 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

biden is doing such an amazing job that there really isn't much to talk about around here. he's been near perfect thus far. not like that ahole who proceeded him with his daily...hell, hourly... f-ups. 

joe is truly making america great once more!       

So much this. All they can do is try to make fun of his age, which let's face it, is ageism. Good piece in Time magazine on it. 

Quote

Ageist Attacks Against President Biden Reinforce Outdated Stereotypes—and Hurt Younger People, Too

Age has long been a powerful political weapon, and Biden has by no means been the sole target. Similar questions have recently been raised about California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who, at 87, is the oldest member of the U.S. Senate, and Wilbur Ross, President Trump’s former Commerce Secretary, who’s now 83. Trump’s campaign tried to make an issue of Biden’s age and mental condition throughout last year’s election—in one case, it spent at least $6.5 million on a 30-second commercial that ran in 12 states and claimed Biden lacked "the strength, the stamina and the mental fortitude to lead this country.” Biden, who’s about four years Trump’s elder, repeatedly brushed off such arguments, telling the New York Times that voters will "make a judgment whether or not you think I have all my cognitive capability, I’m physically capable, and I have the energy to do the job.” Biden himself also engaged in age-based attacks against Trump; his team aired a political ad juxtaposing footage of Biden jogging with a shot of Trump gingerly stepping down a ramp.

Given the awesome power of the presidency, it’s understandable that people may be concerned about a President’s cognitive well-being. But experts say age-based attacks against Biden and others demonstrate how common ageist stereotypes are in American culture—to everyone’s detriment. "Cultural messaging gets internalized, and it can shape the attitudes that people have about their own aging process, and about their awareness of their age related changes when they do happen,” says Shevaun Neupert, a professor of psychology at North Carolina State University.

Attacks on people’s age and mental condition often ignore the reality of growing old in the U.S. today. The average U.S. life expectancy rose from 68.2 in 1950 to 77.8 in 2020, and medical advancements mean that people are not only living longer, but are often at their maximum cognitive capacity deeper into old age. The prevalence of older people with dementia "declined significantly between 2000 and 2012,” a 2017 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found. "Chronological age in and of itself is not a good indicator of what a person is capable of doing,” says Manfred Diehl, a professor studying lifespan developmental psychology at Colorado State University.

But our national attitudes towards older people have not caught up with these developments. In a January 2020 Gallup poll, nearly one in three Americans said they were unwilling to vote for even a "well-qualified” presidential candidate over the age of 70 (of course, Trump won when he was 70 in 2016, and Biden won last year at 77). Ageist political attacks are especially concerning amid the COVID-19 pandemic, which has "unveiled just how widespread ageism is,” according to a United Nations report published in March. Because older people are more susceptible to severe COVID-19, the pandemic has reinforced prejudiced beliefs that they are universally frail, vulnerable, and a burden on society.

Ageism has obvious consequences for older Americans. Exposure to negative stereotypes can trigger anxiety and reduce peacefulness among older people, according to research from Yale University scholars set to be published soon in the Journal of Gerontology. "The issue is the … accumulation of these small insults over time,” says co-author Becca Levy, a professor of epidemiology and psychology at the Yale School of Public Health. Workplace age discrimination against people 50 and older, meanwhile, led to $850 billion in missed potential U.S. GDP growth in 2018 as older workers retired early, struggled to find jobs or missed out on promotions, according to AARP research.

Less obvious are ageism’s health consequences for younger people. Alison Chasteen, a professor who studies ageism and other forms of stereotyping and prejudice at the University of Toronto, says people who believe that ailments are an unavoidable consequence of aging may not seek out necessary treatments as they grow older and develop medical problems. That, in turn, can make their lives worse for no reason. Consider, Chasteen says, a person who needs a hearing aid but refuses to get one, which could lead to lower cognition and loneliness as they’re cut off from others.

The scientific literature offers many examples of similar dynamics. Young people who believe in ageist stereotypes are significantly more likely to experience cardiovascular events later in life (even after adjusting for factors like family history), according to a 2009 study published in Psychological Science. A 2016 study published in Psychology and Aging found a link between a person’s belief in ageist stereotypes and the development of plaque on the brain, which is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Last year, a wide-reaching review of similar studies found that ageism "led to significantly worse health outcomes in 95.5% of the studies and 74.% of the 1,159 ageism-health associations examined.”

The key to avoiding these outcomes, experts say, is for people to be mindful of underestimating people based on their age, and instead look for instances in which individual older people defy stereotypes. That Biden is running the world’s most powerful country at 78 years old is perhaps just such an example. The President’s detractors, meanwhile, may also want to remember the likelihood that they too will one day grow old, and will surely want to be treated with respect. "The thing about aging is it is the only stereotype where everyone starts as an outsider. And then as you get older, it becomes self-relevant,” says Neupert. "The messaging that younger people are encountering now about older people, shapes how they will expect their own their own aging to happen, and how they will feel about themselves when they are older.”

 

50% of the country thinks the Georgia law makes it easier to vote while the other 50% thinks it makes it harder to vote.  

 

I'm not going to attack Biden for being old.

however I would generally prefer someone whose formative years occurred this side of the Vietnam War. 

at this rate GenX will get skipped over. 

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

50% of the country thinks the Georgia law makes it easier to vote while the other 50% thinks it makes it harder to vote.  

I know this non stop fighting sucks, I don’t know what it takes to make both sides stop fighting each other but something tells me it’s not gonna end well unless politics becomes somewhat civil🤷‍♂️  (Just Burt one on my way home from work and feeling mellow and tired of this childish ish between parties). And no I’m not driving 😉

If anyone believes  government spending creates jobs, they were in the WRONG economics class. The private sector creates jobs from investors and incentives from state and local governments. Our Pa government is bad because how many Pa businesses incorporate in Delaware and have headquarters and businesses in Pa.       The Federal government only creates red tape, inefficiency and inflation by printing money that doesn't exist and has no value. Try going to a US Mint and asking them to give you the dollar value of what backs the dollar.They may put you in a straitjacket or a Biden " re- education center. " 

5 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

at this rate GenX will get skipped over. 

 

...and it would be like the most GenX ever.

11 hours ago, Freedom 76 said:

If anyone believes  government spending creates jobs, they were in the WRONG economics class. The private sector creates jobs from investors and incentives from state and local governments. Our Pa government is bad because how many Pa businesses incorporate in Delaware and have headquarters and businesses in Pa.       The Federal government only creates red tape, inefficiency and inflation by printing money that doesn't exist and has no value. Try going to a US Mint and asking them to give you the dollar value of what backs the dollar.They may put you in a straitjacket or a Biden " re- education center. " 

Wow, your view of government is severely short-sighted. Tell this to all the government contractors bidding for jobs, some surviving mainly because of those contracts. Also, US currency has been fiat money for 50 years. LINK

16 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

50% of the country thinks the Georgia law makes it easier to vote while the other 50% thinks it makes it harder to vote.  

50% of the country is wrong. The people who think limiting absentee ballots and dropboxes, reducing voting hours so early-voting precincts must close by 5 PM on weekdays, refusing to accept provisional ballots, standing in hours-long lines at the polls without food and water, and giving power to politicians to overturn local election boards... people who think this makes it easier to vote are wrong.

21 minutes ago, toolg said:

50% of the country is wrong. The people who think limiting absentee ballots and dropboxes, reducing voting hours so early-voting precincts must close by 5 PM on weekdays, refusing to accept provisional ballots, standing in hours-long lines at the polls without food and water, and giving power to politicians to overturn local election boards... people who think this makes it easier to vote are wrong.

Conservative talk radio is basically arguing that the law makes it easier to vote and anyone who disagrees is part of the radical alt-left.  
 

 

21 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Conservative talk radio is basically arguing that the law makes it easier to vote and anyone who disagrees is part of the radical alt-left.  
 

 

The only good thing I can see that it does is monitor polling locations for how long voting is taking, and would use that to establish additional polling locations or allocate additional resources to that polling station. 

My assumption is that would mean if they see long lines in the 2022 general (long being defined as over 1 hour in line to vote, or lines after polls close extending beyond one hour which is basically the same thing) then for the 2024 general they would either add a new polling location or expand that one.

It's on pg 28, section 18 (starts at bottom of that page): https://www.scribd.com/document/501517908/Georgia-Election-Law-SB-202#fullscreen&from_embed

34 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The only good thing I can see that it does is monitor polling locations for how long voting is taking, and would use that to establish additional polling locations or allocate additional resources to that polling station. 

My assumption is that would mean if they see long lines in the 2022 general (long being defined as over 1 hour in line to vote, or lines after polls close extending beyond one hour which is basically the same thing) then for the 2024 general they would either add a new polling location or expand that one.

It's on pg 28, section 18 (starts at bottom of that page): https://www.scribd.com/document/501517908/Georgia-Election-Law-SB-202#fullscreen&from_embed

Lines are a deterrence tool though.  They can easily track how many people voted in 2020 and adjust accordingly.  This ain’t rocket science.

Oof, not a good look, Joe.

 

Quote

The Biden administration says it may restart construction of the border wall to fill 'gaps' left by Trump

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-restart-border-wall-construction-trump-pledge-gaps-2021-4

 

Machin is such a snake. Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that he was talking about re-instating the talking filibuster? Now he's resolutely opposed to not only to eliminating (fine) but even "weakening" it? Who's lining this guy's pockets?

 

Quote

Opinion: Joe Manchin: I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster

 

Opinion by Joe Manchin III

April 7, 2021 at 7:40 p.m. EDT

Joe Manchin III, a Democrat, represents West Virginia in the Senate.

When Americans vote to send their two senators to Washington, they trust that they will work to represent the interests of their state on equal footing with 98 other senators. I have always said, "If I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it.” And I respect that each of my colleagues has the same responsibility to their constituents.

It’s no accident that a state as small as West Virginia has the same number of senators as California or Texas. It goes to the heart of what representative government is all about. The Founding Fathers understood that the challenges facing a rural or small state would always be very different from a more populous state. Designating each state with the same number of senators — regardless of the population — ensured that rural and small states and the Americans who live in them would always have a seat at the table.

The filibuster is a critical tool to protecting that input and our democratic form of government. That is why I have said it before and will say it again to remove any shred of doubt: There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster. The time has come to end these political games, and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation.

Think about the recent history. In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) led the charge to change Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for Cabinet-level nominees and federal judges. I was one of only three Democratic senators to vote against this rule change. In 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) proposed to lower the threshold to end debate on Supreme Court nominees to a simple majority. I voted against that change, too. Despite my votes, both rules changes were enacted and the filibuster was weakened, allowing the majority to more easily enact its agenda with little to no input from the minority.

Every time the Senate voted to weaken the filibuster in the past decade, the political dysfunction and gridlock have grown more severe. The political games playing out in the halls of Congress only fuel the hateful rhetoric and violence we see across our country right now. The truth is, my Democratic friends do not have all the answers and my Republican friends do not, either. This has always been the case.

Generations of senators who came before us put their heads down and their pride aside to solve the complex issues facing our country. We must do the same. The issues facing our democracy today are not insurmountable if we choose to tackle them together.

Unfortunately, our leaders in the Senate fail to realize what goes around comes around. We should all be alarmed at how the budget reconciliation process is being used by both parties to stifle debate around the major issues facing our country today. Legislating was never supposed to be easy. It is hard work to address the needs of both rural and urban communities in a single piece of legislation, but it is the work we were elected to do.

I simply do not believe budget reconciliation should replace regular order in the Senate. How is that good for the future of this nation? Senate Democrats must avoid the temptation to abandon our Republican colleagues on important national issues. Republicans, however, have a responsibility to stop saying no, and participate in finding real compromise with Democrats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-manchin-filibuster-vote/2021/04/07/cdbd53c6-97da-11eb-a6d0-13d207aadb78_story.html

 

21 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Oof, not a good look, Joe.

meh, walls are fine. 

insistence on building a 'big beautiful wall' across a huge border with a lot of existing natural boundaries is a foolish boondoggle. 

having a more reasonable allocation of financial and human resources to keep the border secure is prudence. 

7 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Machin is such a snake. Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that he was talking about re-instating the talking filibuster? Now he's resolutely opposed to not only to eliminating (fine) but even "weakening" it? Who's lining this guy's pockets?

 

we're at 02, be patient.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

meh, walls are fine. 

insistence on building a 'big beautiful wall' across a huge border with a lot of existing natural boundaries is a foolish boondoggle. 

having a more reasonable allocation of financial and human resources to keep the border secure is prudence. 

 

Border walls are stupid, but in theory, I have no problem shoring up gaps in the places where they already exist. My main point was that this is a political loser. It will do nothing to ingratiate the right (but it will give them fodder) and simply piss off the left. This is a miscalculation.

33 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Oof, not a good look, Joe.

 

 

This is totally political and a result of his low approval ratings on immigration. Most of the videos of illegal crossings I've seen show people scaling the wall like its nothing. 

39 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Oof, not a good look, Joe.

 

 

An invisible laser that cuts anyone in half who tries to cross would probably be cheaper.

13 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Border walls are stupid, but in theory, I have no problem shoring up gaps in the places where they already exist. My main point was that this is a political loser. It will do nothing to ingratiate the right (but it will give them fodder) and simply piss off the left. This is a miscalculation.

I don't think they're stupid, they're just not a panacea. 

Walls with Mexico are a reasonable part of any border security plan. It's just that they're effective at controlling certain things in certain situations as part of an overall strategy to limit illegal border crossings. They're completely impractical as a singular solution, and building a 2000 mile border wall is pissing money away into the Rio Grande.

Unless we're willing to go open border with Mexico, and I don't believe we're anywhere close to that lol, walls are going to be part of the plan. They're just not the centerpiece. Unless you're using 7th grade logic to solve complex international problems.