3 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

My father-in-law no longer has a driver license and couldn’t stand in line to get a state issued photo ID now.  Disenfranchising him and people like him would be bad for conservatives and the Republican Party.  I have never had to show my ID to vote.  

In Missouri if you have a valid reason like a physical problem you can make an appointment at the DMV so you don't have to  wait. The DMV offices are contract.

21 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I find it hilarious. First, PA’s Republican legislature gave us no excuse needed mail in balloting application in sweeping voting reform this year and the Democratic governor signed it.  

Secondly, you couldn’t meet more conservative, everything on Fox is gospel people than my in-laws.  My mother-in-law passed away the spring but my father-in-law is still out there. They have been voting by mail since their early sixties. Good thing they got that arranged before their drivers license expired because she hadn’t driven in over twenty years and it is more than a decade for him.  Old people do it more than anyone outside of states like OR where they automatically mail ballots.  You can sign up to get the ballots sent to you every year in PA but you need to sign up. I like the OR model. I also like the early voting option in places like TX and MD.  If my father-in-law had to go vote in person, he can’t stand in line.  His back is so bad, waiting in a wheelchair is not an option either.  Mail and early voting help enfranchise working people that have trouble making Election Day work.  Not a bad thing  

 

the plural of anecdote isnt data...

mail in is far easier to corrupt. in person, with ID, is the best way

13 hours ago, Utebird said:

Very few politicians actually care, they are placating their voters.

The military? How is the military as a whole supporting the cause? I dont consider shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at protesters support. A few random police showing support by kneeling while admirable for them doesnt constitute as support.

If politicians want to end racism institute sweeping policy change that decreases racism. Malcolm X and Marx both said you cant have racism without capitalism.

If military want to end racism well thats a global effort other than the national guard. As i said calling in tbe national guard to shoot at people isnt support.

If the police want to end racism then drop their clubs and march with the protesters they are sworn to protect and institute sweeping policy change within PD.

As for corporations, dont get me started, corporations enable racism, want to end racism end class systems that pit people against each other for resources.

Wendys taco bell and pizza hut just dolled out money to re elect trump, probably the day after they blacked out their media page for empty blackout tuesday. If corporations were serious about ending racism they wouldnt continue to support openly race baiters like Trump.

The working class isnt the system they are cogs that keep the system running. That system being controlled by the ruling class.

Marx also said religion is the opiate of the masses. A lot of his theories have been shown to be a failure.  

I worked for a large multinational corporation.  So did my dad.  Neither were racist and both valued inclusion and diversity.  Corporations have faults and lobby their interests, don’t get me wrong. I hate corporate PACs and I think we need a Constitutional Amendment that corporations aren’t persons under the 14th amendment. But we cannot generalize companies and corporations just like we cannot generalize people.  

13 hours ago, eagle45 said:

Yup.  

It's time to "Vietnam" the war on drugs.  Get out of there.  We are halfway there with marijuana anyway.  Drug policing is nearly $4b annually.  

I'm not saying to just legalize everything in a free for all, but hard, dangerous drugs are very accessible as it is.  Where is this getting us?

The left says that this war is punishing, incarcerating, and profiling non-violent people of color.  The right wants lower taxes.  Boom.  Everybody come together, shake hands, tax some drugs, and let's save some money.  

Just don't ask the taxpayer to fund everyone's rehab afterwards.  You're on your own.  

Yes.  On all of this.  But I would also include sex work and gambling (which is almost there too) as well.  Take the money out of crime and it decreases the organization.  

13 hours ago, hputenis said:

Have they committed to testing on a daily basis?  Or was it only to be a few times per week?  If these guys are leaving the facilities every night, someone is bringing it back into the building the next day.  

They let players play with the flu, which can be deadly too.  I am not sure what the answer is but I am not sure it is quarantine.  We have to look at Sweden’s results for some guidance on herd immunity approach. 

43 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Nah.  Legalization of marijuana and the decriminalization of other drugs would actually reduce violent crime quite a bit, especially in the cities.  You can't really decriminalize drug trafficking but if you decriminalize and regulate personal use amounts, eventually, that will put a dent in illegal trafficking by hurting their (Illegal drug traffickers)  profit levels.  That will give anti-trafficking departments a better edge since the organizations/cartels won't have "unlimited" funds to operate their operations with, etc.  It's already been studied quite a bit. 

People that do drugs will do drugs regardless of them being illegal or legal/decriminalized.  In countries where drugs are legal/decriminalized, there are no drastic jumps in drug use.  The one thing that does indeed go down is violent crime and the cost to prosecute and incarcerate minor drug offenders.  You can then use those funds (funds saved) towards rehabilitation programs, etc. 

 

Nah, kid's deaths will increase

24 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

laws dont stop people from doing it. at least capture the tax revenue from it

 

Yes, they do. I have no problem with grass , but don't start pushing heavier drugs on us. 

2 minutes ago, greend said:

Yes, they do. I have no problem with grass , but don't start pushing heavier drugs on us. 

adulting is hard. let people make their choices and accept their consequences. 

3 minutes ago, greend said:

Nah, kid's deaths will increase

Nope.  Not anywhere it's been done.  We can look at Portugal as an example....

 

One of the most keenly disputed outcomes of Portugal’s reforms is their impact on levels of drug use. Conflicting accounts of how rates of use changed after 2001 are usually due to different data sets, age groups, or indicators of changing drug use patterns being used. But a more complete picture of the situation post-decriminalisation reveals:

Levels of drug use are below the European average
 

Drug use has declined among those aged 15-24,6 the population most at risk of initiating drug
 

Lifetime drug use among the general population has increased slightly,8 in line with trends in comparable nearby countries.9 However, lifetime use is widely considered to be the least accurate measure of a country’s current drug use situation10 11
 

Rates of past-year and past-month drug use among the general population – which are seen as the best indicators of evolving drug use trends12 – have decreased13
 

Between 2000 and 2005 (the most recent years for which data are available) rates of problematic drug use and injecting drug use decreased14
 

Drug use among adolescents decreased for several years following decriminalisation, but has since risen to around 2003 levels15
 

Rates of continuation of drug use (i.e. the proportion of the population that have ever used an illicit drug and continue to do so) have decreased16

Overall, this suggests that removing criminal penalties for personal drug possession did not cause an increase in levels of drug use. This tallies with a significant body of evidence from around the world that shows the enforcement of criminal drug laws has, at best, a marginal impact in deterring people from using drugs.17 18 19 

There is essentially no relationship between the punitiveness of a country’s drug laws and its rates of drug use. Instead, drug use tends to rise and fall in line with broader cultural, social or economic trends.

 

This basically states that drug use amounts are based off of social trends NOT laws.  

 

https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/

 

 

I (almost) cannot believe that there is any debate about mail-in ballots, about IDs, etc. The history of disenfranchisement of minorities in this country is long, rich, and varied, from poll taxes (functionally being resurrected, or at least trying to be in Florida), literacy tests (no chance anyone can pass those lovely creations), and now voter IDs. This last obstruction to voting will block exactly one type of voter fraud - someone pretending to be someone else in order to cast a fraudulent vote. There is no evidence that this occurs, even the president's panel acknowledged this. The days when the cemeteries opened and the dead rose to vote (LBJ was particularly skilled at this) are over.

1 hour ago, BigEFly said:

That seems a bit myopic and blind hindsighted.  The scientists have been learning more and more about the risks with this virus constantly and, I am sorry to say, will learn more and more before this is over. The criticism from the left and right politically and on talking head TV doesn’t help.  I spent about fifteen years of my career in toxic tort litigation and learned a ton about epidemiology and cause and effect.  With Covid 19 we are still in the infancy of that knowledge. When it first spread, we knew nothing about asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals and their impact on contagion.  We knew little about the cause and method of infection.  Quickly they learned about how long the virus could live in ideal conditions on surfaces. That contributed to the spread. In an effort to maximize PPE (because of poor planning and preparation ahead of time as a country and as a world overall), the use of masks was not encouraged.  You still have trouble locating disinfectants because of the cleaning we probably should have been doing as a nation beforehand.  We are just beginning to learn about the impact of sun and outdoors.  Memorial Day gatherings and the protests are going to add to that knowledge.

i do believe the 24/7 coverage created a bit of fear in this country. The constant reminder of the rising number of cases and deaths probably contributed to a bit of overreaction on closing and paralysis on formulation of a plan for reopening.  In the process, I think as a nation we lost sight of the goal. It went from flattening the curve to an attempt to reduce infections and deaths dramatically and probably unrealistically.  That said, in the seventh most populated county in the state, the last I saw our death toll was 16, with four in assisted living facilities.  The distancing and caution has worked some but we have more to learn as we begin to distance less.   I don’t think we can react like it is over, toss away our masks and pack subway trains again until we have some answers to treatments and hopefully a vaccine.  Maybe we shouldn’t.  Even with the flu shot, we have around 30,000 to 50,000 people die from complications from the flu each year.  I suspect if we wore masks during cold and flu season we could cut down that number. 
 

It seems to me the only statesmanship approach to this pandemic and the economic impact from it is not to spend all our time on what could have been done differently and criticize but rather focus on the future and on what we need to do publicly and privately to prepare for the next one.  Maybe we should do that with most of the challenges facing us.  It’s morning in America, what are we going to do as We the People to face a new day.

Based purely on the principal of the virus, were you okay with 100,000 people in the streets this past weekend? 

52 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

i do believe the 24/7 coverage created a bit of fear in this country. The constant reminder of the rising number of cases and deaths probably contributed to a bit of overreaction on closing and paralysis on formulation of a plan for reopening.  In the process, I think as a nation we lost sight of the goal. It went from flattening the curve to an attempt to reduce infections and deaths dramatically and probably unrealistically.

Agree with this 100%.  I think you can take out the word probably.  The constant fear DID cause overreaction.  No one would have bought toilet paper unless they saw it on TV.  People wouldn't be snitching unless they saw it on the news.  

 We as a nation or our Government?  I think we as a nation are just doing whatever we are told.  We can't help it that we were told at first flatten the curve, 2 weeks.  Now we are 90 days.  

6 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Based purely on the principal of the virus, were you okay with 100,000 people in the streets this past weekend? 

No! It's a public health catastrophe.

 

10 minutes ago, justrelax said:

I (almost) cannot believe that there is any debate about mail-in ballots, about IDs, etc. The history of disenfranchisement of minorities in this country is long, rich, and varied, from poll taxes (functionally being resurrected, or at least trying to be in Florida), literacy tests (no chance anyone can pass those lovely creations), and now voter IDs. This last obstruction to voting will block exactly one type of voter fraud - someone pretending to be someone else in order to cast a fraudulent vote. There is no evidence that this occurs, even the president's panel acknowledged this. The days when the cemeteries opened and the dead rose to vote (LBJ was particularly skilled at this) are over.

The GOP's goals and strategy are obvious.

 

This helmet design is getting destroyed on Twitter

 

16 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Agree with this 100%.  I think you can take out the word probably.  The constant fear DID cause overreaction.  No one would have bought toilet paper unless they saw it on TV.  People wouldn't be snitching unless they saw it on the news.  

 We as a nation or our Government?  I think we as a nation are just doing whatever we are told.  We can't help it that we were told at first flatten the curve, 2 weeks.  Now we are 90 days.  

I’m somewhat torn on what to think of all of this.  On one hand I think it’s better to over-react.  (Like gun advocates’ famous line of better to have it and not need it then it is to need it and not have it)  We really did not have a lot of information on this virus so we went off of the limited data that we had and that warranted social distancing and stay at home orders.  

But at what cost?

 Personally, I’ve lost close to 6 figures between loss of income, 401k,  property value loss, etc. I’ll eventually get some of that back but I will never recoup the loss of income and the swing into further credit card debt it caused.  I’ll have to work and earn income to fix those issues.  That means working more, cancelling/postponing vacations, etc. 

My biggest concern after all of this is that it could cause a "boy who cried wolf” scenario if (God forbid) a more deadly virus spreads in the future and people not believing it...and refusing to follow stay at home orders, etc.  That could be disastrous. 

4 hours ago, greend said:

Hey and let's go ahead and make murder legal as well. Costs a lot to prosecute and house murderers too. I mean hard drugs and youths of all colors dying because of drugs pfffft who needs em anyways.

I don't want lawlessness either.  But if the country is teetering on a progressive inflection point, I'm all for the experiments that don't cost the taxpayer more money.  

29 minutes ago, justrelax said:

I (almost) cannot believe that there is any debate about mail-in ballots, about IDs, etc. The history of disenfranchisement of minorities in this country is long, rich, and varied, from poll taxes (functionally being resurrected, or at least trying to be in Florida), literacy tests (no chance anyone can pass those lovely creations), and now voter IDs. This last obstruction to voting will block exactly one type of voter fraud - someone pretending to be someone else in order to cast a fraudulent vote. There is no evidence that this occurs, even the president's panel acknowledged this. The days when the cemeteries opened and the dead rose to vote (LBJ was particularly skilled at this) are over.

Sure, let's just have our elections on the honors system.  

 

I find it odd that the media doesn't even bring this up:

"Many times individuals who really do require intensive psychiatric care find themselves homeless or more and more in prison," Sisti says. "Much of our mental health care now for individuals with serious mental illness has been shifted to correctional facilities."

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/567477160/how-the-loss-of-u-s-psychiatric-hospitals-led-to-a-mental-health-crisis

 

The military has been voting by mail since the Civil War.  I really don't see the issue.  It seems that the opposition just wants to have less turnout since people won't want to stand in line.    

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/how-do-you-know-voting-mail-works-u-s-military-n1186926

3 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I don't want lawlessness either.  But if the country is teetering on a progressive inflection point, I'm all for the experiments that don't cost the taxpayer more money.  

Decriminalization would actually let police departments focus on more violent and serious crimes vs chasing around minor drug offenders all day.  If anything, there could be better law and order implemented, not less.  (If done properly). 

Just now, Ace Nova said:

Decriminalization would actually let police departments focus on more violent and serious crimes vs chasing around minor drug offenders all day.  If anything, there could be better law and order implemented, not less.  (If done properly). 

That’s fine with me.

5 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Sure, let's just have our elections on the honors system.  

 

There is no honor in seeking to disenfranchise your citizens. There is only villainy.

3 minutes ago, justrelax said:

There is no honor in seeking to disenfranchise your citizens. There is only villainy.

So it's just too much to expect someone to prove they are who they say they are?  That's synonymous with disenfranchisement?

For the record, I'm fine with mail-in ballots.  Part of proving your identity for ID's involves showing mail with your address and name on it.

If a ballot is mailed to your registered address and you fill it out and send it back, that is at least some modicum of identify proofing.

Showing up, giving a name, and voting doesn't cut it.  You can't execute any other transaction with the government with that alone and there's no reason voting should be an exception.