by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,2722,2732,2742,2752,2762,2772,278. . .2,5072,508»

Roborian wrote:Come on man.

There's no valid reason whatsoever to harp on this random, bizarre, and pretty openly spiteful conspiracy. It's not even as if it has anything to do with politics, "Obama is selling children to lizard people" is at least theoretically a 'policy' matter, "Michelle Obama is secretly male" has nothing to do with anything besides you apparently really not liking the way she looks. (In this conspiracy, where did their biological children even come from, did State Senator Obama run a secret black-ops mission in 1998 to kidnap infants to defend the cover-up?) If you want to talk about policy, we can do that here, I'm fine with you giving takes on voting and COVID if presented as actual arguments because at least those are policy-related opinions, but this is just void of anything that would be productive discussion. I'm sure there are plenty of other places for you to talk about how ugly you think she is if you really have an overwhelming urge to do so, this would not be one of them.

I don't believe in the "reptilian elite", so you know. And I don't really know if it would be a "CONSPIRACY theory" (I suppose they arent hurting anyone: it would be an "embarassment" like the mean blonde kid on Game of Thrones whose parents are secretly siblings and who was king for a while, who got murdered by the old lady), it would just be a "theory". Thats why I said that I don't believe in theories: I dont believe the Michelle being a man thing YET, but my covid info was correct. What I meant is, I don't believe it, I just think it needs further investigation because I have never seen a woman who looks like that

^But I won't call her ugly anymore i guess

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:" 99.997% for people ages 0 to 19, 99.98% for people ages 20 to 49, 99.5% for people ages 50 to 69, and 94.6% for people over 70. "

From a lib source. Sorry I was wrong about the 70 thing. Not 99.5 but 95 (I was thinking of 50-70). At the same time, flu rates are the lowest in recorded history. NOT a theory. I believe in life too but not giving up all liberty for it (ESPECIALLY since our policies don't help anyway, and covid itself isnt very dangerous anyway--we dont wear masks for the flu and frankly I think that is about what this is. Even if it was dangerous, I have heard doctors compare masks to a "chain link fence". It wouldn't work anyway)

In other words, almost nothing has changed but you believe in insane measures.

^Less deaths the year after covid began.....that isnt weird either

I understand you don't believe people with opposing opinions should be allowed in OUR region. But I will stay until banned if somehow what I said is wrong.

Even if the overall mortality rate is around 1%, that's still many times more deadly than the flu. It's still causing a massive drain on the US' health system, to speak nothing of places like Brazil or India. Reminding people not to panic is one thing, but dismissing the danger entirely is quite another.

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:" 99.997% for people ages 0 to 19, 99.98% for people ages 20 to 49, 99.5% for people ages 50 to 69, and 94.6% for people over 70. "

And where did you get these numbers? According to the CDC's COVID-19 data tracker as of April 27, 2021, the reported case fatality ratios are 0.015%, 0.15%, 2.3%, and 17% for the age groups 0–17, 18–49, 50–74, and 75 or over, respectively.

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:I don't believe in the "reptilian elite", so you know. And I don't really know if it would be a "CONSPIRACY theory" (I suppose they arent hurting anyone: it would be an "embarassment" like the mean blonde kid on Game of Thrones whose parents are secretly siblings and who was king for a while, who got murdered by the old lady), it would just be a "theory". Thats why I said that I don't believe in theories: I dont believe the Michelle being a man thing YET, but my covid info was correct. What I meant is, I don't believe it, I just think it needs further investigation because I have never seen a woman who looks like that

Conspiracy in the sense of major governmental actors seemingly conspiring to keep it a secret. I don't know why it would need any 'further investigation', even if one assumes that it is true, it's not particularly a matter of public policy or crucial public information. I suppose that appearances are subjective, but I do find it legitimately bizarre that you have not seen any other women that look like Michelle Obama, I feel like I've seen plenty who look relatively similar.

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:

^But I won't call her ugly anymore i guess

I do appreciate it.

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:At the same time, flu rates are the lowest in recorded history. NOT a theory.

Beastland, I just saw this comment, and it's absolutely correct. The COVID-19 regulations have practically killed off the flu, since it doesn't spread as easily as COVID-19.

2018-2019 U.S. flu season deaths: 34,000
2019-2020 flu season deaths: 22,000
2020-2021 flu season deaths: 600

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic/

What I'm wondering is why you'd bring this up, as if it proves your argument that COVID-19 regulations are useless and COVID-19 is just another flu. It does the opposite.

Roborian wrote:I'm currently looking to find a relatively neutral summary of the bill beyond the text itself, which provisions do you have the biggest issues with? My take from some older articles (I do not know know all of the amendments made since) is that it seems a mix of bureaucratic provisions that are largely stupid and negative and that I would oppose, though are not very immensely transformative (such as changing precinct zoning), changes that seem reasonable (Give your driver's license or other ID number on your absentee ballot, no blindly sending out ballots unless specifically requested), and ones that are a mix (protecting poll watchers, but seemingly clumsily/overzealously-which appears to now have been fixed by amendment.)

I definitely think at least the mail-in changes are in order. I'm strongly of the mind that elections ought to take place on Election Day, and that mail-in or early voting should not exist outside of cases of need (disability, etc.) The inclusion of some other parts such as the precinct zoning in particular (assuming that is still part of the bill), however, seem to be pretty good evidence that there's some level of partisan and/or corrupt motivation behind some Republicans pushing the bill, unless there's an argument for such changes that I'm just not aware of.

Even when I was in the GOP, I could never understand the reason for some voting restrictions. I think we have a basic disagreement on voting mentality here. Why do we need to have voting take place only on Election Day, and that too on a weekday where it's hard for people to get time off from work? If you're going to make Election Day the only day to vote, then make it a holiday (which the For the People Act would do). Why also should early voting be curtailed? Unless you want Election Day bottlenecks and hideously long times to vote, early voting takes the pressure off, esp. for those who can't get time off on Tuesday. Mail in voting wasn't a problem until Trump made it into one, we had no problems with mail in voting until his fabrications started taking off. The military has been using mail in voting with great success for a long time now. It's not unusual or anything like that. My main issue: Why cut off access to the ballot box? Increased early voting, expanded drive through voting, etc. that all increases turnout. In a state where voting is so low, you should want to increase turnout, not diminish it. The problem for the GOP is that Texas is a majority-minority state with high growth in urban centers and a younger generation that doesn't like much of what the GOP proposes. It may sound far-fetched, and certainly the Texas Democratic Party hasn't had much to show for itself, but the trends are there for Texas to turn purple at some point. Beto was within 3 percentage points of Cruz in 2018 and the 2018 midterms swept many incumbent Republicans, including judges, out of power.

Some particular problems I have with this voting bill: The bill would make it a felony to provide voters with an application to vote by mail if they hadn't requested one. This just seems to be deliberate bias against mail ballots. As current election law stands in my state, you already have to go through the extra hoop of applying for a mail in ballot and you can only make an application if you meet these guidelines:
1) be 65 years or older;
2) be sick or disabled;
3) be out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance; or be confined in jail, but otherwise eligible.

Further, so-called "poll watchers" are approved for in this bill. The bill makes it extremely difficult for those non-essential people to be around while people are voting. In all my time of voting in Texas, I've never needed someone standing around and observing me while I use an electronic voting machine to cast my ballot. The bill would also create a new felony for public funds to be used for third party distribution of mail-in voting applications. Again, this just seems like another way to hamper mail in voting due to Trump's claims about them.

At least the proposed ban on drive through voting was struck from the bill. Texas Democrats were able to negotiate that some of the more egregious provisions be removed from the overall bill. Examples of what Democrats were able to get rid of from the bill (thank God): Ban on drive through voting, narrowing early voting hours, having poll watchers be able to photograph/video record people voting if they think fraud is happening (Texas is a one-party consent state, so the person being recorded really couldn't stop the poll watcher(s)), limiting evening/night-time voting, and limiting the number of polling places in some counties. Those at least didn't make it through this odious piece of legislation. The bill serves as a way forward for the entrenched GOP to stay in power, covering it with the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The lie has taken hold of the Texas GOP almost completely: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/83-of-Texas-Republicans-believe-2020-election-15924557.php

As an aside, when a majority of the opposition party legitimately believes that Biden stole the election, then I don't see where there is common ground for bipartisanship. If basic facts can't be agreed upon, then how do we talk with each other? McConnell "100% opposition" is the same old thing he did in the Obama Admin. The GOP doesn't have any real policy proposals to set forth so they only cry out from the sidelines. Total opposition is all the GOP has been doing anytime we have a Democratic administration. And then you blame Biden for not reaching out and unifying the country? Add in that plenty of GOP members simply don't want a federal government to do much of anything in the first place. That means they have no incentive to govern or show that government can actually do some good for people. At least since Reagan, people have been told that government is almost always a hostile force that has to be resisted at all costs.

Whew, that was longer than what I had expected to write. Sorry if it seems like rambling or ranting at times, but my politics just doesn't fit with the people governing my state. I'm in a blue city/county in an otherwise dark red state.

Welcome to RTL Distril, Shiratotizawa, Archeland and carbobya islands, Black grass, and Pantages!

I was going to put everything together into one post, but this is getting pretty long, so I'm going to split it: this is focusing on the right/left cultural difference in philosophy on voting, I'll talk about the policy specifics in the next one.

Horatius Cocles wrote:[spoiler]Even when I was in the GOP, I could never understand the reason for some voting restrictions. I think we have a basic disagreement on voting mentality here. Why do we need to have voting take place only on Election Day, and that too on a weekday where it's hard for people to get time off from work? If you're going to make Election Day the only day to vote, then make it a holiday (which the For the People Act would do). Why also should early voting be curtailed? Unless you want Election Day bottlenecks and hideously long times to vote, early voting takes the pressure off, esp. for those who can't get time off on Tuesday. Mail in voting wasn't a problem until Trump made it into one, we had no problems with mail in voting until his fabrications started taking off. The military has been using mail in voting with great success for a long time now. It's not unusual or anything like that. My main issue: Why cut off access to the ballot box? Increased early voting, expanded drive through voting, etc. that all increases turnout. In a state where voting is so low, you should want to increase turnout, not diminish it.

I think that you're on target in that it is just about a fundamentally different mentality, and I would even call it a 'cultural' issue. Obviously it does not fit the mold of what are typically thought of as cultural issues, but it fits as well or better than many of them, less about policy directly, more about general feelings towards a thing. It largely plays to stereotype as I see it, but I don't think it's inaccurate, fundamentally conservative vs. liberal, where the conservative sees a matter of responsibility, not agreeing with a reform to making voting easier because they think to some extent that it shouldn't be easy, they view it in the civic conservative sense where if someone 'can't bother' to take the time to vote they don't deserve special treatment. As much as the criticism of the right is that they're less democratic, in this sense it's for the opposite reason, voting is tied to sense of country, and should not be trivialized as something you can do through the mail or can just do on a day of your choosing. The liberal view is unsurprisingly the opposite, liberal in the sense of being freer, seeing the voting process as one that should be as easy as possible, and that ought to be as inclusive as possible, no need for ceremony or tradition of shuffling in on election day to fill out an in-person ballot. I think the debates over the impact of specific policies fall as secondary to the underlying motivating question of how elections ought to be, and they're an area in which American politics, which are a little wonky in what is considered conservative vs. liberal as compared to Europe, fall much more clearly into traditional right-left, traditional nationalist responsibility versus liberalized egalitarian inclusiveness.

The turnout question and you mentioning that you do not understand the GOP position I think fits this perfectly, to requote that:

"My main issue: Why cut off access to the ballot box? Increased early voting, expanded drive through voting, etc. that all increases turnout. In a state where voting is so low, you should want to increase turnout, not diminish it."

The reason for the opposition is that someone of a conservative mindset on this does not see higher turnout as an inherently desirable outcome at all, in fact it could be seen as a negative. In that mindset, the turnout of typical election-day in-person voting is the people who care enough to come in and vote, and if someone does not care enough (obviously there are other difficulties involved, this is looking to just explain the mindset) to do so is making their own choice and probably is better off not voting. If turnout is higher by mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, or month-long early voting, the conservative mindset thinks that the people who were willing to vote the harder way are not getting overwhelmed by the lazier ones. Something like Australia's mandatory voting would be anathema. A good potential future-policy example would be the possibility of voting via the internet, which a liberal mindset would welcome as proving unrivaled broad access to the polls, and which the conservative mindset would despise as thoroughly trivializing the process: higher turnout is not an intrinsic good. It is the difference between thinking that a democracy is when all people vote, full stop, or a democracy is when all people who put in effort to vote, vote. You can see the same sort of thing in traditional conservative views on welfare, where the general liberal concept is welfare for, to quote the Green New Deal, those "unable or unwilling to work", welfare as something that everyone, or at least everyone qualifying, ought to have unfettered access to, while the general conservative concept is focused on work requirements and, while generally willing to provide some level of assistance, disdains the idea of someone living off of it: the benefits are seen as for those willing to work for them.

That ended up getting pretty long anyways, but I hope it's a helpful take. I'm not really necessarily defending the conservative mindset here, I'm definitely closer to it, though I think it can get to be too much, just looking to explain it and why it may be that right and left end up talking past each other on things like this. I think the current GOP voting reform proposals have a number of motivations behind them: some of it is likely legitimate concerns about voter fraud, some of it is probably partisan efforts to skew things their way, (I'll focus more on that when responding to the policy bits) but a lot of it, especially for the general public supporting it, your conservative uncle on Facebook sort of thing, comes down to that fundamentally different but very recognizable conservative idea: responsibilities, especially to country, should not necessarily be too easy, and they are trivialized if they are.

On the policy/bills/politics directly, etc. Horatius Cocles

Horatius Cocles wrote:Mail in voting wasn't a problem until Trump made it into one, we had no problems with mail in voting until his fabrications started taking off.

I think this is an area where there has been a rather concerning amount of revisionist history in mail-in voting being seen as having always been considered secure and uncontroversial. Concerns have been raised over mail-in voting before from decidedly non-conservative sources: if you've looked at any conservative news/content on this, something that has been cited repeatedly is this New York Times report leading in to the 2012 election. The headline: Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises, basically tells you just what you need to know about the article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html?auth=login-email&login=email

That was in a typical election with absentee voting largely on request. In an unprecedented 2020 election where that was expanded dramatically to include universal mailing of ballots to voters, I'll use bold language and say that it has been an exercise in gaslighting among mainstream media to say that mail-in has always been perfect, that this was 'the most secure election in history'-I can almost guarantee that no mainstream news organization, including the current New York Times, ever referenced that article. One does not have to believe that the election was rigged or stolen-I think that, based on available evidence, it likely was not, to raise valid concerns over such processes, and such concerns were raised before the election as well, not just after.

Horatius Cocles wrote:

Some particular problems I have with this voting bill: The bill would make it a felony to provide voters with an application to vote by mail if they hadn't requested one. This just seems to be deliberate bias against mail ballots. As current election law stands in my state, you already have to go through the extra hoop of applying for a mail in ballot and you can only make an application if you meet these guidelines:
1) be 65 years or older;
2) be sick or disabled;
3) be out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance; or be confined in jail, but otherwise eligible.

I think that the felony charge is certainly overzealous (I tend to think that about most criminal laws), but the general take on mail-in ballots is one I think is reasonable. It's basically just back to some of the earlier commentary-I don't think that mail-in ballots ought to be a method of voting outside of those in need for both fraud concerns and generally in line with the mindset of trivializing voting: Texas state law mandates that businesses allow paid time off for voting on Election Day, so illness or disability seems the only valid reason to my mind.

Horatius Cocles wrote:

Further, so-called "poll watchers" are approved for in this bill. The bill makes it extremely difficult for those non-essential people to be around while people are voting. In all my time of voting in Texas, I've never needed someone standing around and observing me while I use an electronic voting machine to cast my ballot. The bill would also create a new felony for public funds to be used for third party distribution of mail-in voting applications. Again, this just seems like another way to hamper mail in voting due to Trump's claims about them.

Poll watchers are something where I think there are entirely valid concerns on both sides. I think it is certainly true that poll watchers could create an environment of voter intimidation, and I think it is certainly true that restricting them can create an environment more conducive to fraud. I generally think neither side is really wrongheaded in that debate.

Horatius Cocles wrote:

At least the proposed ban on drive through voting was struck from the bill. Texas Democrats were able to negotiate that some of the more egregious provisions be removed from the overall bill. Examples of what Democrats were able to get rid of from the bill (thank God): Ban on drive through voting, narrowing early voting hours, having poll watchers be able to photograph/video record people voting if they think fraud is happening (Texas is a one-party consent state, so the person being recorded really couldn't stop the poll watcher(s)), limiting evening/night-time voting, and limiting the number of polling places in some counties. Those at least didn't make it through this odious piece of legislation. The bill serves as a way forward for the entrenched GOP to stay in power, covering it with the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The lie has taken hold of the Texas GOP almost completely: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/83-of-Texas-Republicans-believe-2020-election-15924557.php

The first half of those I figure should have stayed (no drive-through voting, less early voting time) for previously stated reasons, the latter changes seem more reasonable (recording and polling places)-I think those two could be fairly argued as 'egregious' but I could not see that applied to the first two.

I don't disagree that Trump's election claims are a widespread weed in the GOP garden, I think Trumpism in general is. To have concerns is understandable, to condemn the media coverage and tech censorship certainly so, but I'd be lying to myself if I pretended that it was all about legitimate concern over certain issues, there's clearly a large portion of the base and elected officials that'll accept even the most outlandish "I won in a total landslide" kind of Trump claims.

Horatius Cocles wrote:

As an aside, when a majority of the opposition party legitimately believes that Biden stole the election, then I don't see where there is common ground for bipartisanship. If basic facts can't be agreed upon, then how do we talk with each other? McConnell "100% opposition" is the same old thing he did in the Obama Admin. The GOP doesn't have any real policy proposals to set forth so they only cry out from the sidelines. Total opposition is all the GOP has been doing anytime we have a Democratic administration. And then you blame Biden for not reaching out and unifying the country? Add in that plenty of GOP members simply don't want a federal government to do much of anything in the first place. That means they have no incentive to govern or show that government can actually do some good for people. At least since Reagan, people have been told that government is almost always a hostile force that has to be resisted at all costs.

I think this is a mixed bag-I think people (and media in particular) underestimate the extent to which 2021 is precedented by 2017: it feels bizarre to me that we've forgotten entirely the entire movement of "Not my President" counter to Trump, and deligitimization of the 2016 election results. In aggregate, I think that 2021 is more severe than 2017, but it's following in pretty much the exact same footsteps.

On McConnell, the GOP, and opposition: Yeah, I think that's pretty much on-target. The GOP has two fundamental problems, one of which is intrinsic: they are fundamentally a coalition party far more than the Democratic party is. That's not to say that there is no ideological diversity on the left, but Democrats plainly fall under a much smaller tent, it's mostly a question of scale, Moderate vs. Progressive, while the right has fellow Republicans that disagree with each other on fundamental ideology: A neoconservative has precious little in common with a libertarian, and both have significant differences with a populist, before even folding in business and social conservatives. As a result, there is no real policy agenda, just "Democrats bad", and that's a failing of the party, particularly because the leadership is perfectly fine with that status quo, hence the lack of real policy action during the Trump administration. Conservatives are, tempermentally, generally much more reticent to pass aggressive legislation or make sweeping changes, and thus even something as party-boilerplate as repealing the ACA, after more than half a decade running on it, did not happen. There's almost no issue that unites the GOP caucus, the closest thing are tax cuts, the one thing they did pass, so they really do not, as a party, have a cohesive vision for America, they're too ideologically diverse for one, especially with the leadership they have.

But, while McConnell will look to obstruct as is his wont, as as the Democrats sought to do in the Trump administration, I think the Biden administration opened their time in office by pretty dramatically burning a frankly historically strong bridge to bipartisanship that they had in the COVID relief bill. As I believe Tim Scott mentioned in his speech, five different COVID bills were passed with over 90 votes from both parties, and Trump had explicitly supported the same checks that Biden was backing: you had the red carpet laid out for starting things off with a nice bipartisan victory, and instead you got a COVID bill passed without a single GOP vote. Both sides can of course blame the other for not compromising, but with the previous precedent and the fact that even Collins and Murkowski, who had repeatedly shown themselves to be willing to defy McConnell, were brought on board with even minor concessions showed that the Biden administration was going to play partisan hardball, and that pretty much told McConnell to do exactly what he wanted to do anyways, and just obstruct, since the administration was apparently not willing to work with even the most liberal parts of the GOP, and there was thus no reason to attempt compromise.

Horatius Cocles wrote:

Whew, that was longer than what I had expected to write. Sorry if it seems like rambling or ranting at times, but my politics just doesn't fit with the people governing my state. I'm in a blue city/county in an otherwise dark red state.

Well, to be cynical for me and optimistic for you, I really don't see Texas as staying red much longer, and I definitely don't think it has any claim to being dark red. That Beto, of all people, performed as well as he did is a showing that Texas is very much some shade of rose-tinted purple, with a steadily diminishing red lean in state-level politics.

I wanna move to Texas and secede before more illegals and libs arrive (ironically fleeing from lib states) there. I would support states right to secede if my state didn't suck so much....Because if TX left and CA stayed that would suck because we wouldn't leave and I need the help of non-morons from TX to influence the federal government. I am happy but really nervous about TX's 2 new seats and CA's one less

Horatius Cocles wrote:
Even when I was in the GOP, I could never understand the reason for some voting restrictions. I think we have a basic disagreement on voting mentality here. Why do we need to have voting take place only on Election Day, and that too on a weekday where it's hard for people to get time off from work? If you're going to make Election Day the only day to vote, then make it a holiday (which the For the People Act would do). Why also should early voting be curtailed? Unless you want Election Day bottlenecks and hideously long times to vote, early voting takes the pressure off, esp. for those who can't get time off on Tuesday. Mail in voting wasn't a problem until Trump made it into one, we had no problems with mail in voting until his fabrications started taking off. The military has been using mail in voting with great success for a long time now. It's not unusual or anything like that. My main issue: Why cut off access to the ballot box? Increased early voting, expanded drive through voting, etc. that all increases turnout. In a state where voting is so low, you should want to increase turnout, not diminish it. The problem for the GOP is that Texas is a majority-minority state with high growth in urban centers and a younger generation that doesn't like much of what the GOP proposes. It may sound far-fetched, and certainly the Texas Democratic Party hasn't had much to show for itself, but the trends are there for Texas to turn purple at some point. Beto was within 3 percentage points of Cruz in 2018 and the 2018 midterms swept many incumbent Republicans, including judges, out of power.

Some particular problems I have with this voting bill: The bill would make it a felony to provide voters with an application to vote by mail if they hadn't requested one. This just seems to be deliberate bias against mail ballots. As current election law stands in my state, you already have to go through the extra hoop of applying for a mail in ballot and you can only make an application if you meet these guidelines:
1) be 65 years or older;
2) be sick or disabled;
3) be out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance; or be confined in jail, but otherwise eligible.

Further, so-called "poll watchers" are approved for in this bill. The bill makes it extremely difficult for those non-essential people to be around while people are voting. In all my time of voting in Texas, I've never needed someone standing around and observing me while I use an electronic voting machine to cast my ballot. The bill would also create a new felony for public funds to be used for third party distribution of mail-in voting applications. Again, this just seems like another way to hamper mail in voting due to Trump's claims about them.

At least the proposed ban on drive through voting was struck from the bill. Texas Democrats were able to negotiate that some of the more egregious provisions be removed from the overall bill. Examples of what Democrats were able to get rid of from the bill (thank God): Ban on drive through voting, narrowing early voting hours, having poll watchers be able to photograph/video record people voting if they think fraud is happening (Texas is a one-party consent state, so the person being recorded really couldn't stop the poll watcher(s)), limiting evening/night-time voting, and limiting the number of polling places in some counties. Those at least didn't make it through this odious piece of legislation. The bill serves as a way forward for the entrenched GOP to stay in power, covering it with the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The lie has taken hold of the Texas GOP almost completely: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/83-of-Texas-Republicans-believe-2020-election-15924557.php

As an aside, when a majority of the opposition party legitimately believes that Biden stole the election, then I don't see where there is common ground for bipartisanship. If basic facts can't be agreed upon, then how do we talk with each other? McConnell "100% opposition" is the same old thing he did in the Obama Admin. The GOP doesn't have any real policy proposals to set forth so they only cry out from the sidelines. Total opposition is all the GOP has been doing anytime we have a Democratic administration. And then you blame Biden for not reaching out and unifying the country? Add in that plenty of GOP members simply don't want a federal government to do much of anything in the first place. That means they have no incentive to govern or show that government can actually do some good for people. At least since Reagan, people have been told that government is almost always a hostile force that has to be resisted at all costs.

Whew, that was longer than what I had expected to write. Sorry if it seems like rambling or ranting at times, but my politics just doesn't fit with the people governing my state. I'm in a blue city/county in an otherwise dark red state.

Just so you know, the "observers" I were referring to (which were being locked outside illegally, then they made it so they couldnt see by putting cardboard over windows) were not the same thing as "poll watchers": they are supposed to observe the counting, which they were obviously cheating otherwise they wouldn't have been desparate to put cardboard over windows and keep observers out illegally.

*that wasnt in your state though. It is the swing states that were stolen which need to have better voting laws. So you guys are pretty good in TX aa far as preventing voter fraud goes (as your popular vote reflected (52 percent for Trump I believe)). It is those swing states which were without a doubt stolen that need to work on their laws. Certain areas recieved impossible numbers of votes there, unfortunately signifying fraud (lots of fraud condensed into a few counties. That makes the most sense for fraud to occur, as large operations took place in a few areas and therefore only affected a few counties but flipped the state overall: that is the ONLY way Biden could have gotten more votes than Obama or any other president and have only won HALF of the counties. If you didnt see, hundreds of thousands of votes arrived in certain areas ALL FOR BIDEN (impossible), I believe more votes than registered voters in some areas.
**Half the counties Obama did I mean. He didnt even come close to winning half the counties haha

Phydios wrote:Beastland, I just saw this comment, and it's absolutely correct. The COVID-19 regulations have practically killed off the flu, since it doesn't spread as easily as COVID-19.

2018-2019 U.S. flu season deaths: 34,000
2019-2020 flu season deaths: 22,000
2020-2021 flu season deaths: 600

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic/

What I'm wondering is why you'd bring this up, as if it proves your argument that COVID-19 regulations are useless and COVID-19 is just another flu. It does the opposite.

I really am very skeptical of the common claims being stated that wearing masks is so effective that it cut flu deaths dramatically, as the numbers you cite above are indicating. As has been pointed out by plenty of others, if masks were so effective and so widely used that they severely cut down flu cases and deaths, they would have shown strong signs of having done so with the Chinese coronavirus.

Here is my theory of reasons the flu numbers are so much lower than usual, in approximate order of impact:
1) lower lethality of this year's flu strands
2) decreased human contact, especially among young people in virtual school and remote working
3) increased sanitization (spraying of surfaces, hand dispensers)
4) lower case and death count due to less vigilance in favor of coronavirus
5) "social distancing"
6) butterfly wings flapping in Mexico
7) wearing masks

Why at position #7? I am sticking with my guns here based on the fact that medical community was nearly unanimous in saying masks we ineffective until about March 15, 2020. We saw it from Fauci, Sarah Jarvis (UK), etc etc: statements that masks aren't effective or at least not proven to be so early on, only to pivot once it became contrarian. There are no solid studies for it and a few strong words against it. Perhaps, oddly, more convincing to me than anything else: I still remember some crisp February day when I was researching coronavirus on Wikipedia(!) and ended up reading some article that surprised me when it stated simply that the common East Asian practice of wearing masks when sick is considered by western doctors to be essentially pointless. I had always assumed that, while culturally it is not a thing here, it was still at least a slight advantage to Japan etc. healthwise that they did that. Not so, said this. I am sure whatever page that was on the website has now been edited, but I stand by the neutral, per-coronavirus panic words of Wikipedia!

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:I really am very skeptical of the common claims be stated that wearing masks is so effective that it cut flu deaths dramatically, as you cite the numbers above. As has been pointed out by plenty of others, if masks were so effective and so widely used that they severely cut down flu cases and deaths, they would have shown strong signs of having done so with the coronavirus.

I said "COVID-19 regulations", not just "wearing masks". This includes #2, #3, and #5 on your list, as well as #7. And while #1 and #6 may have had an effect, they cannot possibly explain a drop in flu deaths of over 97%. (Nor can #4, for that matter.)

This is a worldwide collapse- do you think that governments worldwide conspired to fabricate the effectiveness of face coverings, social distancing, and increased sanitizing in slowing the spread of infectious diseases? Or that the WHO, who reported this drop, has become an arm of the Chinese government?

Science doesn't lie. Ever. It can't. Scientists can lie or misuse science, but the scientific method is sound. This past flu season went by with barely a whimper, when it usually kills tens of thousands. That's a fact. One can claim that the deep state is secretly classifying influenza cases as COVID-19 cases to keep the unwashed hordes from spraying their germs through the air with every breath, but one will struggle to find any evidence that would convince someone who needs it.

Phydios wrote:Science doesn't lie. Ever. It can't. Scientists can lie or misuse science, but the scientific method is sound. This past flu season went by with barely a whimper, when it usually kills tens of thousands. That's a fact. One can claim that the deep state is secretly classifying influenza cases as COVID-19 cases to keep the unwashed hordes from spraying their germs through the air with every breath, but one will struggle to find any evidence that would convince someone who needs it.

This is an aside, but I don't believe science can tell the truth or lie, science is not the truth. Science is merely a way of discovering facts about the natural world, it is more the method, and methods can be improved. For example, the microscope revolutionized science but did not change the truth, rather it merely updated the way we use this method to determine what is true and what is not about the world. So science can lead to mistaken conclusions, and it can often lead to the right conclusions, but it is in and of itself not a thing that tells the truth or lies. It is a pet peeve of mine when people personify science, like "believe science" or "science says" one can believe in the conclusions drawn from stringent use of the scientific method, and in doing so trust the methods involved in the modern scientific method, but believing in the method can be different than believing in its conclusions. I know when people say "believe science" they mean trust the processes professionals use to draw well-established conclusions that are the best explanation for natural things as they stand, but I still dislike the personification of the method on a personal level.

Welcome to RTL Basedopia and I just wanted to read some recruitment!

Aawia wrote:This is an aside, but I don't believe science can tell the truth or lie, science is not the truth. Science is merely a way of discovering facts about the natural world, it is more the method, and methods can be improved. For example, the microscope revolutionized science but did not change the truth, rather it merely updated the way we use this method to determine what is true and what is not about the world. So science can lead to mistaken conclusions, and it can often lead to the right conclusions, but it is in and of itself not a thing that tells the truth or lies. It is a pet peeve of mine when people personify science, like "believe science" or "science says" one can believe in the conclusions drawn from stringent use of the scientific method, and in doing so trust the methods involved in the modern scientific method, but believing in the method can be different than believing in its conclusions. I know when people say "believe science" they mean trust the processes professionals use to draw well-established conclusions that are the best explanation for natural things as they stand, but I still dislike the personification of the method on a personal level.

You're absolutely correct. As you say, there is a difference between trusting the scientific method and trusting the professionals who use it. Science is humanity's best attempt to determine truth about the natural world, and that's it. Unfortunately, there are some who see it as the humanist bible- an infallible, all-sufficient source of truth on everything that exists ("everything" being the natural world, of course). This is scientism, and it's as much of a religion as any other.

Phydios wrote:You're absolutely correct. As you say, there is a difference between trusting the scientific method and trusting the professionals who use it. Science is humanity's best attempt to determine truth about the natural world, and that's it. Unfortunately, there are some who see it as the humanist bible- an infallible, all-sufficient source of truth on everything that exists ("everything" being the natural world, of course). This is scientism, and it's as much of a religion as any other.

This is why I don't see the point in science vs. religion debates. Science is dedicated to empiricism and the natural world. It is by definition limiting itself to what can be seen, observed, measured, etc. Religion/mysticism/revelation all focus on the supernatural, usually with guidelines on how devotees are supposed to behave in the natural realm. But science and religion operate in different realms with different objectives. One is concerned with natural phenomena, the other is willing to take in metaphysics and supra-natural philosophies.

Phydios wrote:I said "COVID-19 regulations", not just "wearing masks". This includes #2, #3, and #5 on your list, as well as #7. And while #1 and #6 may have had an effect, they cannot possibly explain a drop in flu deaths of over 97%. (Nor can #4, for that matter.)

This is a worldwide collapse- do you think that governments worldwide conspired to fabricate the effectiveness of face coverings, social distancing, and increased sanitizing in slowing the spread of infectious diseases? Or that the WHO, who reported this drop, has become an arm of the Chinese government?

Science doesn't lie. Ever. It can't. Scientists can lie or misuse science, but the scientific method is sound. This past flu season went by with barely a whimper, when it usually kills tens of thousands. That's a fact. One can claim that the deep state is secretly classifying influenza cases as COVID-19 cases to keep the unwashed hordes from spraying their germs through the air with every breath, but one will struggle to find any evidence that would convince someone who needs it.

I wasn't saying that you were saying that, I have just heard several other people say masks exclusively or at least primarily. I was just keeping the conversation going and coming up with a much longer, in my view debatable but more realistic, list of causes that contributed to the flu case drop.

As such the rest of your post seems like too much of a hyperbolic reaction to what you maybe thought I was saying...? I guess I'm a bit confused. Again: I am saying the effectiveness of masks was overall minimal and many factors both cut flu #s and, by extension coronavirus numbers.

Still, I guess I'll address the rest of what you say really quick.
- Did governments worldwide conspired to fabricate the effectiveness of face coverings, social distancing, and increased sanitizing in slowing the spread of infectious diseases? > No. I would say public fear/panic, the media, politicians, scientists (not as a whole but sectors of each) collectively exaggerate (and, in other sectors, minimalize) the effectiveness of these measures. I would also say that sanitizing is certainly effective, within reason, social distancing has some role, and masks have almost none. I may be wrong, but I think what few studies there are on this stuff indicate this. (Some added context to this is I have read some of the SAGE committee minutes from the UK, which tell you more-or-less what the experts over there are saying and what messaging they are putting out and I use this in part to inform what I say).
-WHO reporting drop an arm of China? I wasn't denying the drop, so I'm confused... But no: the WHO has corruption problems similar to the rest of the UN organizations, but that's it.
-Is the Deep State secretly classifying flu cases as covid? No. I wasn't saying this either. If you took this from #4 I am not implying malice or anything, simply that (as I've learned in the last year or so) that cause of death statistics are pretty flawed. In a given year significantly more people die of flu, for example, than the numbers you list because they were not tested or diagnosed with flu before they died, even if it caused their death (comorbidities are even trickier). Since the last year's preoccupation was with coronavirus (for good reasons) it is safe to assume the numbers are less realistic than usual. (I can elaborate on this if you want, but I'm keeping it short).
-Science doesn't lie, etc? I agree with Aawia here, but to add a bit it is proven that science's own observation of phenomena changes the phenomena, the scientific method is sound but very frequently (mostly?) applied in cases where it doesn't work or can't because it is using incomplete numbers or observations. The social sciences are basically all a fraud, I've learned, but don't get me started. Also: Flu deaths are not science, they are statistics that can be used for scientific things.

Phydios wrote:I said "COVID-19 regulations", not just "wearing masks". This includes #2, #3, and #5 on your list, as well as #7. And while #1 and #6 may have had an effect, they cannot possibly explain a drop in flu deaths of over 97%. (Nor can #4, for that matter.)

This is a worldwide collapse- do you think that governments worldwide conspired to fabricate the effectiveness of face coverings, social distancing, and increased sanitizing in slowing the spread of infectious diseases? Or that the WHO, who reported this drop, has become an arm of the Chinese government?

Science doesn't lie. Ever. It can't. Scientists can lie or misuse science, but the scientific method is sound. This past flu season went by with barely a whimper, when it usually kills tens of thousands. That's a fact. One can claim that the deep state is secretly classifying influenza cases as COVID-19 cases to keep the unwashed hordes from spraying their germs through the air with every breath, but one will struggle to find any evidence that would convince someone who needs it.

The deep state, however you define that, isn't classifying flu cases as covid cases. I believe their method is flawed. The reason they are being classified as covid cases are because they are looking for covid cases. Not only this, as I have said, when you die WITH covid, they classify it as a covid death no matter what. Many people have covid and dont realize it. People don't realize that obese/very unhealthy people or old people (old people would probably die just as easily from the flu) are the only ones seriously at risk.

These tyranical provisions should NOT (sacrifice all liberty) and cannot (economic-wise) go on forever, so I guess 10s of thousands more people dying next year would be neccessary. That is your logic, unless you want bags over your face and weird social distancing forever? That is sarcasm--10s of thousands of more people would not die

As far as sanitation goes, I dont care and it sounds like that would help. Social distancing may help (obviously standing close to someone with an illness makes you more likely to catch it), but it is not normal behavior to constantly stand 6 feet apart from each other. That is crazy. And by your logic that should go on forever

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:People don't realize that obese/very unhealthy people or old people (old people would probably die just as easily from the flu) are the only ones seriously at risk.

I must correct you on this particular point. Have you not seen the outrageous situation in India? Plenty of young people can get covid and plenty of them die from it. As someone who has family members infected with this disease currently, I can tell you that not all of them are elderly and obese or overweight. If you're overweight or elderly you have an elevated risk but they are certainly not the only ones "seriously at risk." Comorbidities can increase your risk regardless of age group. Young people are more likely to be in areas with higher risk of covid to begin with (bars, childcare centers, retail shops, etc.) They may not get as severe a case of covid if they are vaccinated, but either way young people are at risk and can die from the disease. An article in JAMA (a prestigious medical journal) entitled: "Clinical Outcomes in Young US Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19" found that young adults do carry a significant risk for the disease and at severe illness in particular. The findings are summarized here: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/these-conditions-put-young-people-at-higher-risk-for-covid-19#Young-adults-in-marginalized-groups-with-preexisting-conditions

«12. . .2,2722,2732,2742,2752,2762,2772,278. . .2,5072,508»

Advertisement