busdriver

This is interesting. Have you guys read/watched any of Jonathan Haidt's work on personality traits and political leanings? It's a lot like men are from mars, women are from venus. Basically, people will tend to lean one way or the other politically, and it strongly correlates to personality traits. Here's one: Haidt's TedTalk Or dumbed down to a very rough generality for discussion: What animates liberals/conservative/libertarians? Brett Eric Weinstein would say: unfairness, abandoning long successful systems without good cause, and coercion, respectively. Which also make the two main teams bad and good at different things. Dan Crenshaw has said, liberals are good at spotting unjust and unfair outcomes, but bad at figuring out how to actually fix them. Instead preferring to tear down and replace. Conservatives tend to be good at nuanced systems and making small changes work, but bad at seeing the unjust second order effects of their processes. Anyway, nerdy pontification over. I'll depart now.

It actually been pointed out multiple times in this thread. You just don't agree with that view point. Just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean there isn't merit.

Which is exactly what you're doing in opposition. Of course it was and is a philosophical debate.

The complaint is gross of course, and CNN's "main" non opinion article on this one is actually pretty close, it's just harder to find. But it's still an anecdote laundry list without/before an investigation made by people who are trying to find this kind of stuff. Their sources are people who have been detained/in jail/in cages, which I assume is like every other situation like that that I've been in (deployments, SERE, etc) where some of the craziest shit is "known to be true." There's almost always a chunk of truth in all of it, but there's also a crap load of missing information and straight up fiction. But your comment makes it seem like you've already decided it's legitimate enough that you're willing to say that our government is currently, literally sterilizing detained illegal immigrants. If a single instance of a hysterectomy would validate your thought, then ok I guess. Put it this way: why is progressive taxation a thing? Because the "burden" of a flat 15% rate across the board would be higher the lower down the income strata you go. The policy is intended to consider the impact of it's implementation and "make it fair." Is it more fair to have every single person's vote be worth the same, or to attempt to ensure that rich or poor, urban or rural, big state or small state, majority or minority, elites or the common man; that each portion of the population will have it's concerns and viewpoint represented? The state of Wyoming is given a proportionally higher amount of electoral votes so that Wyoming isn't made irrelevant as compared to California. This is and was a state representation issue. Urban vs rural is just how the lines ends up shaking out as I think about it. Historically, a straight up democracy wasn't not done for technical reasons, it was an intentional decision as a matter of checks and balances in the design of the constitution. The founding fathers wrote hundreds of pages to advocate their positions. Granted over the years, we've killed some of those checks and balances, and some things evolved in ways that neutered others. I don't think any of them thought their original design would be stable forever. But a true democracy was a discarded idea, not an oversight. Ranked choice would certainly be interesting. I have a suspicion that they would have a similar problem as term limits. Namely that the people who know how to get things done in Washington would then become the career bureaucrats rather than the elected. Term limits for SCOTUS appointments is another interesting idea. I agree that something has to be done to break the control of the national parties, which I think is at the root of why our politics are driven by national level policy debates; and everything seems to get pushed to that level rather than allowing states to handle more things, which makes those policy decisions further further away from any real hope people have of influencing them. There's more to it obviously (taxation, monetary authority, etc.), but people are hugely emotionally invested in who becomes the president, and I'd say that level of emotion is vastly disproportionate to the actual impact the president has on any one person's day to day life.

Yes. And it was intentional. If the popular vote mindset won out, every national political decision would be decided by major metropolitan urban voters.

I started to write something, then I re-read your post, and Flea's. I have no idea what either of your points are. Also, you believe ICE is actually sterilizing immigrants in some grand eugenics conspiracy? The CNN article I could find is a basket of non-specific anecdotes, confirmation bias, and creative framing. The federal government has too much power, but it isn't a fascistic, all controlling Machiavellian new world order. It's a giant incompetent bureaucracy lacking accountability. So just like every other giant bureaucracy.

They need to cut the downforce levels. A lot. Then open up the power plant and suspension rules. The MP-4/4 is still the baddest F1 car ever.

There is a distinct difference between talking about experiences, how all people have biases, etc. That's just being a human and connecting to other humans. Then there's the Robin DiAngelo / Ibram Kendi anti-racist horse shit. Which is actually just racist nonsense looking to reverse the tables of history.

Is anyone surprised that the President acts like a petulant child? Does anyone actually think the politicians we're looking at are quality choices? You either accept that this is the way the game is played, vote for a third party, or freak the fuck out like this isn't the same ole shit that's been going on forever. Everyone has already decided which is the lesser shit sandwich to eat, then rationalizes their choice by pointing to the other pile of shit while ignoring their own.

Doesn't co-morbidity literal mean died with? The list of co-morbidities is larger than the total. The data isn't being skewed, people are interpreting it with their previous biases. "Data driven" is the new buzzword to mean "I'm spouting numbers, but don't actually understand what the scientific method really means."

Hahahahahaha. This is hilariously awesome. History is full of cool surprises.

I realize most of your rant between facts was just that (by your own admission). But, the mutual funds vs grandma dying is a strawman argument. Economic impacts of in determinant length community lockdowns/restrictions/whatever aren't at the stock market level, and you know that.

Please tell me you're serious, was that an actual thing? Good god that would be awesome.

"rationally mitigate to avoid overloading the medical system while allowing the economy to continue" You skipped the rest of the post.

This is called life. There is no omnipotent power that can protect everyone from nature. Yes that's a heartless answer. We've nerfed the world so effectively that when something like this comes along, we're flabbergasted that there isn't an answer if only our leaders would "be bold." More rationally: Society's ability to support the weaker members is contingent on being strong as a whole. Shooting ourselves in the foot economically negatively impacts our ability to do that. When small businesses fail because they can't pay their bills, those jobs go away, which means there is no job for that at risk person once nature has run its course. Unless of course everyone wants to work for Amazon and our future overlord The Bezos. Individual rights aside there were really only two rational courses of action (one of which is long since no longer available) the first is to lock down hard and starve the virus of hosts and let it burn out. The second is to rationally mitigate to avoid overloading the medical system while allowing the economy to continue. This in between thing that is happening now is political grandstanding.

Every single data set surrounding COVID has garbage in it. I would bet large sums of money that the death count is the least noisy. That said, it's not a super useful piece of info unless you do something with it. Unless of course your entire goal is to scream about the really really big number and peddle fear for advertising dollars and political gain. Here's the part that a lot of people don't seem to grasp: it doesn't have to be super deadly to kill a shit load of people, it just has to infect a lot. If the regular old flu infected 50% of the population, that's over 220K dead in the US.

So you do or don't understand the difference between these two statements?

It's a start

That point is one that is actually made by anti-war activists in this country. And yes, it was intended to be inflammatory. Assuming sociopathic motivation of someone's actions based on conjecture is preposterous. Anyone can do 30 seconds of googling to find a video of someone interviewing the kid before all the shit happened. He seems like a kid with naive wet dreams of being a patriot, and spends too much time with gun nuts that have only an academic and fantastical understanding of violence. The types that masturbate over Grossman's books and talks about colors of awareness and crap like that. None of that makes him a cat killing psychopath that wanted to kill people and get away with it.

Seems to me you joined the military because you're a sociopath that knows you'd be able to kill people and get away with it. Kind of a basket of baseless assumptions, no?

Violence is messy. Always has been, always will be. This is why the state having the monopoly on the legitimate use of it is so important to maintaining modern society. Rioting is a bad idea, vigilantism is a bad idea. People flabbergasted that this is possible in America is amazingly naive. If you're seriously curious about self defense law, read: "The Law of Self Defense" by Andrew Branca

Early in the video the Col talks about auto GCAS. I suspect they're not thinking about making HAL right now, rather the thought process is more like the auto aiming setting in Halo.

This mail in voting shenanigans is hilarious. It's both party's overblown fears (voter suppression + voter fraud) rolled up into one shit-show of stupid.

Not sure if it's still a requirement, but years ago the teams would run a different steering rack for Monaco. The normal one didn't have enough angle to make some of the turns. Some of the best video of that track is old school Senna qualifying.

You're not alone, no one could rationally explain that position.