U.S. to close..

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Nothing new with media types being influential Hurst etc.

Hearst?

I was referring more to the fact that they are aussies. Lets just say aussies have an reputation in the states. I wonder how many people know an aussie family is more or less shaping their country.

Apparently 43% of American adults trust Fox News.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...bout-fox-news/

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Those are some of the failings of a libertarian utopia.


People often criticize a libertarian paradise saying that the homeless people would just be left to die in the gutter.
This is of course complete bull.
The gutter would be private property, and the homeless will need to find somewhere else to die.

Q: Why did the libertarian cross the road
A: He didn’t. Because roads are paid with taxes, and taxation is theft.

Are you saying Mike is a libertarian?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by UFO

....
Do you really think its acceptable in today's Western society that you have such a wealth distribution gap? The elite few at one end and at the other a massive amount of people that live from week to week, whilst further down the ladder people who can not afford food or clothes regularly for their children and moving on to the huge amount of economically homeless.

Corporations, certain families and individuals earning billions and paying minimal to no tax, whilst parents struggle to feed, clothe or even home their children.

How is that good governance for the whole of the population?....

You must understand that there are more philosophical considerations with this than you can appreciate. Each one takes years of litigation to parse out, and lawyers and judges have determined that this arrangement is as close to just as we can get. Now, if I were a lawyer getting rich off the whole deal, I'd wrangle your mind with some rhetoric/word-games to to deflect attention (the old "deflect, redirect, obfuscate" game). In particular, I'd excel in disabling, one way or another, anyone's efforts to exercise ordinary prudent efforts in their own self-defense....which is the sine qua non of a predator's behavior.

I suggest that Western non-Americans looking in ought to see the American experience as their own future if they don't figure out how to deal with these folks who by nature like to pick things apart for fun and profit. All in, it just weakens a country (not to mention that the same folks are literally facilitating the selling out of the country). Of course they don't see it that way...one of my favorite quotes, from Upton Sinclair, is that you can't get someone to understanding something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it (reference predatory behavior vs cognitive dissonance).

FWIW, here is an interesting review talk entitled "The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything" by a physicist from the Perimeter Institute in Canada. Link starts at the point where he references the origin of the term "proof" as connected, mathematically and logically, to justice itself. So the pics below are proof of the best efforts of American legal philosophy on what constitutes a just distribution of community wealth in the US.

Frankly, as a practical matter, any attempt to redistribute wealth from the gazillionaires to the general population results in the hackles of legions of frankly small-time wealthy folks (e.g. the kind of wealthy people who'd visit a site like this) to be raised. Thus, the gazillionaires are protected by those given a large enough amount of money to run defense in the first place. This pyramid-nature of wealth distribution, with same-type politics, repeats itself time and again in history, so it's nothing new. As some might say, the small-time millionaires are the useful idiots for the gazillionaires.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by GordMay

All voters must be registered to vote (federally) in the United States.
Voters must provide proof of identity and residence when they register.
When you register to vote, or vote for the first time, in a federal election (Presidential or Congressional elections) in your state, you must prove who you are.
This is required under Federal law.

Your state may have separate ID requirements for voting by mail or in person.
If you've voted in New York before, registered in person, or provided ID at the time of registration, you don't need to show ID to vote.
In New York, officials compare voters’ physical appearances to descriptions included in their voter records.
About 20 US states have developed photo ID laws, requiring voters to show a piece of identification with a photo, in order to obtain a ballot at the polling station. These laws have been struck down, by the courts, in at least three states: Arkansas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Thank you for posting the information that provides the blueprint for voting fraud.

People need to read this carefully and understand.

Correct me if I’m wrong but could it be like providing a picture ID to buy alcohol and then never needing to provide ID again?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Are we sure they are exactly the same?
Are we sure there isn't other differences occurring that we haven't investigated yet?
Are we sure that everyone (ie the Finns and the Lithuanians) is following all the measures all the time?

The measures are practically identical, or were until a few weeks ago when Lithuania imposed some new stricter ones.

What does "all measures all the time" have to do with anything? Of course not; nowhere on earth is it like that. 70% of Finns follow the mask recommendations (just reported this morning on YLE); masks are now obligatory in Lithuania so no doubt much higher than that.

None of this is either here nor there -- the thing is, we have one of the highest infection rates in Europe, and THE lowest infection rate. You can't explain this difference with measures. That's the point.

Originally Posted by Wotname

It seems to me the coronavirus is a very opportunist fellow and takes advantage of seemingly minor 'loopholes' in our defence of it. It only takes one 'mystery' case to become a community case to become s cluster which becomes an outbreak and so on.

It seems to me it is a great example of the "Butterfly flapping it's wing in the Amazon causing a drought in Australia".

Quite. Very much my point.

Originally Posted by Wotname

It is known that humans transmit the virus. It is known the virus travels to wherever humans travel (with one exception, see below).

It is known that preventing free travel limits the virus (plenty of examples exist).

There is no question about that, but this is trivial. The real question is -- how much? And is it worth it? A lot of scientists say closed international borders between countries with even roughly similar infection rates are absurd.

Originally Posted by Wotname

. . . There is no question that quarantine controls work at preventing the spread of the virus.

If international quarantine borders work, then so do internal ones.

So when the virus explodes somewhere, one of the controls has broken down or was never taken in the first place.

This is a total non-sequitur. The last paragraph here simply does not follow from the first two.

The science seems to say that internal travel is a vastly more significant factor than international travel. All the more because it is much easier to contact trace and check on international travelers.

That's what the Swedes concluded, and therefore (following their detailed pandemic plan which had been developed over years prior to the pandemic), they reduced internal travelling with a series of mostly voluntary but effective measures, and also by prohibiting (legally) gatherings large enough that it was calculated they would stimulate internal travel. Internal travel was reduced by more than 90% during the height of the spring wave, and the infection curve turned down at least as sharply as it did in countries with lockdown.

In Finland and Norway somewhat blunter approaches were taken, but based on the same logic -- that interregional travel is particularly dangerous. In Finland and Norway some interregional travel was legally forbidden for a couple of months (in Finland just to and from Uusimaa, the capital region).

In none of the Nordic countries were international borders tightly shut (as I know from experience having crossed most of them myself during the strictest time in the spring).

That looks to me like intelligent, nuanced, science-driven policymaking. Not just -- "closing international borders can't hurt, plus makes a good political impression of our decisiveness -- so let's just shut them, and screw those people with families or sweethearts or businesses on the other side of a border, or other serious reasons for travelling". Much less "screw even our own citizens stuck abroad somewhere".

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Are you saying Mike is a libertarian?

No. (tho' he said he has some "leanings")
I’m replying to Jason Flare’s (rhetorical?) question:
“... In what Utopia does someone taking responsibility for themselves mean that the fire dept might not put out their fire, or the highway dept might fail to plow the road in front of their house or the military fail to protect the nation...”
That those events might occur, in a libertarian utopia.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

All voters must be registered to vote (federally) in the United States.
Voters must provide proof of identity and residence when they register.
When you register to vote, or vote for the first time, in a federal election (Presidential or Congressional elections) in your state, you must prove who you are.
This is required under Federal law.

Your state may have separate ID requirements for voting by mail or in person.
If you've voted in New York before, registered in person, or provided ID at the time of registration, you don't need to show ID to vote.
In New York, officials compare voters’ physical appearances to descriptions included in their voter records.
About 20 US states have developed photo ID laws, requiring voters to show a piece of identification with a photo, in order to obtain a ballot at the polling station. These laws have been struck down, by the courts, in at least three states: Arkansas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

I think you may want to research why these voter ID requirements were struck down in these states (and maybe others), and what has happened since. Otherwise, your post leaves the reader with the impression that voter ID on its own is legally questionable. My information could be dated, but the last I looked into it the challenges and rulings over these laws were whether the state statutes provided adequate alternatives to traditional forms of photo ID like driver's licenses. I wasn't aware of any courts striking down such laws on the grounds that ID requirements themselves were legally suspect. Instead, they run afoul of the law if such ID requirements unreasonably burden someone's ability to vote who is otherwise eligible to vote. Happy to stand corrected if my information is outdated or incorrect.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GordMay

All voters must be registered to vote (federally) in the United States.
Voters must provide proof of identity and residence when they register.
When you register to vote, or vote for the first time, in a federal election (Presidential or Congressional elections) in your state, you must prove who you are.
This is required under Federal law.

Further to this, I looked up the election ID laws for NY. They're pretty thorough, with lots of checks and a trail that can be investigated. They're very close to the laws we use in Canada, and we're not awash in vote fraud.

People pointing to lack of "voter ID" are apparently ignorant of the above laws and procedures, and, deliberately or not, aiding and defending the ongoing GOP efforts to restrict and otherwise mess with voting rights. Some claim that fraud is possible if there isn't a "card", but then they apparently can't imagine what a 14 yr old could do with Photoshop and a colour printer.

These same people generally rail against unwarranted government intrusion and involvement... but are advocating for these extra "ID" regimes because of a hyped hypothetical? Oooh, but it could happen! That's a blueprint for fraud!

It's curious that SS our rights absolutist is willing to storm the ramparts over wearing a cloth mask, but seems to be a willing supporter of the efforts to restrict or limit the right to vote of some Americans.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by GordMay

No. (tho' he said he has some "leanings")
I’m replying to Jason Flare’s (rhetorical?) question:
“... In what Utopia does someone taking responsibility for themselves mean that the fire dept might not put out their fire, or the highway dept might fail to plow the road in front of their house or the military fail to protect the nation...”
That those events might occur, in a libertarian utopia.

Or they might not.

Correct?

[motion30]

Lake effect
It's easier to understand when you realize these people only do and talk about what the dear leader tells them to. For people who keep screaming about freedom, it is interesting that they only listen to one voice to get their direction

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Further to this, I looked up the election ID laws for NY. They're pretty thorough, with lots of checks and a trail that can be investigated. They're very close to the laws we use in Canada, and we're not awash in vote fraud.

People pointing to lack of "voter ID" are apparently ignorant of the above laws and procedures, and, deliberately or not, aiding and defending the ongoing GOP efforts to restrict and otherwise mess with voting rights. Some claim that fraud is possible if there isn't a "card", but then they apparently can't imagine what a 14 yr old could do with Photoshop and a colour printer.

These same people generally rail against unwarranted government intrusion and involvement... but are advocating for these extra "ID" regimes because of a hyped hypothetical? Oooh, but it could happen! That's a blueprint for fraud!

It's curious that SS our rights absolutist is willing to storm the ramparts over wearing a cloth mask, but seems to be a willing supporter of the efforts to restrict or limit the right to vote of some Americans.

Only a partisan would parrot the memo that the US is awash in voter fraud, just like the opposing partisan would recite the meme that efforts to require some sort of ID prior to voting is tantamount to voter suppression. Both sides are distorting the truth to help get their favored politicians elected, all at the expense of creating yet another wedge issue for people to divide themselves over. To say nothing about denigrating the all-important confidence people have to possess in their exercise of a critically important right.

Like most issues that we are being told we should divide ourselves over, there are practical solutions which would both reassure the public and also safeguard easy access to voting. But where's the fun (and campaign donations) in compromise when you can rally people to support one side at the expense of the other? Let's face it, hatred sells better than anything, and history has proven that demonizing the "other side" is always the most effective way of winning. Certainly easier than taking the trouble to actually understand what motivates people with differing ideas, namely the groundwork required to achieve consensus.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by motion30

Lake effect
It's easier to understand when you realize these people only do and talk about what the dear leader tells them to. For people who keep screaming about freedom, it is interesting that they only listen to one voice to get their direction

I suggest that it's most important that we all realize that we all have some dear leader that tells us to only listen to him.

And more important than most important, is to develop the habit of listening to our own 2nd in-charge leader (the guy on the other shoulder from our own dear leader as depicted in the arts), who is encouraging us to consider other possibilities than what our own dear leader is saying, most likely being equal to what your "opponent" is arguing in the first place. Helps us see both sides of the conflict. But, if the 'opponent in argument human' doesn't have the crystalline knowledge on board nor the required openness to new experience/typical intellectual engagement so as to actuate fluid intelligence traits/synthesize new knowledge....then, as the saying goes, we can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink (requiring some brainwashing work over time...).

This is not a concept/practice that comes natural or easy to a population raised (+/- bred for generations) to think in terms of "one correct and holy truth" (either stemming from religion or some Western philosophy love-in, and having nothing to do with 2+2=4 talk).

[atoll]

when voting fails
The following is a chronological list of notable heads of governments and heads of state deaths have resulted from assassination or execution.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_government

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Only a partisan would parrot the memo that the US is awash in voter fraud, just like the opposing partisan would recite the meme that efforts to require some sort of ID prior to voting is tantamount to voter suppression. Both sides are distorting the truth....

Well, there's still lots of parrots, but fewer than last week, anyway...

There's no amount of both-sidesism that will level-out the lopsidedness of the vote-suppression (ID, insufficient polling stations and long lineups, attempted postal restrictions) and now vote-overturning attempts. I'm certain that there are many things to blame Democrats for, but this ain't one.

I don't have to tell you what this all looks like from outside, but maybe it's news to others. Or maybe they simply don't care.

It's probably a long-shot given the US federal/state power arrangement, but a federal bipartisan effort to produce harmonized voting laws, and an arms-length voting commission to administer, might ensure fairness and remove voting as a partisan lever.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Are you saying Mike is a libertarian?

Nah, only a child can be a true libertarian. I'm just so far left I can see my right butt cheek. But if you must label me, call me a communist-libertarian .