Joe Biden Innocent or Not Guilty

Head Idiot wrote:Charity and people solving the problem themselves. As the world operated for millennia before.

If it worked so well, then why does the problem still exist?  Charity and the pulling of bootstraps should have ended poverty before the government had to get involved, shouldn't it have?  

Head Idiot wrote:It has however created generations of people beholden to the state who frequently vote to further expand the government to "fix" the problem.

And now we are getting to the root for why some people wish to suppress the vote.  People who benefit from the government want to vote in such a way that would keep their benefit?  But only people beholden to the state would do that, right?  No way that the 1% would do such a thing.  They vote completely altruistically.
Or is it that they see that they would consistently LOSE an honestly contested vote and have to rig the system?  But then, that is okay because of all the liberal proven election fraud that happens.

You can't be for something when your side does it and against the same thing when others do it. At least non-hypocritically, you can't.

Head Idiot wrote:

Huck wrote:Ok.  Then you have the right to avail yourself of the democratic process and vote for leaders who will end that practice.  

What would you propose as an alternative if the government dropped out of that role?

I do.

Charity and people solving the problem themselves. As the world operated for millennia before.

Creating a system to redistribute wealth has not solved the problem. Dedicating over 50% of the nation's budget to this "right" hasn't begun to move the needle. The "war on poverty" started in 1968 hasn't dropped the problem more than 5% in 50+ years.

It has however created generations of people beholden to the state who frequently vote to further expand the government to "fix" the problem.

Like people who work as prison guards?

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

Of course its a problem. Everyone wants to win...

So it is about winning, not about getting it right. Okay.

I thought we were talking about picking a president?

We were.  Point is, picking the president is not the end all, be all.  Those in the minority may not get their way with the presidential selection, but that does not mean they aren't represented or under represented, as most arguments in favor of the EC imply.

i agree, the EC could use some updating. many of our voting systems need some updating (i.e. voter ID; signature verification; citizenship, residency & eligibility checks)

How about making voting mandatory? Like jury duty?

would folks sell their votes?
Australia does it. they (small) fine folks who don't vote

Are people in America selling their votes now?

How widespread is the problem of vote selling in Australian elections?

general maximus wrote:

So much of the country is not diametrically opposed politically, but rather economically.  Unfortunately there is just so much blood in a turnip.  

Hopefully the next President can get some movement on social programs that actually work instead of perpetuating our poor into generational poverty like so many of the last misguided Presidents.  

The economics and politics of the situation go hand in hand. As a country our perception of the government has changed from protector to provider. We used to rely on the government to protect our jobs so we had an income, now we rely on the government to protect our income until we find a job. This change in perception is slowly moving toward becoming our reality.

Many of the current social programs have been obvious failures and do very little to actually solve the problems these people are experiencing. Instead of just giving money away to help these people obtain their needs these programs need to be more focused on helping them become gainfully employed or create gainful employment opportunities in areas where there are not gainful employment is not available.

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

Of course its a problem. Everyone wants to win...

So it is about winning, not about getting it right. Okay.

I thought we were talking about picking a president?

We were.  Point is, picking the president is not the end all, be all.  Those in the minority may not get their way with the presidential selection, but that does not mean they aren't represented or under represented, as most arguments in favor of the EC imply.

i agree, the EC could use some updating. many of our voting systems need some updating (i.e. voter ID; signature verification; citizenship, residency & eligibility checks)

How about making voting mandatory? Like jury duty?

would folks sell their votes?
Australia does it. they (small) fine folks who don't vote

Are people in America selling their votes now?

How widespread is the problem of vote selling in Australian elections?

i would guess some do, yes. when voting is mandated and people don't care to vote, would they sell it?

i don't know.

would a mandate of voting be considered an unnecessary law?

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

Of course its a problem. Everyone wants to win...

So it is about winning, not about getting it right. Okay.

I thought we were talking about picking a president?

We were.  Point is, picking the president is not the end all, be all.  Those in the minority may not get their way with the presidential selection, but that does not mean they aren't represented or under represented, as most arguments in favor of the EC imply.

i agree, the EC could use some updating. many of our voting systems need some updating (i.e. voter ID; signature verification; citizenship, residency & eligibility checks)

How about making voting mandatory? Like jury duty?

would folks sell their votes?
Australia does it. they (small) fine folks who don't vote

Are people in America selling their votes now?

How widespread is the problem of vote selling in Australian elections?

would a mandate of voting be considered an unnecessary law?

In light of all these allegations being made about how corrupt and fraudulent the current American electoral system is? I think not.

Huck wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:Charity and people solving the problem themselves. As the world operated for millennia before.

If it worked so well, then why does the problem still exist?  Charity and the pulling of bootstraps should have ended poverty before the government had to get involved, shouldn't it have?  

Head Idiot wrote:It has however created generations of people beholden to the state who frequently vote to further expand the government to "fix" the problem.

And now we are getting to the root for why some people wish to suppress the vote.  People who benefit from the government want to vote in such a way that would keep their benefit?  But only people beholden to the state would do that, right?  No way that the 1% would do such a thing.  They vote completely altruistically.
Or is it that they see that they would consistently LOSE an honestly contested vote and have to rig the system?  But then, that is okay because of all the liberal proven election fraud that happens.

You can't be for something when your side does it and against the same thing when others do it.  At least non-hypocritically, you can't.

1. Some people just don't want to help themselves. They want someone else tk do it for them. I don't think you could argue this. Those that genuinely want to remove themselves from that situation have several non government avenues to pursue and many do. There is just a general % of the population, no matter the governmental involvement, that just don't want to do anything.

2. No doubt the 1% vote to protect their interests. They kind of have to. The other 99% are trying to take it from them. I don't know when, as a country, we suddenly thought other people's stuff should be ours.

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

Huck wrote:Ok.  Then you have the right to avail yourself of the democratic process and vote for leaders who will end that practice.  

What would you propose as an alternative if the government dropped out of that role?

I do.

Charity and people solving the problem themselves. As the world operated for millennia before.

Creating a system to redistribute wealth has not solved the problem. Dedicating over 50% of the nation's budget to this "right" hasn't begun to move the needle. The "war on poverty" started in 1968 hasn't dropped the problem more than 5% in 50+ years.

It has however created generations of people beholden to the state who frequently vote to further expand the government to "fix" the problem.

Like people who work as prison guards?

Hey, any welfare recipient is more than welcome to apply. They're begging for officers, especially minorities, in facilities like Stateville, Pontiac and Dixon. 50k/year to start with only a HS diploma necessary.

Problem is, no one's applying.

tps wrote:in the other article he says he's ok living only until 75, he's kinda showing his cards about life expectancy, granted, his life.  I'm not a mind reader, just my opinion. 

i do agree with the idea that i don't want to be bedridden for the last part of my life.

I don't see where he says he's ok living only until 75.  That implies he doesn't want to live past 75, and he isn't saying that at all.

Look, this article you linked refers to another article in The Atlantic that he wrote entitled "Why I hope to die at 75."  In the article you linked, he is asked, "Q. But it’s called 'Why I hope to die …'  A. As you probably know better than everyone else, it’s editors that choose titles and not authors."   Indeed, the title of the article you linked is entitled, "A doctor and medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living."  He didn't write that title.  The author of the article didn't write that title.  An editor wrote it, and it was written with the sole intention to be eye catching and entice readership.

Emanuel is not saying in the article that you linked that he wants to die at 75, and neither is he saying that life after 75 is not worth living.   He is ONLY saying that he does not want to take extraordinary measures to prolong his life past that age.

ramblinman wrote:

tps wrote:in the other article he says he's ok living only until 75, he's kinda showing his cards about life expectancy, granted, his life.  I'm not a mind reader, just my opinion. 

i do agree with the idea that i don't want to be bedridden for the last part of my life.

I don't see where he says he's ok living only until 75. That implies he doesn't want to live past 75, and he isn't saying that at all.

Look, this article you linked refers to another article in The Atlantic that he wrote entitled "Why I hope to die at 75." In the article you linked, he is asked, "Q. But it’s called 'Why I hope to die …' A. As you probably know better than everyone else, it’s editors that choose titles and not authors." Indeed, the title of the article you linked is entitled,
"A doctor and medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living." He didn't write that title. The author of the article didn't write that title. An editor wrote it, and it was written with the sole intention to be eye catching and entice readership.

Emanuel is not saying he wants to die at 75, and neither is he saying that life after 75 is not worth living. He is ONLY saying that he does not want to take extraordinary measures to prolong his life past that age.

My intention was to comment on the method of vaccine distribution. Using age vs average life span as a metric. You gotta remember, you're dealing with a dumb hick.

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

Of course its a problem. Everyone wants to win...

So it is about winning, not about getting it right. Okay.

I thought we were talking about picking a president?

We were.  Point is, picking the president is not the end all, be all.  Those in the minority may not get their way with the presidential selection, but that does not mean they aren't represented or under represented, as most arguments in favor of the EC imply.

i agree, the EC could use some updating. many of our voting systems need some updating (i.e. voter ID; signature verification; citizenship, residency & eligibility checks)

How about making voting mandatory? Like jury duty?

would folks sell their votes?
Australia does it. they (small) fine folks who don't vote

Are people in America selling their votes now?

How widespread is the problem of vote selling in Australian elections?

would a mandate of voting be considered an unnecessary law?

In light of all these allegations being made about how corrupt and fraudulent the current American electoral system is? I think not.

How does mandating voting fix voter fraud? Remember, dumb hick over here.

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

Of course its a problem. Everyone wants to win...

So it is about winning, not about getting it right. Okay.

I thought we were talking about picking a president?

We were.  Point is, picking the president is not the end all, be all.  Those in the minority may not get their way with the presidential selection, but that does not mean they aren't represented or under represented, as most arguments in favor of the EC imply.

i agree, the EC could use some updating. many of our voting systems need some updating (i.e. voter ID; signature verification; citizenship, residency & eligibility checks)

How about making voting mandatory? Like jury duty?

would folks sell their votes?
Australia does it. they (small) fine folks who don't vote

Are people in America selling their votes now?

How widespread is the problem of vote selling in Australian elections?

would a mandate of voting be considered an unnecessary law?

In light of all these allegations being made about how corrupt and fraudulent the current American electoral system is? I think not.

How does mandating voting fix voter fraud? Remember, dumb hick over here.

Well, the devil is in the details, of course.

But I would imagine that it would be much easier to control and administer elections if officials knew in advance who the voters are.

For the whole voting thing, why not just have people text their vote like in American Idol?

1. Send a text message to register your phone connected to your address.
2. Set the software so you can only vote once
3. You could easily track votes through phone records.
4. If someone votes more than once send them a fine.

19delta wrote:How about making voting mandatory? Like jury duty?

George Carlin is rolling over in his grave at those words. Wait to about two thirds of the way through to see how Carlin justifies not voting.

ramblinman wrote:

19delta wrote:How about making voting mandatory? Like jury duty?

George Carlin is rolling over in his grave at those words.  Wait to about two thirds of the way through to see how Carlin justifies not voting.

Seen it many times. He's the greatest.

OSUBucks wrote:
Folks in nursing homes and frontline medical personnel will be first. Folks 65 and older will be vaccinated before younger people. Also it's not IF Biden is President. He will be living in the White House January 20. All Trump is doing is tarnishing his legacy with his current behavior. I've got a clean conscience knowing that I never voted for that SOB.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-taps-government-insiders-for-transition-aid-as-trump-balks/ar-BB1aSZbU

According to this study on the Flu Vaccine, this might not do much for the elderly.  

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/flu-vaccines-may-not-decrease-hospitalizations-and-death-among-elderly-study-suggests-it

https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200302/flu-vaccination-does-not-reduce-hospitalizations-death-in-older-adults

Who woulda thunk
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/biden-covid-advisor-says-us-lockdown-of-4-to-6-weeks-could-control-pandemic-and-revive-economy.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

tps wrote:Who woulda thunk
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/biden-covid-advisor-says-us-lockdown-of-4-to-6-weeks-could-control-pandemic-and-revive-economy.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

Where's the borrowed money coming from to pay for those wages?

My guess is Joe's gonna hit up China like Obama did.

Head Idiot wrote:1. Some people just don't want to help themselves. They want someone else tk do it for them. I don't think you could argue this. Those that genuinely want to remove themselves from that situation have several non government avenues to pursue and many do. There is just a general % of the population, no matter the governmental involvement, that just don't want to do anything.

2. No doubt the 1% vote to protect their interests. They kind of have to. The other 99% are trying to take it from them. I don't know when, as a country, we suddenly thought other people's stuff should be ours.

1.  I also couldn't argue that people like Trump take advantage of loopholes in the tax code because it works to their advantage but I can't judge everybody on the CHANCE that they try to game the system.  But people are comfortable judging those in poverty for gaming the system because they have no idea who actually is and they have a feeling of superiority to them since they aren't in the same situation.

2.  I don't know either.  When was the first time Native American land was confiscated?  When did we as a country ever NOT think other people's stuff should be confiscated and redistributed?  The only difference has ever been in who benefitted. You are okay with one segment benefitting, but not another.  Why is that?

Those who cheat the system suck whether rich or poor. Someone should find who is doing it, get proof, and prosecute, rather than complaining about the potential there is for cheating.

Kind of like how Trump should find those who commit voter fraud, get proof, and deal with it rather than tweeting and filing quick-to-be-thrown-out lawsuits.

Teetime wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

tps wrote:Who woulda thunk
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/biden-covid-advisor-says-us-lockdown-of-4-to-6-weeks-could-control-pandemic-and-revive-economy.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

Where's the borrowed money coming from to pay for those wages?

My guess is Joe's gonna hit up China like Obama did.

Where did Trump borrow all his deficit spending money?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/business/coronavirus-stimulus-money.html

Just the 2 trillion we spent this spring, but I can't imagine we went to China for it with Trump.

Teetime wrote:

tps wrote:

19delta wrote:In light of all these allegations being made about how corrupt and fraudulent the current American electoral system is? I think not.

How does mandating voting fix voter fraud? Remember, dumb hick over here.

There really isn’t any voter fraud.

Just allegations.

How do we stop the allegations?

Is that really a question from someone who identifies politically from the Left?

We have spent the last 3.5 years and some beyond that throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks.

The modus operandi of much of the left has become "Cancel Culture" If we cannot agree upon that, we have no hope in having a rational conversation going forward.

Unfortunately, I think my question was rhetorical in nature.. Hell, our little red and green marks are a microcosm of that. Admittedly my mind is very closed about some of these issues we type about, so my hypocrisy also exists. But, I want to be able to defend my position on said issues, because if I cannot defend that position, then I need to evaluate if that should be my position.

tps wrote:My intention was to comment on the method of vaccine distribution.  Using age vs average life span as a metric.

Yeah, I saw that comment. Then you posted a separate post seven minutes later which was more to cast doubt on Emanuel's ethics than on his proposed method of method of vaccine distribution. In that later post, you said, "He also thinks life isn't worth living after 75." That was it for your commentary, plus you posted another link. It was that later post that I have been commenting on; not so much the vaccine distribution method post.

tps wrote:You gotta remember, you're dealing with a dumb hick.

Thanks for the reminder, but it really isn't necessary.