chasfh

Who knows, maybe Trump gets his wish and they bring in Pence after all.

Selective data is. Brah.

Bunker doesn’t like Trump tho

Said nobody ever.

Anecdotes deal in examples and not data, so, yeah, anecdote.

Boris should have taken a “you're field” gig on ITV.

I’d be surprised if there weren’t a campaign of records destruction, however half-assed it might be. It lines right up with refusing to cooperate with subpoenas and lying about things in plain sight.

Well, he certainly can’t condemn the people who vote for him, can he?

Republicans caused all of it.

We were talking in generalities, but whatever, cool anecdote, brah.

Cases are starting to drop and should continue to do so very quickly. I see by the CDC's estimation that 87% of all adults have had at least one shot, 72.5% are "fully vaccinated", and 56% have been boosted. Beyond that, there are several more percentage points we can add to these numbers that are people not vaccinated who have had COVID. I seem to remember learning way back when that COVID herd immunity would be achieved once 70% of adults obtain the COVID antibodies. Looks like we've passed that benchmark and then some. So, I'm gonna say it: in my opinion, it's time to do away with the blunt force object that is restrictions for the mass population and declare the country open again. No more mask requirements in public, and no more proof of COVID tests in order to move about and do whatever your business is. At a certain point, I—someone who did it right by getting tripled vaxxed specifically so I could lead a normal life—should not be held responsible for protecting the health of those who refuse to protect themselves by having my liberty restricted in the same way theirs rightfully should be. As for vaccinated populations who are still vulnerable to major problems from COVID, I think we've also just about gotten to the point where we are going to have to trust people who are routinely around such vulnerable populations to take greater care around them. I don't think society is well-served by severely restricting the 75% or so people who are both vaccinated and don't spend time around vulnerable populations, on the off chance that we can utilize such restrictions to protect the vulnerable people around those remaining 25% of vaccinated people. I think two years in, practically everyone who should hear the message about how to protect the vulnerable around them has already heard it, and many times over. And, of course, if the militantly unvaxxed don't care enough to protect themselves, I don't believe I should care to have my liberty to breathe freely restricted to protect them. And they have been and will continue to gleefully ignore the rules anyway, so what's the point anymore? I believe masking at this point should be strictly voluntary, and I do believe a substantial portion of the population will continue to do so anyway (e.g., my wife). I'd guess 10% to 20% will continue to wear the mask, at least at first. Some people like the mask—even if it's not helping what it's supposed to help, it's like a security blanket to some, and god bless their hearts. They're of course free to keep doing so. But requiring 100% of the population, including the 72.5% of vaccinated population, to carry on with the same restrictions we had 21 months ago is increasingly becoming bad policy. I understand that tens of thousands more people will die of COVID before it's all over, but on the other hand, tens of thousands more will die regardless of whether we have the blunt force masking restrictions on 100% of the population in place, or a more surgical set of targeted restrictions in its place. We'll have basically the same outcome either way, and if that's the case, then what are we trying to accomplish here? I'll continue to wear the mask as required, but I do think it's time to finally move beyond the blanket requirement for good.

Yes, that was the joke, because Bunker used "who's" in place of whose.

Could he do that without needing 38 states to ratify? Because I can think of at least 13 states (VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, IL, CA, OR, WA, HI) which would never, ever do that. Or do you mean by extraconstitutional dictatorial means?

Twenty-first-Century Immigrants and their families will learn English in the same manner our own immigrant families from non-English-speaking countries did: the adults who come over may or may not learn Englsh and have heavy accents if they do; the children who come over will definitely learn English but probably have accents of varying weights; and the children of immigrants born here will grow up speaking English like a native, because to be a cool American kid, you have to speak English and like American things. It's always been like that, and it always will be like that.

Yeah, it's Americans' job to spread disease and commit crime!

When conservatives talk about "identity politics" they usually mean enabling uppity blacks, but they could be talking about other races, women, and teh gays, too. "Identity" implies immutability.

Fun fact: when Italy became a German puppet state during the last couple years of WWI, the country was renamed The Italian Social Republic.

You’re loss.

Unserious people in positions of power and influence suck.

I see it less as liberals’ obsession with identity politics than I do as liberals pushing back on conversatives’ traditional obsession with maintaining white male exclusivity in politics. This is not unlike saying affirmative action is bad because all it does is give jobs to unqualified coloreds because of their identity, when the point is to open up positions to highly qualified people of color who’d been completely shut out from them before based on their identity.

It’s getting to the point that if he and his acolytes get elected and they overturn our democracy, it’ll be our own damn fault, because he’ll have spent years telling us they were going to do just that, and we will have not stopped them.

I don't disagree with the first part, necessarily, but by the same token, I don't think what Biden said or is doing about it is beyond any pale. I think there was value, and not just political value, in making the promise to an historically underrepresented group of people, within which there are surely hundreds of candidates who qualify at least at the level of Clarence Thomas. You see Biden's strategy here as a net negative, and that's your prerogative.

Some things don't need to be said flat out for reasonable people to understand that it's true. We could all clearly see what Bush and McCain were doing.

Did they have to to qualify?

Lol “Americans for White Government”