Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: Bob In PA on April 06, 2021, 01:11:55 PM
Phil: I know, but the worst that can happen with a voter ID is someone votes instead of you. 

One example of bad that can happen if someone hacks into a national health database is this: I announce I'm running for President. You hack into my records and discover that I had a certain type of hepatitis.

You put an ad on the TV stating that I'm a slime-bucket who probably used a dirty needle injecting illegal drugs and got hepatitis.  Now I have to explain away your accusation, regardless of whether it's true or false.

Bob

Someone can hack into a voter registration system and steal confidential personal info about a person.  Again, in your example, you have to trust that the system will prevail and that in the end it makes the lives of everyone better.  Yoru example is pretty extreme and if you are worried about extremes, then I think it crosses over to the unrealistic and becomes paranoia instead.  Do you know how much redundant medical costs there are because a doctor say in an Urgent Care examines you and takes an X ray and says you may have a crack in a bone in say your elbow joint, then you go to a major medical center like the Cleveland Clinic to meet with an orthopedic specialist and he does not have your X ray so he has to take another one. 

Quote from: Bob In PA on April 06, 2021, 12:48:35 PM
Phil: I don't think assigning each person registered with Social Security Administration a separate Voter ID number would have any of the problems you just outlined.  If you think of one, write back. 

Such numbers would be as "confidential" as the Social Security number each person already has.... one per person.... i.e., one man, one vote.

Knowing a person's Voter ID number would not have the privacy ramifications as snooping into a person's health records.  This, I think, is what people don't like about a national health database.

Bob

I agree 100% with you about that Bob, but that should also apply to national registration of medical info.  You can't trust one but not trust the other.  We have to trust it will remain confidential and not be used harmfully against them.   

Quote from: Ed Vette on April 06, 2021, 12:02:10 PM
Ok I can understand that thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the end of the day, it's about trust and many in today's Right do not trust.  The Right which is predominantly white middle/upper middle class think for example that they will lose out in their way of life to immigrants.  It is not a new theme.  The Capital Riots are not new to American History.  In the 1840s, native Protestants rioted against Irish Catholic immigrants.  In the early 1900s, the KKK rioted against Italian Catholics.  I was in a Starbucks in Savannah, Georgia one day a few years ago.  Two young adults, probably in their early 20s (man and woman) came in to get a cup of coffee and each was carrying a pistol strapped to their waist.  I went up to them and asked them why they felt the need to wear those guns inside the Starbucks.  They told me that they didn't trust if there was some sort of crime that they would be protected by the police or anyone so they were taking matters into their own hands.  That example perfectly describes the lack of trust among a huge segment of the population.  It's a genuine paranoia but it's a real problem.  Same thing with not trusting U.S. Government "databases."  They simply don't trust.   

Quote from: Ed Vette on April 06, 2021, 11:08:55 AM
Why would it be DOA? I'm a former Republican too now Independent although I have never voted down a party line.

I do not believe they would trust a national registration system because in general today's Right simply does not trust the actions of a government.  They'll think the Government will use this information in some insidious way against them.  It's the same reason, they didn't trust a national databank for individual healthcare information so all the patients have their medical history/info stored in one vast place that can be accessed by doctors when needed to evaluate a patient.  Think about how much easier that would be if you go to one physicial specialist not affiliated with say the doctor's you normally go to so he has no ability to see past X rays, MRIs, histories of physicals, etc.  All he can do is ask you questions unless you brought all that info which 99% of patients don't personally have.

Racism whether overt or subtle is insidious.  If a white person

Quote from: Bob In PA on April 05, 2021, 02:52:39 PM
Phil: Most politicians are only smart about 1 of these 2 things: leaders know how to raise money... followers know how to keep their mouths shut and do what they're told by leaders (so you get unqualified people).

There is a "lunatic fringe" in both political parties.  Sadly, it seems they have a lot of time (and money) on their hands, so politicians will do almost anything to get their grubby paws on all that money. 

Politicians love rile people up about the lunatics in the other party because then they don't have to tell you what they stand FOR (vote for me, not because I'm good/smart, but because the other guy is bad/dumb). 

Bob

FYI - I am not a lifelong Dem and have voted more Repub than Dem in my life.  That said, I don't see the similarity in "lunatic fringe" across both parties.  On the Dems side, I disagree vociferously with AOC as I think she's a young millennial who has zero clue about what it takes to be effective in Congress and her only skill to date is saying what's wrong.  I disagree with her and Bernie Sanders but that is a disagreement on policy.  That's a far cry from Marjorie Taylor Greene and her crazy theories or Lauren Bobert and her nonsense.  I am not aware of anyone on the Dems side preaching lasers from space though I could be wrong.  One thing I do believe in which is wrong on both parties is that power corrupts and I think either side can have members who break laws or let their power go to their heads or want to be President. 

Quote from: Bob In PA on April 05, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Phil: You "pre-answered" essentially the same question that I just directed to Larry (Painter).

It's interesting to me that we have at least two people here who went in that direction as they got older.

In your case it seems mostly it was your stance on the issues that changed (but also a like or dislike for various candidates).

Bob

Bob - I'm a giant believer that national public policy is extremely complicated so we need first and foremost really smart people in Congress.  Second, we need people whose motivation is serving the public and caring about the best interests of the U.S. and for humanity as well and not looking first and foremost at building their personal brande or someone whose only skill is saying everything is wrong or having beliefs that border on crazy.  I simply don't understand how anyone thinks some of these candidates are qualified.

When a conservative Republican in 1982 said, "Communism is a global threat" I felt you could agree or disagree with it, but even if you disagreed with it, you didn't think the person was crazy for thinking it as it was only a difference of opinion.  Now, it's I believe this but the other side believes in global cabal of Satan worshipping pedophiles is nuts.

Quote from: Slugs Narrows on April 05, 2021, 02:05:17 PM
The other side has similar issues.  JFK wouldn

Quote from: Painter on April 05, 2021, 01:26:21 PM
I hear you, Bob. While not really comparable except for "... no longer serving its original purpose." it does cause me to reflect on the fact that I was once a strong supporter of the no longer recognizable and now disgusting Republican Party which began putrefying even before Pyschobaby.

Cheers!

The Republican Party I have occasionaly voted for in the past was easy to recognize.  Guys like Jack Kemp advocating small government but a large defense and a strong stance against the Soviet Union was easy to say yes or no to versus the alternative offered up by the Dems.  The party of folks like George Will, who will always be considered by me to be the "oracle" of what the Republican Party was has now been replaced by fringe candidates who dropped out of high school to have a kid, own a bar and think they are qualified to understand complicated U.S. public policy but in reality are only talented at tweeting conspiracy theories or others who have a lust for media attention in spite of an academic pedigree (Yes I'm talking about Ted Cruz) or dancing Sarah Palin, is just sad.   

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 05, 2021, 12:38:49 PM
Paul,

I am sure you feel that your right to own firearms is a sacred right and that any infringement on that right has to be justified X2

Why do you feel that people's sacred right to vote can be needlessly infringed upon by single political party for political gain?

The important question is who would be restricted by these new laws and how do those potentially affected people vote?  If it's spread relatively evenly across the socio-economic/racial/eithnic universe no harm no foul, but if it doesn't affect say upper middle class married couple with two cars and able to move around easily and to/from their one job, but it does overly affect say someone who has to take two buses to work and works maybe 2 minimum wage jobs (like many poor people have to do), then that is deplorable.  Providing access means making it relatively easy for everyone. 

Rick - she will always be your wing-wife Giants football fan.  Peace to you and her.

Quote from: 4 Aces on August 22, 2020, 09:38:22 AM
The starting D seems to be coming along nicely.

You can't help but see the parallels to a typical New England D. Always appear short on Edge Rushers but pressure the QB well. The Giants don't have a front-line ER but they do have 4 who can play. Belichick has said his perfect D is the same 11 on the field able to handle every situation. Allows disguise. In order to do that, everyone must be versatile.

The Pats D always seems to be no-names: big, physical team-first grunt guys who play assignment football. You don't need All Pros to have a suffocating defense. It's 11 guys playing as 1.

I'm by no means projecting a great D but don't expect the embarrassment of last year. An "eat it" year with bad coaching staff + breaking in rookies and new players. This year the roster is stronger and more experienced, with key holes plugged. McKinney was a tremendous add - his ability at FS frees up the CBs, Peppers & Love to attack short. Graham (like Bill B.) plays a lot of man coverage - you need a great FS to do that. The Pats paid McCourty a boatload for a reason. Last year, they had to protect Old Man Bethea deep. This year, the 3 S package can be the engine driving the D, a la 2011.

Gettleman has built this thing inside/out - the middle of the field should be tough-sledding, run or pass. Similar to how he built that Panthers D.

Having safeties who really are legit tweeners between LBs and CBs and who can hit like LBs but cover more like CBs will allow them to blanket the field.  I like a 3 safety D a lot especially since I see our LBs as no more than adequate.  I think our secondary will be fine.  Darnay Holmes and Julian Love will play multiple positions and the loss of Baker will not be as impactful as many here feel.

I have not read a single doctor who has said, "COVID-19 is not very serious."  I have heard a bunch of non-physicians say it is not as serious as the media has made it to be."  Hmmm, which group am I going to believe, the ones who actually went to medical school or the ones who didn't?

There are days I wake up and sometimes wish significant influencers of this view would catch the damn thing and experience the hardships to maybe change the view of these people. 

If a later drafted DT like Ryan Glasgow becomes very good, then yes, he made a mistake, but as of now, no

You're rolling Bama as you are right that he is probably a 4th or at best 3rd option.  Why trade up and lose a pick for that?