I'll start with the first point:

This demonstrates lack of imagination. These issues have been tackled and solved.

Let me give you an example: In WA State, ballots are mailed in using 2 envelopes: the inner envelope contains your anonymous ballot. The outer envelope has your name and address, and a place for your signature.

When signed ballots are received, the name and address (and signature if necessary) are checked against the list of registered voters. Your name is checked off as having voted, and the inner envelope is then put in the pile to be counted.

So whether you voted is recorded, but not how. The number of names recorded as having voted is checked against the number of votes actually counted.

You can go online later to see whether your vote has been counted.

There is a paper trail; there are paper ballots showing the actual votes and they are saved.

Anyone who is involved in the election can send observers to where the votes are marked off and tallied.

Using that system, it would take a rather large and involved conspiracy to cheat by a large amount.

I'm not claiming all places that have wanted to implement mail-in voting lately have such a system. I'm just saying that it does exist, and it is approximately as secure as in-person voting.

My own take is that anyone who is not comfortable keeping their own company has some serious issues to deal with.

Do I like being alone all the time? No.

Can I handle it, even for extended periods? Yes. It doesn't bother me even a little.

I think I'll sit back, drink a beer, and watch another movie. Or read a book.

No argument here.

Yes, there's a lot of politics involved.

This is ridiculous. Here's what the article claims the Oxford epidemiologist actually said:

Note: what he said there is not even remotely similar to "it just doesn't work".

I'm not aware of anyone who thought HCQ was a "cure" for already sick patients. It was supposed to be a preventative, to help prevent acute infection in the first place.

Sheesh. This whole thing is a clownshow.

I wouldn't say the "only" thing was cost+ contracting.

The whole contracting model was broken, and enslaved (or itself inslaving) the giant bureaucracy that was NASA.

NASA was ordered to straighten up and slim down its bloated, dysfunctional bureaucracy after that was deemed responsible for Challenger explosion in 1986, but there is no real evidence that it ever really did clean itself up.

Our latest successes were in large part due to another change at NASA, which emphasized private, and to some degree competitive, corporate efforts.

One of the benefits of that approach was bypassing much of that very overgrown NASA bureaucracy.

Earlier, it was a new Presidential administration which made the decision to divert money from the space program. What the summary does not mention is that it was planned to use that money on "social welfare" projects instead. The politicians said there was not enough money to do both, so they decided on the social programs instead.

Which is complete BS. Those b**ds in D.C. waste more money than the whole space program just about every day. It was never an either-or proposition.

However, that's all it is: a perception.

The reality is very different. Hell, I remember when they really WERE racist thugs. You would not have liked those days.

I was referring to the ones that had already become violent.

NYC is one great example. The mayor and governor have done nothing, and the looting and pillaging continue.

The count is now more than 18.

Not just in Minneapolis though.

By my last count, more than 18 people are dead now because of the riots.

Only a couple of them were police. And I don't think any of the others were killed by police. But I'm not positive.

And I'll give you one:

In those areas where the mayor or the governor or the police chief told the police to stand down, it did not do a damned bit of good.

The violence, looting, and destroying only increased.

Maybe that's why this "tin pot dictator" has not been sending in troops.

Correct. I referred only to the violent ones. And there have been more than enough of those.

Strangely enough, though there were angry people there, nobody was actually harmed, and no property was destroyed.

I don't see how that's even remotely a valid comparison.

What does that have to do with people destroying their own neighborhoods, and putting their own neighbors out of business?

Pretty strange response. One might almost think that's not even what this is all about.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

I said nothing about "angry protests". I specifically referred to looting and destroying.

And no, it is NOT normal to go destroy your own neighborhood because someone else did something wrong.