1) Elections are different. Lots of people bank, shop and socialize online -- putting their money and personal details at potential risk of theft or other exploitation. But elections are unique for two reasons: They are anonymous and irreversible. Aside from party caucuses and conventions, virtually all U.S. elections use secret ballots and polling places designed for privacy. That protects people from being blackmailed or bribed to vote a certain way -- but it also means that, barring an advance in the technology, voters have no way to verify that their ballots were correctly counted or challenge the results. That's far different from a consumer's ability to contest a fraudulent credit card purchase, which depends on their financial institution linking their activity to their identity.
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.
He said the preliminary results from RECOVERY, which was a randomised trial, were now quite clear: hydroxychloroquine does not reduce the risk of death among hospitalised patients with COVID-19.
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.
There's a long time and growing public perception that police are both racist and violent thugs.
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.
You're not wrong, but: not all of the protests were violent.
Correct. I referred only to the violent ones. And there have been more than enough of those.
"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira