"How about that as a younger, relatively healthy person (0-49, no significant comorbidities):
1. Your risk of dying of COVID extremely low"

    You are looking only at the individual here. Your younger, healthy, etc, etc person gets COVID, probably will survive, to be sure.
    But what about those around this person? Parents, Grandparents? Older co-workers? How will they fare?
    It is an issue beyond just the young. Prevent it in people, regardless, and COVID doesnt spread to others.

"winter of death for the unvaccinated"

    I would like to draw your attention to the Republicans who accused Democrats of manufacturing the increase in deaths amoung Republicans.
    The fact that those who died refused to get vaccinated because of the propaganda spread was quite beside the fact.
    Not to mention that many did die in general.

"cloth masks will stop you from getting it"

    No one said that. Strawman. They said cloth masks, while not as effective as N95 masks, will reduce the probability of COVID spreading.
    And they did reduce that probability.

"If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the IC unit, and you’re not going to die"

    Again, no one said that. They said the vaccine would reduce the probability of hospitalization, having to go to the ICU and of death.
    And it did.

"its spread by surface transmission" (1 in 10k cases, very hard to do, no you don't have to quarantine your mail for a week to not get COVID)

    In the early days, there was concern about surface transmission.
    Did anyone know? No, they didnt. So, you pillorying them over this shows you as a partisan hack.

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

    Covered above, but perhaps you thought it would look more important with more lines.

"This is why Republicans moderated positions in the study but Democrats did not"

    Republicans moderated their positions because they were further from reality.

"Their ideology isn't uniform by mere happenstance in the past few years but rather incorporates active rejection of moderation and opposition viewpoints."

    Do you really believe this? I going to suggest projection to you.

"Something happened somewhere around 2012 and fully solidified somewhere in the 2015-2016 period which essentially ended discourse and moderation."

    Yes, Republicans became more intractable.

"Democratic party leaders made public statements to the effect of it not being worthwhile to talk to the opposition in congress and still make such statements today."

    See above, there isnt any talking to some Republicans.
    Or why are we still debating if Trump won the 2020 election, among so many other things.

"This didn't just impact leadership though. I'm a more conservative leaning moderate independent and my wife was a semi-moderate liberal. We've known each other for decades, dated in high school and we've been married for over a decade now. She became so polarized in this window that my refusal to vilify Trump combined with my firearms positions had her half convinced I was some kind of secret domestic terrorist."

    Is it possible that *you* became polarized? That is my conclusion from your post.

"If her own mother hadn't died from heart complications within 72hrs of taking the vaccine and the total blackout of coverage from left-biased news on the issues hadn't occurred I'm not sure if I ever could have gotten through to her."

    Her mother dying may or may not have had to do with the vaccine.
    Correlation is not causation.
    There was no "left wing" "the vaccine is going to cure everyone without fail".
    There was lots of nonsense from "right wing" news sites saying that the vaccine would kill, kill, kill.
    If you are honest, you will admit it.

"Even so it took a long time to convince her she had to go beyond trusting leftwing fact check sites and leftwing news source 'bias rating' sites and actually review the headlines and articles on sites for herself to look for alignment with party positions and common phrases and taglines being repeated by known biased sources to determine the bias of content."

    And you do the same with "trusted right wing" "news" sites?
    Im sure you will say yes, and from the above, I dont believe it.

"We still disagree on many issues but that isn't a problem, because our reasons aren't regurgitated talking points being shared on social and mainstream media and we aren't closed to shifting our positions incrementally."

    We should all start from reality, as close as we know how to get.

"There are a lot of bright people in all the political camps, if your information and news isn't delivering bright and reasoned arguments from them then you aren't getting all the information you need to form your own individual position but rather are being led to a collective position."

    Completely agree.

There is a component of our psyche that gives rise to "fight or flight" responses.

Fox "news" et al design their news stories and special hosts with this in mind.
( to be sure, many news organizations seek the stories that will grab you, but not from "support this ideology" view )

They put out stories and foster hosts designed to enrage and engage their viewership.
The lizard brain ( in all of us ) responds to this, and in some cases begins to seek it.
https://insidescientific.com/f...

These "news" ( propaganda ) sites ( knowingly or unknowingly ) use this in their audience.
The audience is told to fear "the left".
How "the left" is the author of all troubles.
Only "the right" ( and only some of "the right" ( the others being "RINOs" ) ) can do other than evil.
The audience is told that only they ( the "news" organizations ) will tell them the truth, that they cannot trust other news.
Now they regard all other sources as biased.

And it works.

So many who claim to love America are ready to fight against it. And some have.
So many who say "law and order" support candidates who spew vengeful and hateful rhetoric.
So many who wrap themselves in the flag are ripping it to shreds.
So many who will support candidates who are clearly not worthy of public office.

Humans have a great ability to delude themselves. Perhaps they even feel heroic, cocooned within their dream.

But you see in the voting,
2020, Trump was rejected for a second term.
2022, The "Red Wave" predicted was muted.

There is a light. I hope.

"Not only does the Taiwan constitution claim to be the "real" government of China, but other countries like Mongolia as well."

Taiwan's constitution claims to be the real government of all of China, to be sure. Im not clear on how that invalidates my position.

Functionally, Taiwan is an independent nation. They have their own government and armed forces.
They used to be recognized by many other nations until the PRC started their bullying campaign.

"The US has been working overtime to repeat with China and Taiwan what it's been doing to Russia with Ukraine, for the same imperialist reasons"

Im not sure what you are trying to say. It sounds like you are blaming the US for the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and China and Taiwan.
If that is your assertion, I dont buy it.

Russia didnt have to invade Ukraine. Russian chose that.
I understand they believe they have some reasons why, but Ukraine wasnt just about to join NATO.
And now, Russia has the situation where there is a path to joining NATO for Ukraine, and Sweden and Finland are well on the way to joining.
If the US wanted conflict between Russia and Ukraine, why did they work publicly to make conflict more difficult in the lead up to the invasion?

China doesnt have to ramp up hostilities. The US has not been pushing for Taiwan to be recognized by itself or others.
Yes, Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan. Would not have been a story without all the lamentation and rhetoric from the PRC.
All that China has managed to do on this front is get our President to commit to defending Taiwan.

I find the "imperialist" point interesting. Let's say the US is just as "imperialistic" as you maintain.
Are not the actions of Russia and China imperialistic as well?

"the DOJ gave him blanket immunity from prosecution?"

Ah, no, they didn't. Hunter seemed to think he was granted that, and thus the deal fell apart.

Everything reported thus far indicates Hunter was probably selling himself as being a portal to his father.
There is nothing thus far indicating Joe Biden was cooperating in any way.
There are many claims, but no proof.

Find that, then you have something. I will wait.

Taiwan and the US seem to consider Taiwan an independent nation.

I think you mischaracterize this commitment to "One China".
If Taiwan really wanted unification with Mainland China, they could have it.
The US' stance is opposed to unification by force or coercion.

"Are they as willing to risk that considering how much it's given them and will continue to give them?"

Then why do they continue to push the issue? They could let it be for a while, nothing changes, Taiwan is still a question mark.
I dont expect them to have success in convincing the Taiwanese to merge peacefully, but as you note, it has been an issue for a long time now.

As we have increased trade with China, they have become more authoritarian, not less.

Conflict over Taiwan does seem likely. Conflict in general seems much more likely than at any time I can recall.
And we fund that via trade.

China demands more and more.
China was supposed to administer Hong Kong as a special region with some self government.
That fell apart pretty quick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

America is trading with an entity that has said and shown time after time that they are hostile to America.
The relationship is not stable due to this hostility, and all the trade in the world is not going to do anything other than give China more resources to act on their hostility.
Peace in the region would be easy to achieve if China would stop attempting to take everything from everyone in the region.
There is a reason that the Philippines and many others in the region are aligning with the US.

It is a Dyson sphere with holes that are spaced about 22 minutes apart.

I guess I dont.

Im not sure how Republicans went from "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts" to Alternative Facts all the time, everywhere.

I can see that they have, and I get why [ power, making liberals cry ].
I guess I took them at their word that they stood for truth and honor.

I am starting from the assumption that you are making an anti-Clinton, anti-Democrat post.
Further, I am assuming you are referencing the "Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act".
If I am wrong, please forgive me.

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was indeed signed into law by President Clinton.
So, you can be anti-Clinton, if you like. What I find funny is the reference to that family being "commie traitors".
President Clinton made a number of decisions that appear to be to be pretty conservative.
But perhaps you know something I dont.

Moving on.

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was introduced by
    Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas
    Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa
    Representative Thomas Bliley, Republican of Virginia

Notably, Representative John Dingle, Democrat of Michigan, during debate on this act said that banks would become too big to fail.
Initial voting in the House was "bipartisan" with Republicans splitting 205 to 16 against, Democrats splitting 138 to 69 against.
Initial voting in the Senate was not bipartisan, all Republicans voted for it, along with 1 Democrat. The rest of the Democrats voted against.
Reconciliation work purchased Democrat support by adding privacy and anti-red-lining provisions.

So, I am not seeing the justification for a specifically anti-Democrat position.

""Retain Control" they failed badly with."
I would argue they didnt intend to retain control.

"Ordinary Russian people do that all the time. But the president is an paranoid idiot."
True on both counts. But we still have to deal with the effects of ordinary Russians supporting ( to some degree ) that paranoid idiot.
How many ordinary Russians and Ukrainians have died?
How much have those ordinary Russians and Ukrainians suffered economically due to that paranoid idiot?

I am not discerning a point being made.

East Germany is indeed unified, again, with West Germany.

Russia controlled it as a Warsaw Pact nation from about the end of WWII.
Poland is indeed part of NATO, another nation controlled by Russia as a Warsaw Pact nation from about the end of WWII.
Along with others.

Is that your point? That Russia's aggression against and control of those nations leaves it feeling vulnerable and in need of retaking those territories?

Perhaps that is on them. I cant see a moral or ethical argument for allowing such.

To the best of my knowledge, no NATO country has invaded and retained another country or territory since the end of WWII.
The USSR invaded and retained Hungary in 1956.
The USSR fomented many troubles in many nations post WWII ( Vietnam and Korea featuring therein ).
The USSR invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968
The USSR invaded, but didnt succeed in Afghanistan in 1979.
You may argue "but look at it from their perspective".
OK, but look at it from the perspective of the West as well.
Each time the USSR added to it's territory, its fear of the West did not go down.
I suggest that adding all or parts of Ukraine to itself will not lead to elimination of aggression.

But indeed, the cold war is over.
Perhaps it is time for Russia to realize this and join the community of nations that are content to live within their own borders.