No. We can’t talk about whether climate change is real. There’s an overwhelming amount of evidence proving it’s happening. Where do we draw the line in your world? Do you suffer all the fools who don’t believe in gravity too? How about geocentrism? Flat earthers?

There’s no line at Covid. I’m saying there should be a line at hard sciences and questions that are verifiable. We can discuss whether gravity exists but it’s just wasted breath if neither one of us knows all that much about gravity.

You totally misunderstood what I suggested. Your statement that we can’t discuss anything proves it.

There are a myriad of things we can discuss. Politics, religion, whether Kirk or Picard was better. None of these are provably right or wrong. However, if someone was dispensing medical advice or legal advice, I would hope you’d talk to a real expert. This is the same. I’m not qualified to determine what is right in regards to Covid’s origin so I listen to the consensus of experts.

The possible origins should be discussed. By experts. What kind of discussion are you looking for? I’m not a bioweapons expert. Are you? What possible conclusion can we come to that actual experts might not have considered?

I just see this idea that everyone’s viewpoint is equivalently valid everywhere and it drives me crazy. This is a scientific question. Real experts study this stuff their entire lives. The one guy with a Ph.D. in Microbiology has an opinion that’s worth more than a million random idiots with a keyboard and internet. Maybe instead of coming to our own conclusions, we listen.

Can you give me a source from CNN/MSNBC/NYT where the meat market origin was created to cover up for Fauci? Your entire premise, save the idea that a lab “might” have been the source, is all conspiracy theory and not at all consensus.

My proposal would be to have more tiers of capital gains that would incentivize long term investments. And raise the rate on short term gains. That would also reduce some insider trading if the pay off was lower short term. But I’m just an armchair economist so there’s probably some terrible consequence to this plan I can’t see.

I think you’re getting down voted for two reasons.

1. OP’s comment didn’t state anything factual. It was rude to accuse him of attempting to “propagate incorrect information.”

2. You’re lumping together two very different types of spending and it feels like you’re making a disingenuous argument. The vast majority of spending you’re talking about is Social Security/Medicare which has received near constant increases. Welfare programs on the other hand have been under attack since the 90s. I can say that Social Security, Medicare, and the FAA together make up almost half the budget but it doesn’t make a good argument for cutting the FAA.

All that said, I do think you make a good point that there’s other programs to look at. Maybe we can cut the military budget while also looking at saving money on Medicare.

It’s just a hotspot. It’s probably no more or less secure than any other hotspot.

On point 2, the individual mandate was repealed in 2018. There’s no federal penalty for not having insurance.