I said that I know about this because I had a close friend die due to our dangerous roads. Learn to read.

This is a systematic review of studies on the effectiveness of speed cameras: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/full

Activists who want to reduce road fatalities.

People with close friends who have died on our dangerous roads who have researched how we can make them safer.

Those are the people who are likely to cite studies on these topics. I fall into the second category.

Studies have consistently shown that speed camera enforcement reduces driver speed.

But I'm sure you'll deny any scientific evidence that you disagree with as propaganda.

You can continue to believe everyone who disagrees with you is some evil lizard person. Have fun on your flat earth.

I'd like them to be in permanent fixed locations. But this bill was a compromise to get them only in work zones.

And cops are insanely expensive, while camera's are relatively cheap. It seems insane to make the government hire cops to do this work when an automatic camera can do it more effectively. I'd rather our police be doing actual police work trying to solve crimes, not doing the work a camera can do.

And cops stopping people for speeding can lead to tragic consequences, for both the people stopped and rarely for the cops themselves. I'd much rather get a ticket from a camera than a fresh recruit trigger happy cop pulling me over.

The vast majority of people who own a home also own a car. The property tax is going to go up in almost equal proportion to the amount of money you save in motor vehicle tax savings.

It does negatively impact the people who don't own a car. But I think that can be worth the savings we get from simplifying the tax system by eliminating the motor vehicle tax system

I think we should just elminate the car tax and raise property taxes. We would be in the same place, but it would simplify paying and administering property taxes. It isn't a tax cut, but simply revenue neutral tax reform.

I'm for that, but this is not a scientific poll. It is not a random sample of CT residents.

Wilton is building some housing, which is good, but the town government of Wilton is notoriously anti-growth and anti-more homes.

90% of the land in Wilton requires that homeowners have at least 2 acres of land for each home. They also have been blocking the expansion of their sewer system to allow for denser developments near their train stations, even when developers are willing to pay the entire cost of extending that sewer line.

Wilton doesn’t simply need “affordable” housing, but housing for the people that ASML is hiring without those employees needing to displace current residents in order to move in. Developers desperately want to build these homes and can make a big profit by building them. But Wilton blocks them, so new ASML hires either need to displace current residents (driving up rents and home prices) or make excessively long commutes making traffic worse for everyone.

It gives off strong cult vibes and is definitely not my cup of tea. But they largely seem to be harmless rich weirdos.

It is about allowing pharmacists to do this. If they don’t want to they don’t have to, but they are likely to be able to make more of a profit if they are able to do this so I would expect some pharmacies to start to offer this out of self interested greed

Not a fan of those republicans, but that is what every proposed bill always looks like. Proposed bills are filed by individual lawmakers, not by committees. Committee Bills are what actually become law, but it is normal for them to be based on the barebones concepts that are in proposed bills.

Those Republicans represent seats that Biden won quite heavily. 61% of Fazio’s district voted for Biden, and 53% of Somer’s district. So in order to win they both need to win over a substantial number of Biden voters, and they do that by taking these kinds of positions.

There is a question of which is better. They could configure it so that the taxes that go up disproportionately affect wealthier people, so that poorer and middle class people come out ahead. But I seriously doubt that is what they would propose.

And there is some merit to having a consumption tax on electricity. We want people to be incentivized to save on energy, and taxing energy consumption rewards energy saving investments. While income tax does not incentivize any societal beneficial behavior.

When the unemployment rate is low, like it currently is, colleges like WCSU typically struggle. There are a lot of marginal college students who weigh the choice between going, or continuing to go, to college and getting a job, and right now they can pretty easily get a decent paying job. So many of them are going to decide to take a job instead of going to college.

You can see in the article that enrollment peaks from 2008 to 2012 and then declined as the economy improved.

These colleges need to plan for this cycles. When there is an economic downturn and enrollment skyrockets they should not expect that to continue indefinitely or attribute those numbers to the universities performance. And when those enrollment numbers crater when there is a 3.7% unemployment rate then they should not assume that is the permanent state of affairs.

Exactly, we need to get the bus services to be so good that people with cars will occasionally choose to take the bus. Or so that taking the bus is not a huge hinderance for single car multi-driver households. If taking the bus occasionally wasn't so much more difficult and didn't take so much more time those households would be less likely to decide to buy a second car.

We are legally obligated to pay past pension obligations. We have signed contracts with workers laying out how much they would get in pensions, and it would be blatant theft to unilaterally stop paying the pension obligations we owe.

Not paying the pension obligations would be the equivalent of just refusing to pay our debt obligations to banks and bondholders. We can't legally just decide that we are no longer going to pay back the bond holders, and we can't legally not pay the pensioners.

CT past pensions were definitely too generous, especially all those tier 1 pensions that went to 1997 and the tier 2 pensions that went until 2011. But CT can only negotiate pensions for new employees. Currently new employees get tier 4 pensions, which are not at all generous. If we reduce those pensions further we will have to offer higher pay to new employees to attract people to those jobs, and CT is already having a hard time filling all the open positions in the state government (I don't have a strong position on if we should go with higher pay lower pensions or lower pay higher pensions).

The biggest problem than the pension amounts was that CT didn't save their actuarily required amount to actually pay for those pension obligations upfront, so we now have a massive portion of pension obligations that we never saved for that we need to pay.

CT is on a path towards paying down our past pension debt. So long as responsible legislatures and Governors are elected we will continue to pay about the same dollar amount until 2048 (which will gradually reduce it's amount as a percentage of the total budget) and after that we will be able to pay significantly less as we will have paid back all of our unpaid for pension obligations, and future payments will be for only pension benefits earned that year. Lamont has put us on this path, unpaid for tax cuts that Republicans proposed would accomplish the opposite.

At no point did she say that the vote tallies were really in her favor. She said that unfair election meddling by the FBI and the Russians harmed her campaign and caused to vote to go against her. At no point did she suggest that she should have been installed as President even though the electoral college voted against her.

In no way was that an attempt to overthrow a sitting president and end democracy. Which is exactly what Trump tried.

NY gerrymander was incorrectly thrown out by their supreme court which decided the text of the statute did not matter and that they should be able to draw a Republican favoring map.

Blue states do gerrymander, and should gerrymander to counter Republican gerrymanders. But far fewer blue states gerrymandered compared to red states. If only red states gerrymander then Republicans could win the house even if Dems get 53% of the vote.

The only blue state gerrymanders that are actually the maps this year are in Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Massachusetts (where it is nearly impossible to draw an R district anyway). That accounts for 41 seats in the House. There are 173 seats that are gerrymandered by Republicans.

The big blue states of California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and New Jersey all were either drawn by independent commissions, both parties, or were drawn by courts.

If New York's gerrymander had gone through, as it should have, there would only be 4 Republican seats, while there will now likely be 7-10 Republican seats. And they didn't even go for a full gerrymander, they could have gone for a fairly absurd looking 2R map.

It would not be difficult to draw a California gerrymander that has 0 Republican seats and is VRA compliant (although most D drawn gerrymanders would likely have 5 Republicans). But because they have an independent commission there will likely be 10-12 Republicans elected in California.

Cite an example of her saying the 2016 election was stolen.

On January 6th 2021 something much worse than the riot occurred, 147 Republicans in the House and Senate voted to turn America into a fascistic dictatorship by overturning the clear election results.

These people are traitors to our country. They attempted to treasonously end our system of free and fair elections and replace it with our government with an unelected ruler. These are the people who George Logan is choosing the affiliate and align himself with. I do encourage you to do your own research and I understand that it sounds absurd, because it is absurd that so many of our elected officials would do that. But it is what they did, and it is who George Logan has clearly sided with.

Hillary Clinton never denied that Trump won the electoral college. She never tried to overthrow the results and install herself as the unelected dictator, which is precisely what Trump did try to do.

There was an attempt to legally impeach Trump. That is within our constituent. But facts don't matter to fascists like you. Go to China or Russia you bootlicking, dictator worshipping, fascist. You clearly despise America and everything that we stand for.

Here is what a real Democratic gerrymander of CT looks like. https://i.imgur.com/hqtE52v.png.

That map makes the 5th district 5 points bluer than what it currently is by including Bridgeport in exchange for the rural northwest corner. It also shores up the 2nd district by putting Manchester in it and giving the heavily red northeast part of the state to the 1st. The current 2nd could be competitive if Joe Courtney ever retires, although it is quite safe while he is there.

The current map is not gerrymandered for Democrats. But they also know that the courts won't accept the kind of map I drew, so they just offer the least possible change map that they think courts will accept.

He refuses to acknowledge that Biden won.

He has invited multiple fascist congressmembers who voted to end democracy in America to fundraise with him. He is aligning himself with the wing of the party that voted to overturn the 2020 election and end America as a country.

I wouldn't have believed this about him a few years ago either, but he has shown who he is and he is siding with the people who tried to destroy this country.

I agree 100%.

Red states gerrymander, while blue states constrain themselves. I would prefer a nationwide ban on gerrymandering so that red state Democrats were represented and blue state republicans were represented. But the only way to get a nationwide ban is for Democrats to get large majorities as Republicans uniformly oppose these reforms.

Blue states constraining themselves while Red states gerrymander is creating a system where Republicans can win the house of representatives while losing the popular vote by millions, as we saw in 2012.

We need to gerrymander to ban gerrymandering nationwide. Without it we condemn ourselves to being ruled by Republicans in perpetuity even if they get millions fewer votes.

Nope, that is a lie.

In 2010 the map was drawn by courts. It was done in a way to make the least possible change to the 2000 map, which was drawn to protect Republican Nancy Johnson.

CT requires a supermajority to draw legislative maps, which either requires bipartisan approved map or it gets drawn by a court which will make the smallest changes possible to balance populations.