>The MBTA expects to collect 450M in fares this year, making up about 25% of the budget, this project will last about 20 years given the last fare implementation, so with straight line depreciation that’s still only 10% of expected post pandemic revenue

From their post.

But even if they didn't include that, they didn't say "let's throw good money after bad money". They said "cancelling the money wouldn't get the money back" with an unspoken "so your comparrison only makes sense in hindsight"

> All safety laws exist because someone died and was sued for it.

I disagree with "and was sued for it." The "sued and won" is usually a "this was brought up to them as an issue before and they decided to not to address an issue". But safety laws exist because people died and we realized "hey...we shoud fix that.

Bollards aren't security theater. They provide safety. And the "harm" you proposed is "they don't look pretty"

This is a case of "you can only control what you are capable of controling". The property owners could have placed ballards for protection (and even done something like planters to prevent it from being ugly). The business could choose something other than a glass front, as they are allowed to make changes.

What could they have done about drivers specifically? The only people who could have is the government, who can't place the ballards.

The honest answer is sue them all, and let the court figure out who owes you what money.

I'm just going to say this then bow out: I feel you and I see actions and differ in "how many people actually believe it." About 70% of republicans don't think that Joe Biden is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election. I think this is not a "small handful of loons" but "a large amount of support".

> No serious person thinks this is reasonable

Can you clarify what you mean by "no serious person thinks this is reasonable?" Because if "by serious" you mean "people who should be taken seriously" I agree. But people who are in position to win their election believe this, and unfortunately that means we have to take that risk seriously. As a currently example Kari Lake is running for Governor of Arizona, "I will win and I'll accept that result" to the question of "If you lose, will you accept the result", and she currently leads by 11 points in polling. Also, if she wins, she will be involved int he election certification process in 2024. Why should we not take this person seriously?

>The poster above is elevating their scale to such that they are a large enough threat to equate to overthrowing the government and installing an authoritarian government.

Two things: first, you realize that was attempted, right? The over throwing of the government?

Also, are you aware that there are members of congress saying things like “We need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian Nationalists.”?

No offense...but what part do you believe was QANON-esque there?

What riots are you referring to happened because trump won?

No, we don't want a one party political rule. We just don't want people who deny reality in power.

I do agree we need to ditch the ridiculous 2 party system. I would love any voting system that isn't First Past the Post to allow for it. Can you image a ranked choice vote or similar where we get to say "Hey...Here are all my prefered candidates...but if they don't have enough, after that, here are the priorities among people I disagree with". It would mean we could get more moderate people through.

As a note, while a few people may have denied the 2016 election results (as people have denied EVERY election result), the general popular claims regarding the 2016 election and 2020 election are drastically different in both what was claimed to be done and the remedy being sought.

First, let's establish what people are claiming for 2020. For the 2020 election, the people common things people are claiming is: "people illegally voted" "new ballots were created for people who didn't exist", "people voted multiple times", and "votes were lost/changed". The loser refused to concede the loss. And to counter this blatant cheating, people wanted the election fully overturned.

Meanwhile, there is the 2016 election. The claim was different. It was that Russia was interfering in the election, but not that the votes were changed/added/removed. And to my knowledge the remedy was not a new election or to overturn the results, but to hold Russia accountable so they wouldn't do it again and shore up election results. Hillary conceded that she lost the election.

These may sound different, but the severity and remedies involved are drastically different.

The severity of claims in 2016 is "They interfered to help the other side, and the results likely changed as a result of this". This is bad, but as a country it's a "ok...we should stop that in the future" level of bad. In 2020, the claim is "They literally stole the vote illegally so the results aren't what were counted, but rather a different result." This is REALLY REALLY bad. Like, if this is what happened, you can't trust anything about the government.

TL;DR: in 2016 people said "influence happened, we should stop that in the future" In 2020 people said "votes were changed. Burn it down."

Deny the results? No. Said Russia interfered? Yes.

But she also conceded that she lost, as well as saying "russia should be punished so they wouldn't do it again" rather than saying "She should be installed as president." The closest I heard during the time personally was "the electoral college has the right to vote their conscience if the state allows for it."

What would you view as sufficient scientific evidence to justify firing people during a pandemic for not taking a vaccine?

This isn't a gotcha style question, I'm just curious what you line would be acceptable for you, so we could further discuss with that line in mind.