> I said the richest and poorest neighborhoods voted for both parties.

Yes you did but you failed to even come close to proving it.

> Some recent US figures on the distribution of income by party: 65 percent of taxpayer households that earn more than $500,000 per year are now in Democratic districts; 74 percent of the households in Republican districts earn less than $100,00 per year. Add to this what we knew already, namely that the 10 richest congressional districts in the country all have Democratic representatives in Congress.

> Also if you clicked the income map with recent income data, you would have to specifically ignore the large chunk of the reddest part of staten island with the $105k median income to focus in on the tiny part that makes $85k. Wonder why you’d do that?

Odd how you think making a point about skin color somehow refutes the actual data about income which is exactly what I was talking about and what the data shows. The richest and poorest vote overwhelmingly democratic.

Maybe you can explain to me how finding one zip code in staten island that voted red refutes this point?

What "facts" did you present here exactly? I said the democratic party is becoming the party of the very rich and very poor and ignoring the middle class. To refute this you show me a map that shows the richest neighborhoods all voted blue, the poorest neighborhoods all voted blue, and never even bother to mention the middle class at all? Then you tried to tell me that a district in Staten Island where the median household income is $85k is "one of the richest" in the city?

These are some "facts" you have here.

> Some recent US figures on the distribution of income by party: 65 percent of taxpayer households that earn more than $500,000 per year are now in Democratic districts; 74 percent of the households in Republican districts earn less than $100,00 per year. Add to this what we knew already, namely that the 10 richest congressional districts in the country all have Democratic representatives in Congress.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/democrats-rich-party-obama/

Highly amusing how the 1% convinced gullible useful idiots that it's skin color and not wealth that divides this country.

> Okay seriously why would you link to an income map from 2007 in good faith?

Because I have a life and googled the map and didn't look very closely at it. The ackshually "good faith" thing just makes you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist BTW.

> Meanwhile, that deep red at the bottom of SI is also one of the wealthiest parts of the city (admittedly the least wealthy of the wealthy people but still much higher than the median).

"one of the wealthiest parts of the city" with a median household income of $85k. Okay.

> The only thing that the deep red nyc areas have in common across them is how markedly white they are.

Oh okay. Unlike the very diverse upper east and west side and williamsburg.

> Ranking the top 10 nyc neighborhoods by white population, those deep red areas are #2, 4, 5, 7 and 8.

> For the record, the #1, 3, 6, 9 and 10 whitest neighborhoods (which are all blue on the election map) have much bigger populations of people of color than the whitest neighborhoods who voted red.

Are you going to start measuring skulls next to try and prove how un-white and diverse the upper east side and tribeca are?

Interesting to compare this to maps of median income/poverty levels.

https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/09/22/new-york-city-poverty-map

Looks like dems are the party of the very rich and very poor while the middle class, such as it exists in NYC is more republican.

I dunno, but the drone strike girlboss routine was already wearing thin like 6 years ago.

>The rally is set to include Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

LOL. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/

THESE are the people the DNC thought would energize their base?

Clown show. Yakub is frowning down on them from interstellar space.

Another reason why ubers are better than yellow cabs.

So, a Wikipedia entry?

If we're going back to the 80s can we at least get some good punk bands?

"Snow Laborer" has a distinctly dystopian gulag feel to it

So, vaccines just reduce symptoms, still let you catch and spread a virus, and need to be retaken every 3 months?

Meth?

>The vaccine reduces symptoms and slows the spread of the disease SIGNIFICANTLY. If you catch it while vaccinated your chance of developing serious symptoms or needing hospitalization,

Reducing symptoms is not how vaccines work and it does nothing to "stop the spread". You need to upate your government talking points. Even the CDC doesn't claim this anymore, especially after the head the CDC got covid one month after her FOURTH "booster" shot.

>It is an unconscionable and disgusting breach of the social contract

Who exactly is protected by a shot that doesn't keep you from getting covid or spreading covid? Unvaccinated people?

Did you even read that article?

> Omicron changed the thinking around boosters, says Alejandro Balazs, an immunologist at the Ragon Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. That’s because, faced with the variant, people previously regarded as fully vaccinated now have “an antibody response that is insufficient to prevent infections”, he says.

> As Omicron outbreaks have spread, boosters have been used to ramp up levels of neutralizing antibodies, curbing cases and easing strain on hospitals1,2. But the concern is that boosters don’t block infections for long.

> Data from Israel — collected between June and November last year when Delta was dominant — and detailed online ahead of peer review, indicate that the immunity from a third (mRNA booster) shot wanes within months, mirroring the decline after two doses3.

The director of the CDC just got covid a month after her FOURTH booster. So did Anthony Fauci. Pretty much everyone I know got omicron last winter, vaxxed or unvaxxed.

You can argue that the shots reduce symptoms, but as far as stopping the spread, that ship has sailed with omicron. Unless maybe you think the government should force people to get shots every three months for a variant that is about as severe as the flu for almost everyone but the very sick and very old?

You need to update your government talking points. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-17/israel-trial-suggests-4th-dose-not-warding-off-omicron-infection#xj4y7vzkg

> But that's not true. Vaccines do prevent both contracting and transmitting Covid.

Not for omicron they don't. They can reduce symptoms, for a few months after you take them. That's it.

Fuck no.

I just need a time machine and $300,000.

> You get less sick, show less symptoms, sneeze and cough less, and generally get over the illness faster. All of the above symptoms that are lessened, certainly contribute to the spread of covid.

By how much do they "contribute" to slowing the spread and for how long? BTW the director of the CDC got covid a month after her FOURTH dose of the vaccine. I guess that was a "breakthrough case".

> So in short - it does reduce transmission, and the vaccine is highly safe & effective considering the circumstances surrounding its development.

LOL at "considering the circumstances". That is not how we judge the safety or efficacy of pharmaceutical products. The "emergency" excuse has long since become a moot point. There is no more "emergency".

Omicron goes right through the vaccines. The director of the CDC got covid a month after her 4th "booster".

The entire rationale for vaccine mandates of any kind is to protect others. The government does not have the authority to force people to make the right healthcare choices for themselves.

LOL. So you're refusing to answer the question?

Pretty simple question. Do the vaccines stop the spread of omicron or not? Nothing at all to do with "inferring words", whatever that is supposed to mean.

So to be clear, you're telling me the vaccine stops the spread of omicron? You need to update your talking points, because even the CDC has said this isn't true.

>"Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19," the ruling notes.
>
>The judge ruled the "petitioners should not have been terminated" and that "If it was about public safety and health, no one would be exempt."

Devastating that the "follow the science" crowd now has to acknowledge the actual science in a court of law without social media platforms bullying people with dissenting opinions into silence.

Do you think it's legal under the civil rights act of 1964 for the government to distribute resources differently based on immutable identity? The answer is yes, but does it follow the spirit of that law and what precedent does it set?