Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

Speaking of excusing Trump, here's a select quote from today's press conference:

 

“I don’t think I would’ve done any better had I not been impeached,” Trump said. “I think that’s a great tribute to something. Maybe it’s a tribute to me.”

 

It should be noted that today's press conference was a big improvement over yesterday's verbal fellatio by the My Pillow guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my profound belief (or maybe just my hope) that America will make it through this pandemic largely in spite of the efforts of our Government.

 

At least the state and local leaders here have some <REDACTED> common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2020 at 10:18 AM, Old Man said:

Trump is sending extra aid to red states. For example, Florida has received three times the money and supplies that they requested, while New York and California have been left to fend for themselves. Thus, Floridians will regard him as a hero, while blue state voters are allowed to die. 

 

Wait, can we confirm this?  Is the Federal Government okay with this?  I'm just shocked.  Or does this sort of behavior happen all the time?

 

Isn't this essentially an act of sabotage against your own country's citizens because they didn't vote for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

Wait, can we confirm this?  Is the Federal Government okay with this?  I'm just shocked.  Or does this sort of behavior happen all the time?

 

Isn't this essentially an act of sabotage against your own country's citizens because they didn't vote for you?

Republicans dont care. During the impeachment, one guy was asleep in his chair

CES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, csyphrett said:

Republicans dont care. During the impeachment, one guy was asleep in his chair

CES

 

I grasp that about the congressmen.  I'm talking about the rest of the mechanism of the government here.  Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but I've never heard of disaster relief on this scale being refused because of politics.  Or has this happened before?  ...I mean other than Puerto Rico (which I still think was inhumane)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Pariah said:

It is my profound belief (or maybe just my hope) that America will make it through this pandemic largely in spite of the efforts of our Government.

 

At least the state and local leaders here have some <REDACTED> common sense.

 

WHat state you live in that has common sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I grasp that about the congressmen.  I'm talking about the rest of the mechanism of the government here.  Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but I've never heard of disaster relief on this scale being refused because of politics.  Or has this happened before?  ...I mean other than Puerto Rico (which I still think was inhumane)

i believe that disaster relief is carried out by the executive and Trump has put incompetent grifters in those slots. I am not sure about how the mechanism is supposed to work, but what we are seeing is what Trump has ordered to happen.

CES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Badger said:

 

WHat state you live in that has common sense?

 

Actually, I've been quite impressed with the leadership here in Ohio so far on Coronavirus.  Gov DeWine and Dr Acton acted swiftly and have been ahead of the curve and their daily television briefings of have been rock solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I grasp that about the congressmen.  I'm talking about the rest of the mechanism of the government here.  Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but I've never heard of disaster relief on this scale being refused because of politics.  Or has this happened before?  ...I mean other than Puerto Rico (which I still think was inhumane)

they have been hard at work disabling and dismantling the mechanism of the government for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone with better internet access than me could find and post a link to the NYTimes story that just appeared in my local paper? It's worth reading. It's the story of how the federal govt set out to buy a whole bunch of ventilators to have on han d for just such emergencies as we have now, and didn't.

 

Short version: Ventilators are bulky, complex, very expensive devices that need special training to use. HHS, rationally frightened by SARS, MERS, etc., decided, "This sucks. We need lots of cheap, portable ventilators." They negotiated a contract with a relatively small company that just made ventilators. Company said, "Great, we'll do it." Because while they'd make less money per ventilator, they figured they'd sell a tone of them.

 

Better product, lower price, grab the market. This is how capitalism is supposed to work.

 

Just after Newport Medical Instruments delivered its prototypes, the company was bought out by a much bigger company, Covidien, which makes a lot of stuff. Including, as it happens, those large, expensive ventilators. And Covidien made clear it did not want to honor the contract with HHS, and HHS eventually gave up.

 

Protect your product by crushing the upstart: This, alas, is how capitalism often works in the real world.

 

HHS tried again, but too late.

 

The story's headline, as it appeared in my local paper, is, "US failed in its mission to build a new fleet of ventilators," by Nicholas Kulish, Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone with better internet access than me could find and post a link to the NYTimes story that just appeared in my local paper? It's worth reading. It's the story of how the federal govt set out to buy a whole bunch of ventilators to have on han d for just such emergencies as we have now, and didn't.

 

Short version: Ventilators are bulky, complex, very expensive devices that need special training to use. HHS, rationally frightened by SARS, MERS, etc., decided, "This sucks. We need lots of cheap, portable ventilators." They negotiated a contract with a relatively small company that just made ventilators. Company said, "Great, we'll do it." Because while they'd make less money per ventilator, they figured they'd sell a tone of them.

 

Better product, lower price, grab the market. This is how capitalism is supposed to work.

 

Just after Newport Medical Instruments delivered its prototypes, the company was bought out by a much bigger company, Covidien, which makes a lot of stuff. Including, as it happens, those large, expensive ventilators. And Covidien made clear it did not want to honor the contract with HHS, and HHS eventually gave up.

 

Protect your product by crushing the upstart: This, alas, is how capitalism often works in the real world.

 

HHS tried again, but too late.

 

The story's headline, as it appeared in my local paper, is, "US failed in its mission to build a new fleet of ventilators," by Nicholas Kulish, Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

Actually, I've been quite impressed with the leadership here in Ohio so far on Coronavirus.  Gov DeWine and Dr Acton acted swiftly and have been ahead of the curve and their daily television briefings of have been rock solid.

 

BBC story on OH response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Perhaps someone with better internet access than me could find and post a link to the NYTimes story that just appeared in my local paper? It's worth reading. It's the story of how the federal govt set out to buy a whole bunch of ventilators to have on han d for just such emergencies as we have now, and didn't.

 

 

The story is here.

 

It also prompted a response from the company that acquired Covidien, saying "That was before we took over.  It wasn't us."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently read a handful of articles and social media posts arguing that shelter in place declarations and similar restrictions on public gatherings are a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly. Here are a few thoughts on the matter from me.

 

1. I take the Constitution of the United States of America very seriously. And unlike a lot of people who like to argue about what it says, I have actually read it. Multiple times. I acknowledge the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. And I believe that its creation was a divinely-inspired process.

 

2. Having said that, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not and have never been absolute. Yes, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression. But when people use expression to harm or threaten others, that's against the law, and people can be held civilly or criminally liable for doing so.* The old adage is true. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

 

Similarly, the Second Amendment guarantees that individuals have the right to own firearms. Some have argued that the specific wording of the Second Amendment means that there can never be any kind of regulation on firearm ownership or sales, but the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that this isn't the case.

 

So yes, the First Amendment to the Constitution does guarantee freedom of assembly. But that doesn't mean, and in my opinion, cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean, that all gatherings of all types at all times and in all places and under all circumstances are okay.

 

3. The focus on rights is inherently one-sided. Rights are always, always counterbalanced by responsibilities. While we have the right to free expression, we also have the responsibility not to use that right to harm others or to spread false information. We have the right to own a firearm, but if we use that firearm to threaten or injure someone else, that right can be taken away.

 

4. The Bill of Rights specifically outlines a number of protections to individual liberty. But in no case does it give an individual license to put the people around them at unnecessary risk. And to me, this is really where the rubber meets the road. Large gatherings present an unnecessary risk where the spread of a highly virulent disease is concerned.

 

So yes, by all means, wear a mask if you have to go out. Wash your hands. Use hand sanitizer. All of these things will help. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or an epidemiologist, to understand that the most effective way to stop the spread of disease is to reduce contact between people who may have it and people who may get it. And for right now, that means staying at home and avoiding large groups.

 

And to be clear: This is not an either-or situation. This is, by all accounts, the worst outbreak of disease this planet has seen in a century. If we want to keep as many of us as possible alive through this thing, we need to use every available remedy to fight COVID-19. Even the ones we find personally inconvenient or distasteful to our political sensibilities.

 

Politically, I admit that the idea of quarantine may not be popular. But I'm not a political scientist. I'm an actual scientist. And scientifically speaking, the argument for reduced contact is sound.

Be safe and well, everyone.

 

--

 

* I find it interesting that the current Administration has used this idea--threats of legal action for allegedly false statements--to try to silence its critics on more than one occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Badger said:

 

See I don't believe in lying to one's self.  I know I am expendable.

I am 100% down with expending Badger. I, on the other hand, am way too good looking to die. Err, no, that's not right. "Smart." Hmm, no. "Special"? 

 

. . . Can we get back to this later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Pariah said:

<snip>

 

You are armed with good sense; they are armed with decades if not centuries of "The government can't tell me what to do.". I fear you are fighting an uphill battle...on a hill covered in skunk vomit, motor oil and ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

I fear you are fighting an uphill battle...on a hill covered in skunk vomit, motor oil and ice.

 

Brilliantly stated! I wish I could Like this five or six times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pariah said:

 

Brilliantly stated! I wish I could Like this five or six times.

 

Thankee sai. Needless to say, I did not elect to practice birth control when my imagination met my newfound cynicism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pariah said:

I have recently read a handful of articles and social media posts arguing that shelter in place declarations and similar restrictions on public gatherings are a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly. Here are a few thoughts on the matter from me.

 

1. I take the Constitution of the United States of America very seriously. And unlike a lot of people who like to argue about what it says, I have actually read it. Multiple times. I acknowledge the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. And I believe that its creation was a divinely-inspired process.

 

2. Having said that, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not and have never been absolute. Yes, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression. But when people use expression to harm or threaten others, that's against the law, and people can be held civilly or criminally liable for doing so.* The old adage is true. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

 

Similarly, the Second Amendment guarantees that individuals have the right to own firearms. Some have argued that the specific wording of the Second Amendment means that there can never be any kind of regulation on firearm ownership or sales, but the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that this isn't the case.

 

So yes, the First Amendment to the Constitution does guarantee freedom of assembly. But that doesn't mean, and in my opinion, cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean, that all gatherings of all types at all times and in all places and under all circumstances are okay.

 

3. The focus on rights is inherently one-sided. Rights are always, always counterbalanced by responsibilities. While we have the right to free expression, we also have the responsibility not to use that right to harm others or to spread false information. We have the right to own a firearm, but if we use that firearm to threaten or injure someone else, that right can be taken away.

 

4. The Bill of Rights specifically outlines a number of protections to individual liberty. But in no case does it give an individual license to put the people around them at unnecessary risk. And to me, this is really where the rubber meets the road. Large gatherings present an unnecessary risk where the spread of a highly virulent disease is concerned.

 

So yes, by all means, wear a mask if you have to go out. Wash your hands. Use hand sanitizer. All of these things will help. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or an epidemiologist, to understand that the most effective way to stop the spread of disease is to reduce contact between people who may have it and people who may get it. And for right now, that means staying at home and avoiding large groups.

 

And to be clear: This is not an either-or situation. This is, by all accounts, the worst outbreak of disease this planet has seen in a century. If we want to keep as many of us as possible alive through this thing, we need to use every available remedy to fight COVID-19. Even the ones we find personally inconvenient or distasteful to our political sensibilities.

 

Politically, I admit that the idea of quarantine may not be popular. But I'm not a political scientist. I'm an actual scientist. And scientifically speaking, the argument for reduced contact is sound.

Be safe and well, everyone.

 

--

 

* I find it interesting that the current Administration has used this idea--threats of legal action for allegedly false statements--to try to silence its critics on more than one occasion.

When you deal with people who can't tell the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, things like driving a train into a hospital boat happens. So naturally no one believes the actual people on the ground to stay home and quit buying all the toilet paper

CES

CES 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

You are armed with good sense; they are armed with decades if not centuries of "The government can't tell me what to do.".

 

You're missing a category:  lawyers testing the waters for a money-making 'rights infringement' lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...