Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 04-22-2020, 01:32 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 60,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
The question is "Why do Republicans want to end the corona virus restrictions?"
The Arkansas Republican governor wants businesses to make money. He added, "Besides, if you tell people they can't go out, everybody will immediately go out."
  #102  
Old 04-22-2020, 01:33 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,397
Trump's best hope for the election is that in November 2020, the economy is back to normal. This is the least likely scenario.

The second-best hope is is that the economy is at least trending upward. This is a marginally likely scenario.

Absent good economic news, his third-best and most likely hope is to push a story of "We Republicans tried to open the economy and the Democrat governors wouldn't play ball."

Sadly, this seems to be a smartly hedged strategy with a non-zero chance of success.
  #103  
Old 04-22-2020, 02:14 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Incorrect. Liberals want government to help people while their opposites, the mentally enslaved right, wants government to hurt people. Spend more on prisons than schools. Promote pollution. Health plan: Don't get sick.

You think liberals trust government? You must be very young. I can re-do an old chant directed at Lyndon Johnson.
Hey, hey, Donald J.
How many sp!cks did you kill today?
You do not have the right to spread contagion. Stay home except for essential outings. Stay away from me. Worship online. Assemble after a usable vaccine is administered.


Courts disagree with you. Your fundamental right to assemble ends at my property line or a police barricade. Your fundamental right to free speech ends with slander or incitement to riot. Your fundamental right to bear arms doesn't include personal nukes. Like I said, if you don't like emergency declarations, tell a judge.


That's been my take on his decision process all along. He'd rather die in Bethesda than Leavenworth.
1. Keeping a government at a bare minimum does not equal anarchy. Of course government should provide prisons and border security. Those are essential and basic functions of any functioning government. You say that you distrust government, yet you want more, more, and more of it all the time. You even said so in that rant: You want more government involvement in health care, more regulation of industry for pollution, more government involvement in schools.

2. Again with the extremes. The right to assemble does not go so far as the right to assemble on your property. It does not mean the right to assemble as a mob. These are limits on the periphery of the right and/or never considered part of the right at all.

But what it does mean is that you have a right to assemble. The government cannot just destroy that basic right. And to others talking about emergency powers, they have been historically limited in geography and scope. Even during the worst hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, the government never said that the survivors couldn't go assemble in church.

You say I can attend online church? So now a person has to be well off enough to own a computer, and pay for internet service in order to worship? Your side complains about having to present an ID to vote, but you require that sort of financial outlay to worship?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Respectfully, nobody asked you. The question is not about if Republican's ideas are wrong. The question is "Why do Republicans want to end the corona virus restrictions?"

I'm getting tired of non-pit threads where somebody asks about why republicans think the way they do, genuine answers are given, and then the answers are attacked. It happens way too much.

Pretty soon you will not have any actual republicans answering questions, just democrats saying how they think what Republicans thing, with everyone agreeing on it, which is a stupidly masturbatory exercise.
Yeah, it is pretty tiresome. You have a well intentioned OP who is really trying to genuinely understand the other side's beliefs, people come in here and explain their beliefs only to be met with responses from people saying that we are full of shit and just want to hold our Trump Nazi rallies or kill Mexicans.
  #104  
Old 04-22-2020, 02:40 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yeah, it is pretty tiresome. You have a well intentioned OP who is really trying to genuinely understand the other side's beliefs, people come in here and explain their beliefs only to be met with responses from people saying that we are full of shit and just want to hold our Trump Nazi rallies or kill Mexicans.
To be fair, it also gets tiresome when we see Fox news, politicians, and protesters suggesting that we ought to just sacrifice the elderly to juice the economy, and other people explain it away as a spirited debate about the proper role of government.
  #105  
Old 04-22-2020, 02:50 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
To be fair, it also gets tiresome when we see Fox news, politicians, and protesters suggesting that we ought to just sacrifice the elderly to juice the economy, and other people explain it away as a spirited debate about the proper role of government.
I don't think me or anyone else in the thread has said any such thing. The thread is "Why do Republicans want to end the corona virus restrictions?" and my answer is that Republicans, generally, do not like government intrusion. When the government tells me that I must stay at home, my first reaction is to recoil and protest against that, and then continually think that we must have a better solution than that. So something like ending restrictions and getting herd immunity will instinctively get a much more positive response from a Republican for that reason alone.

My impression is that when Democrats hear a decree that you must stay home, their first reaction is that because the government said so then there must be some real substance to that decree because they, again generally, view the government as the provider of social good whether that is health care, or social security, or WIC, or education, or any of the litany of things that the left typically support.

Like the prior poster, I think we have seen these "Trump sucks" posts in everything. I'll bet I couldn't start a thread about stamp collecting that within 10 posts wouldn't have a negative comment about Trump. And that's fine, this is a left learning board, so have your fun.

But when an OP asks us Republicans a question about why we feel a certain way, don't tell us that it is bullshit when I am telling you exactly how I feel. I don't have a secret scheme I am hiding from you.
  #106  
Old 04-22-2020, 02:54 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 38,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't think me or anyone else in the thread has said any such thing. The thread is "Why do Republicans want to end the corona virus restrictions?" and my answer is that Republicans, generally, do not like government intrusion.
When they have the chance to do the intruding, they do. With a great deal of glee and vigor.
  #107  
Old 04-22-2020, 03:05 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You want more government involvement in health care, more regulation of industry for pollution, more government involvement in schools.
Yeah.

Because nations where the government is more involved in health care have better outcomes for less money. I thought saving money was a conservative virtue but maybe not?

Before we had government involvement in pollution regulation we have rivers in this country catching on fire. Multiple times. See "Cuyahoga" - a river that caught fire no less than 13 times! But not at all since the 1970's.

Government involvement in school resulted in more people being educated.

Wow, sometimes government improves things. Where it does, yes, I want it to be involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You say I can attend online church? So now a person has to be well off enough to own a computer, and pay for internet service in order to worship? Your side complains about having to present an ID to vote, but you require that sort of financial outlay to worship?
No, you do not need to own a computer. A smart phone will do. Don't even need a high end smartphone. I've got a pretty minimal one and it will work. Also, there are synagogues in my area that allow people to listen to services via dialing in my dumbphone, or even landline, so presumably this could be done by Christians as well.

Or, hey, get a big enough building or even a large open field, use a sound system, and have your ceremony while keeping everyone at a proper distance from each other.

Or talk to your god wherever you happen to be. Last I heard, the Abrahamic God is not confined to a box, you can address that one anywhere. The need to assemble in a dense group in a building is a requirement made by man, not God.
  #108  
Old 04-22-2020, 03:06 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yeah, it is pretty tiresome. You have a well intentioned OP who is really trying to genuinely understand the other side's beliefs, people come in here and explain their beliefs only to be met with responses from people saying that we are full of shit and just want to hold our Trump Nazi rallies or kill Mexicans.
Yes, I agree, it's tiresome that the Republican Party keeps denying its lunatic fringe, even when they are outright dangerous or harmful, rather than attempting to get them under control.
  #109  
Old 04-22-2020, 03:08 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Oh this tired argument again. These rights are fundamental. The core of these rights are not subject to balancing tests.
Like how fundamentalist Mormons have been successful in every court case they have brought on anti-polygamy laws, because their rights to religious worship canít be balanced, ever.
  #110  
Old 04-22-2020, 03:14 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The thread is "Why do Republicans want to end the corona virus restrictions?" and my answer is that Republicans, generally, do not like government intrusion. When the government tells me that I must stay at home, my first reaction is to recoil and protest against that, and then continually think that we must have a better solution than that. So something like ending restrictions and getting herd immunity will instinctively get a much more positive response from a Republican for that reason alone.
OK. So we've established that whatever the government tells you to do, you're going to filter it through your ideology before you even consider the merits. Heck of an admission, and it explains the worldview you describe below, but let's move on.

Quote:
My impression is that when Democrats hear a decree that you must stay home, their first reaction is that because the government said so then there must be some real substance to that decree because <snip>
So, in your interpretation, the government-worshipping Democrats credulously bow down to government officials when it comes to the stay-at-home order, because obeying government edicts is what we do. So far so good. But now that the government is beginning to sound the all-clear, Democrats are resisting fiercely saying it's too soon. Your assumption falls apart at that point, does it not?

Quote:
But when an OP asks us Republicans a question about why we feel a certain way, don't tell us that it is bullshit when I am telling you exactly how I feel. I don't have a secret scheme I am hiding from you.
Perhaps not, but it seems odd that you seem to insist on the rosiest possible interpretation, while ignoring the plain evidence spewing out of Fox news, plus the alternative right-wing press, plus the protests. I mean, I get that maybe you're not part of the main body of the right-wing rabble, but it's really suspicious that you want to ignore or deny that elephant in the room.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 04-22-2020 at 03:16 PM.
  #111  
Old 04-22-2020, 03:41 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Delaware, USA
Posts: 2,982
If a Republican wants to come on here and give simplistic answers like, "Because Fox News", then fine, let them do that. So far I haven't seen it. That is certainly more credible than somebody mentioning some relic family member that isn't even here to articulate their own views.
  #112  
Old 04-22-2020, 03:47 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Oh this tired argument again. These rights are fundamental. The core of these rights are not subject to balancing tests.
... said no legal scholar ever.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #113  
Old 04-22-2020, 04:18 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Yes, I agree, it's tiresome that the Republican Party keeps denying its lunatic fringe, even when they are outright dangerous or harmful, rather than attempting to get them under control.
I never agreed to be responsible for watching those people. They'll go away if you just ignore them. There are lunatics on all sides of the political spectrum. You didn't agree to be responsible for them either, so why are we blaming each other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Like how fundamentalist Mormons have been successful in every court case they have brought on anti-polygamy laws, because their rights to religious worship canít be balanced, ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
... said no legal scholar ever.
I agree that no right is absolute. You cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater or own a nuclear weapon or broadcast obscenity or speak slander or publish libel. You cannot sacrifice virgins on an altar before a full moon or practice polygamy as part of your religion. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. And I've said so much.

What you are saying is not that. It's not even close to that. What you are saying is that it is too dangerous to assemble. You are saying that the very core of the right itself is too dangerous and must be suspended. That is not arguing things at the periphery or carefully limiting rights in outlier applications that really were not part of the right to begin with.

We can agree that the Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to own nuclear weapons. We can have a debate on whether you have a right to own an AR-15. But what we cannot do (according to Heller) is say that you can be prevented from owning any gun at all because, after all, you can't own a nuclear weapon.

I don't even know what you call this fallacy. It goes something like "Because certain exceptions are permissible, then anything is permissible." You have a right to do X, but because reasons, you do not have the right to do X. Did I really have a right to do X?

Also I walk back a little of what I said earlier. This isn't a generally applicable law. I can assemble with my neighbors at the grocery store or the hardware store. Or at the law office where legal services are deemed essential. But not at church. The law deems church "non-essential" which is a law against the free exercise of religion.
  #114  
Old 04-22-2020, 04:30 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Trump's best hope for the election is that in November 2020, the economy is back to normal. This is the least likely scenario.

The second-best hope is is that the economy is at least trending upward. This is a marginally likely scenario.

Absent good economic news, his third-best and most likely hope is to push a story of "We Republicans tried to open the economy and the Democrat governors wouldn't play ball."

Sadly, this seems to be a smartly hedged strategy with a non-zero chance of success.
Worst case scenario for the Republicans: They have to run campaign ads this October with the message "Sorry we killed your Mom."
  #115  
Old 04-22-2020, 04:54 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I never agreed to be responsible for watching those people. They'll go away if you just ignore them. There are lunatics on all sides of the political spectrum. You didn't agree to be responsible for them either, so why are we blaming each other?
No one agreed to be responsible for the destructive members of our society but no, ignoring them does not make them go away. People who can not behave themselves and cause problems become the collective responsibility of the society in which they live. Or, I suppose we could ship them up to Alaska and abandon them on an ice floe (if you can find any left with global warming and all....)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What you are saying is not that. It's not even close to that. What you are saying is that it is too dangerous to assemble.
In the case of a pandemic that is spread by close proximity to other people, yes. The right of you and your fellows to assemble does not cancel the right of others to NOT be hurt by your assembly.

So....

Assemble in a manner where transmission is unlikely (large areas, distance between you)

Assemble via technology (livestream, Zoom, whatever)

Find alternatives to assembly for the duration of the emergency.

Or, I would be amenable to you forming your own little community that can rub shoulders all you want.... but you collectively go into quarantine. You are all in a designated area you can not leave for a full quarantine period but within that area you can assemble all you want, as closely as you want, because under those circumstances you will not be endangering anyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You are saying that the very core of the right itself is too dangerous and must be suspended.
During a pandemic? Yes, assembling people together is dangerous. We've already had outbreaks and deaths among those who insisted on such assemblies during this time.

Why does your religion supersede the health and safety of other people in your community?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
We can agree that the Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to own nuclear weapons. We can have a debate on whether you have a right to own an AR-15. But what we cannot do (according to Heller) is say that you can be prevented from owning any gun at all because, after all, you can't own a nuclear weapon.
But you CAN be prohibited from owning a weapon if you are a danger to yourself or others. This has also been upheld in the court.

Assembling in close proximity to other people spreads the virus. Therefore, assembling in groups during this pandemic is endangering yourself and others. Therefore, it should not be permitted for the safety of yourself and others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Also I walk back a little of what I said earlier. This isn't a generally applicable law. I can assemble with my neighbors at the grocery store or the hardware store. Or at the law office where legal services are deemed essential. But not at church. The law deems church "non-essential" which is a law against the free exercise of religion.
The church building itself is, indeed, non-essential to the practice of any major religion. You will not die if you can't attend services in person for a few months.

Obtaining food, on the other hand, is a necessity of life. Even there, society is trying to impose physical distance, physical barriers, limit contact, and so forth. In some of the worst areas you can only get curbside groceries - you have to order in advance and someone puts them in your car.

The purpose of keeping those businesses open is NOT to assemble closely with others, but to enable people to do what they need to do to keep life going during this emergency.

You can talk to your god at home for a few months. You can find alternatives - as so many have done - to traditional assembly. You can assemble and then quarantine yourselves.

But what I do not want you to do is endanger other people. Go to a church assembly, pick up the virus, and then you're spewing it for days on everyone else you may come into proximity to. You might even do that for a couple weeks. Is that what your god wants you to do?
  #116  
Old 04-22-2020, 05:50 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't think me or anyone else in the thread has said any such thing. The thread is "Why do Republicans want to end the corona virus restrictions?" and my answer is that Republicans, generally, do not like government intrusion. When the government tells me that I must stay at home, my first reaction is to recoil and protest against that, and then continually think that we must have a better solution than that. So something like ending restrictions and getting herd immunity will instinctively get a much more positive response from a Republican for that reason alone.

My impression is that when Democrats hear a decree that you must stay home, their first reaction is that because the government said so then there must be some real substance to that decree because they, again generally, view the government as the provider of social good whether that is health care, or social security, or WIC, or education, or any of the litany of things that the left typically support.
While I agree that Republicans bristle at some types of government intervention, so do liberals. Republicans are just fine with nonsensical and invasive laws on abortion in order to cut down on the procedure, for example; liberals have much less tolerance for police powers generally.

So I think what you have laid out here, even through the prism of how each side sees itself, is not a thorough answer.

A fringe of conservatives arenít rebelling simply because the government told them to do something, and liberals and moderates arenít staying at home just because the government ordered them to. How do I know this? Because conservatives in states with lesser restrictions arenít voluntarily staying at home. Some of these locales are becoming hotspots, like that South Dakota meatpacking plant that is worse off than any cruise ship.

I donít think that the rejection pertains to government specifically as it has to do with rejection of... well, science? It seems to fit in somehow with the rejection of climate change because it conflicts with perceptions of what American life should be for many conservatives, like big cars burning fuel and made-in-America coal, etc.

Note also that liberals are taking their own steps on climate change even without government mandating such things. So much for the theory that libs never question government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Also I walk back a little of what I said earlier. This isn't a generally applicable law. I can assemble with my neighbors at the grocery store or the hardware store. Or at the law office where legal services are deemed essential. But not at church. The law deems church "non-essential" which is a law against the free exercise of religion.
Going to stores to buy necessities isnít a First Amendment issue. Itís not credible to argue that commerce is a First Amendment right; besides which, if people didnít go to grocery stores, we would likely starve. How many people have died for lack of going to church? Seems like more people have died of COVID because of church than lives have been saved by going to church. I donít think itís even debatable.
  #117  
Old 04-22-2020, 08:52 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 60,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post


No, you do not need to own a computer. A smart phone will do. Don't even need a high end smartphone. I've got a pretty minimal one and it will work. Also, there are synagogues in my area that allow people to listen to services via dialing in my dumbphone, or even landline, so presumably this could be done by Christians as well.
Aren't you making sparks and doing work by using a phone?
  #118  
Old 04-22-2020, 11:54 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You say that you distrust government, yet you want more, more, and more of it all the time. You even said so in that rant: You want more government involvement in health care, more regulation of industry for pollution, more government involvement in schools.
That is not what I said. Do not mischaracterize my words. Stop now.

BTW public schools already feature rather massive "government involvement" so I don't grok your point. Should all schools be privatized? And per environment and health: Should healthcare and industry be free of regulation? If so, why?

Quote:
The right to assemble does not go so far as the right to assemble on your property. It does not mean the right to assemble as a mob. These are limits on the periphery of the right and/or never considered part of the right at all.
IOW "fundamental rights" indeed have limits recognized by courts. Keep that in mind.
__

Back to topic. GOPs want to "open the country fast" because, following their national leaders, they don't really give a shit about more deaths as long as survivors, hopefully themselves, can cash in. A century-old lesson shows that locales locking-down soonest and strongest restore their economies fastest. "Open the country now" morons ignore history at their and our peril. Very bad idea.

Opening early guarantees more pain. But hey, let's sacrifice millions of Americans so the rich can stay rich! And be sure the untreated have the right to infect others. It's right there in the Bill of Rights granting liberty to microbes. Equal rights for viruses and prions! Set those bacteria free! If an embryo is a person, so is a paramecium, right?

Note to UltraVires: I am not attributing these thoughts to you. No way.
  #119  
Old 04-23-2020, 03:04 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Aren't you making sparks and doing work by using a phone?
I really am not sure how that's working out with the Orthodox (I suspect they're doing no-tech strictly at-home Sabbath) but not all Jews have the same level of restrictive practice. Heck, quite a few don't even bother to keep kosher these days, there's all levels of observance.

With Judaism the Sabbath needs to be observed, but that can happen at home, even without anyone else present. Outside of the Sabbath, various other things can certainly utilize modern technology without running afoul of the more hardcore rule observances.
  #120  
Old 04-23-2020, 07:29 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 618
This conservative wants to end the stay at home work order because it isn't sustainable. Now I am ok will all kinds of restrictions (wear face mask, stay 6' away, wash hands etc) but people have got to get back to work. I and my family all are lucky enough to have jobs that we can do from home, a lot of others do not, and a lot of other industries business models are failing because they also CANNOT

I will also attribute it to a false belief that this may be a chicken little moment also but I lack faith in any government entity telling me what is best for me or my family. I'd rather make those calls myself.
  #121  
Old 04-23-2020, 08:04 AM
casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,539
Quote:
......... but I lack faith in any government entity telling me what is best for me or my family. I'd rather make those calls myself.
You are looking at this from your personal perspective, and not from a collective perspective.

So, you feel you have the right to decide things for yourself, however in making the decisions over lockdown what you are doing is making decisions for other people who may not be in a position to protect themselves adequately.

If you or your family have wider contact then its reasonable to expect that most everyone else will do the same and this is likely to spread the virus - you might be fine with that risk - but do you have the right to impose that risk on to others?

These decisions are not being made directly by 'gubmint' but by the individual states concerned, at what level do you think the decision should be taken and what percentage of the population do you believe have a genuine perception of risk, the answer here is that the general public - even the more responsible - have very little sense of proportion of risk, and it does not take many absolute idiots to put everyone at greater risk.

Governors cannot take the chance that 100% of the population will be responsible since it only takes a handful of irresponsible people - in this specific pandemic its not the intelligent and responsible person we need to legislate for, so if you wonder why lockdowns need to be tight then look at the absolute morons congregating outside state buildings holding up traffic and gathering closely together - these are the ones who are infringing your right to go out, its these people that Governors have to issue stay at home orders because they are stupid - rather than blame or be suspicious of administrations you should really be asking why these measures need to be in force and need to be so extensive instead of simply briefing people and treating them as mature thinking adults.
  #122  
Old 04-23-2020, 08:36 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
This conservative wants to end the stay at home work order because it isn't sustainable. Now I am ok will all kinds of restrictions (wear face mask, stay 6' away, wash hands etc) but people have got to get back to work. I and my family all are lucky enough to have jobs that we can do from home, a lot of others do not, and a lot of other industries business models are failing because they also CANNOT

I will also attribute it to a false belief that this may be a chicken little moment also but I lack faith in any government entity telling me what is best for me or my family. I'd rather make those calls myself.
What you'd rather is not as important as the health of the public. If you think people should risk their lives for the sake of a business model, go to it.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #123  
Old 04-23-2020, 08:43 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,562
I've seen people on Facebook argue that public health isn't listed as an exception to the First Amendment. To which I reply: The virus doesn't read the Constitution.
  #124  
Old 04-23-2020, 09:00 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Worst case scenario for the Republicans: They have to run campaign ads this October with the message "Sorry we killed your Mom."
They seem to find a silver lining in every worst case. "OK your Mom is dead, but the NRA is still alive, Jeff Bezos is still filthy rich, and Trump is still in charge. KAGA!"
  #125  
Old 04-23-2020, 01:01 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by casdave View Post
You are looking at this from your personal perspective, and not from a collective perspective.

So, you feel you have the right to decide things for yourself, however in making the decisions over lockdown what you are doing is making decisions for other people who may not be in a position to protect themselves adequately.

If you or your family have wider contact then its reasonable to expect that most everyone else will do the same and this is likely to spread the virus - you might be fine with that risk - but do you have the right to impose that risk on to others?

These decisions are not being made directly by 'gubmint' but by the individual states concerned, at what level do you think the decision should be taken and what percentage of the population do you believe have a genuine perception of risk, the answer here is that the general public - even the more responsible - have very little sense of proportion of risk, and it does not take many absolute idiots to put everyone at greater risk.

Governors cannot take the chance that 100% of the population will be responsible since it only takes a handful of irresponsible people - in this specific pandemic its not the intelligent and responsible person we need to legislate for, so if you wonder why lockdowns need to be tight then look at the absolute morons congregating outside state buildings holding up traffic and gathering closely together - these are the ones who are infringing your right to go out, its these people that Governors have to issue stay at home orders because they are stupid - rather than blame or be suspicious of administrations you should really be asking why these measures need to be in force and need to be so extensive instead of simply briefing people and treating them as mature thinking adults.
If the others are also out and about, they have already decided that Ö
Jail the idiots?

Last edited by Kearsen1; 04-23-2020 at 01:02 PM.
  #126  
Old 04-23-2020, 08:53 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
If the others are also out and about, they have already decided that Ö
Jail the idiots?
Jail them together in close confinement for 40 days and 40 nights. Let them play chess, and cross-contaminate. We'll see who comes out alive. Did you see the graph of most US deaths occurring in counties with the most votes for Mr Orange? Coincidence, or...?
  #127  
Old 04-23-2020, 09:06 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Clarification of the above: that chart shows correlation, not cause. 2016 votes correlate to known death rates. I'll dig up the cite if anyone insists.
  #128  
Old 04-23-2020, 09:50 PM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What you are saying is that it is too dangerous to assemble. You are saying that the very core of the right itself is too dangerous and must be suspended.
Temporarily suspended, which is a perfectly reasonable response to a massive public-safety emergency that is seriously exacerbated by people assembling in close proximity in person.

Look at the ways freedom of speech and the press, for example, are routinely restricted in wartime. Exceptional crises situations do tend to produce exceptional, but temporary, restrictions even on fundamental rights. I don't really see the point of engaging in paranoid whining about that, except perhaps to gin up partisan resentment against those mean old liberals who are trying to minimize unnecessary deaths.

If governments are still placing exceptional restrictions on things like the right to peaceably assemble once we get to a point where peaceably assembling no longer carries a foolishly high risk of unnecessarily killing people, then you can come whining to me, and I (along with the rest of the American Civil Liberties Union) will back you up.
  #129  
Old 04-23-2020, 10:25 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,577
Since things will be bad either way (deaths without restrictions, other pains with restrictions), key to Trump's "plans" is to recommend the opposite of what will happen. He condemns Governors who don't lift restrictions, but also argues against the Georgia Governor who is about to lift restrictions. He just wants to be on the opposite side of what happens, so he can say "I told you so."

A poll shows that a majority of Republicans are more worried about the disease than they are about the economy. Is this broken down demographically? Are those numbers swayed by the large number of old at-risk Republicans?
  #130  
Old 04-23-2020, 11:16 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
You've got to have an ordained priest say the words of consecration and do the transubstantiation thing.
Your link takes me to
Quote:
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
I have another book which discusses the transubstantiation of 235U into 90Sr. Is it something like that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Of course, in the U.S. you have the unique problem that evil Republicans are involved, and they like eating babies and enslaving everyone in their sweatshops while bathing in their tears.
Cite?
  #131  
Old 04-25-2020, 04:51 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Of course, in the U.S. you have the unique problem that evil Republicans are involved, and they like eating babies and enslaving everyone in their sweatshops while bathing in their tears.
That's just for show, to distract us from gerrymandering, voter suppression, and court stacking. Watch the prestidigitator's right hand, not what their left hand is doing. Eating babies, oh no! Suppressing n!gs and sp!x, that's just fine. Nicer than slavery.

The president said to inject bleach and disinfectants - that will kill you. He wants you dead. His followers want you dead. The. GOP. Wants. You. Dead. Try to relax now, okay?
  #132  
Old 04-25-2020, 03:19 PM
Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 42,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
That's just for show, to distract us from gerrymandering, voter suppression, and court stacking. Watch the prestidigitator's right hand, not what their left hand is doing. Eating babies, oh no! Suppressing n!gs and sp!x, that's just fine. Nicer than slavery.

The president said to inject bleach and disinfectants - that will kill you. He wants you dead. His followers want you dead. The. GOP. Wants. You. Dead. Try to relax now, okay?
There are those who will say the above is an exaggeration. I say maybe it is, but not by much. The Republican Party needs to be outlawed for similar reasons as Germany has outlawed the Nazi Party.
__________________
"Hell is other people." -- Jean-Paul Sartre
  #133  
Old 04-25-2020, 04:09 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Or, you know, people are losing their jobs and businesses, have no savings, are struggljng to feed themselves and their kids, and in large parts of the country they live in places where they aren't seeing much impact from the virus.

I know Orange Man Bad, but this is a global phenomenon. Governments around the world are facing immense pressure to ease restrictions, because these restrictions are incredibly hard on a lot of people.

Of course, in the U.S. you have the unique problem that evil Republicans are involved, and they like eating babies and enslaving everyone in their sweatshops while bathing in their tears. At least, that's the impression I get reading this thread.
Republicans don't like eating babies, just poisoning them. And I don't think the concentration camps on the border are churning out Ivanka handbags yet either. There's no need to exaggerate Republican policies to make Republicans look bad.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #134  
Old 04-27-2020, 12:12 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Trump's best hope for the election is that in November 2020, the economy is back to normal. This is the least likely scenario.

The second-best hope is is that the economy is at least trending upward. This is a marginally likely scenario.

Absent good economic news, his third-best and most likely hope is to push a story of "We Republicans tried to open the economy and the Democrat governors wouldn't play ball."

Sadly, this seems to be a smartly hedged strategy with a non-zero chance of success.
I mean his best hope of reelection is to govern capably and steer us through a difficult time by inspiring us to national unity and service. You know, like great presidents have done in the past. But I guess that one's not really on the table.

Cuomo has got a lot of public support, despite basically being as asleep on the job as the Trump admin in the early days of crisis, by being transparent, taking charge, taking responsibility, and steering New York through the crisis capably.

That said: we probably should be slowly reopening parts of the economy and easing restrictions in some places in some ways. Not "throw wide the doors of commerce" or "encourage megachurches to meet", but there's increasing evidence that things like closing outdoor spaces is of very marginal benefit compared to the amount of pain it imposes. Evidence is that this is mostly spread through sharing indoor spaces in close quarters, not much outside with reasonable separation. By all means, have the beach lifeguards go out and drive some 6-foot separation lines into the sand with their ATVs, post a police officer to enforce distancing and shut things down if it becomes a problem, but let people go to the beach with their immediate families.
  #135  
Old 04-27-2020, 12:56 PM
Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't think me or anyone else in the thread has said any such thing. The thread is "Why do Republicans want to end the corona virus restrictions?" and my answer is that Republicans, generally, do not like government intrusion. When the government tells me that I must stay at home, my first reaction is to recoil and protest against that, and then continually think that we must have a better solution than that. So something like ending restrictions and getting herd immunity will instinctively get a much more positive response from a Republican for that reason alone.

My impression is that when Democrats hear a decree that you must stay home, their first reaction is that because the government said so then there must be some real substance to that decree because they, again generally, view the government as the provider of social good whether that is health care, or social security, or WIC, or education, or any of the litany of things that the left typically support.

Like the prior poster, I think we have seen these "Trump sucks" posts in everything. I'll bet I couldn't start a thread about stamp collecting that within 10 posts wouldn't have a negative comment about Trump. And that's fine, this is a left learning board, so have your fun.

But when an OP asks us Republicans a question about why we feel a certain way, don't tell us that it is bullshit when I am telling you exactly how I feel. I don't have a secret scheme I am hiding from you.
As the OP, thanks for participating in this thread UltraVires. You nailed it when you stated up-thread that I was honestly trying to understand how Republicans were making their decisions. It has been helpful and I also did not really appreciate the Trump sucks comments even though I strongly feel that he does. I appreciate your input and the responses of other conservatives in this thread.

All that said, you should make some threads like this. It is clear from what you say here that you don't understand how Democrats think at all.
  #136  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:07 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think the problem is simpler than this. I think some Republicans, including Trump, have just become too locked into the principle of arguing. They can't stop even when it's an issue where they should be agreeing.

When the terrorists attacked on 9/11, everyone was in agreement that it was a bad thing and we should fight the terrorists. It was a universal opinion held by Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. And Bush was smart enough to see this and just take the leadership of the consensus.

But Trump and his loyalists don't have the ability to do this. They see everything as "I'm right and you're wrong" - so they feel compelled to argue against the Democrats even when the Democrats are saying something that's undeniably sensible.
Agreed. And this goes back for years. I remember reading that during the Obama years, Republicans in power became even more increasingly unwilling to compromise. Compromises between parties had been the way government was run for years. But this came to an end.

Why? The theory I read was that many Republican voters and an increasing number of Republican politicians viewed Obama (and by extension the entire Democrat Party) as not merely wrong... But actually EVIL. Obama was not just offering different policies - he was the LITERAL Antichrist, put here on earth to destroy mankind. This is what a significant portion of the Republican party actually thought. We can debate about WHY they thought this about the first president who was not white, but that's not important now.

The think is; You don't compromise with EVIL. You don't agree with the Literal Antichrist. And this has become how rank and file Republicans (and their leaders) continue to operate today. They cannot, CANNOT ever agree with ANYthing a Democrat says.
  #137  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:28 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Agreed. And this goes back for years. I remember reading that during the Obama years, Republicans in power became even more increasingly unwilling to compromise. Compromises between parties had been the way government was run for years. But this came to an end.

Why? The theory I read was that many Republican voters and an increasing number of Republican politicians viewed Obama (and by extension the entire Democrat Party) as not merely wrong... But actually EVIL. Obama was not just offering different policies - he was the LITERAL Antichrist, put here on earth to destroy mankind. This is what a significant portion of the Republican party actually thought. We can debate about WHY they thought this about the first president who was not white, but that's not important now.

The think is; You don't compromise with EVIL. You don't agree with the Literal Antichrist. And this has become how rank and file Republicans (and their leaders) continue to operate today. They cannot, CANNOT ever agree with ANYthing a Democrat says.
This trend started before Obama. It was pretty strong when Bill Clinton was president. Newt Gingrich shut down the government with glee, thinking that the whole country would be behind him. Republicans took an "anything-goes" approach to dealing with Clinton.

Blocking judicial appointees and routine filibustering started in earnest during this time. The Republicans engineering a firing of (their own) Robert Fiske and replacement with Kenneth Starr when it became clear that Fiske was about to exonerate Clinton.

You can find these kinds of anti-Democratic/Liberal trends going pretty far back. It was done mostly at state and local stages during the Lyndon Johnson era. It was nationwide during McCarthyism. The idea that the left and liberals are evil and anything can be done to destroy them is deeply embedded in modern American conservatism.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #138  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:32 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Agreed. And this goes back for years. I remember reading that during the Obama years, Republicans in power became even more increasingly unwilling to compromise. Compromises between parties had been the way government was run for years. But this came to an end.

Why? The theory I read was that many Republican voters and an increasing number of Republican politicians viewed Obama (and by extension the entire Democrat Party) as not merely wrong... But actually EVIL. Obama was not just offering different policies - he was the LITERAL Antichrist, put here on earth to destroy mankind. This is what a significant portion of the Republican party actually thought. We can debate about WHY they thought this about the first president who was not white, but that's not important now.

The think is; You don't compromise with EVIL. You don't agree with the Literal Antichrist. And this has become how rank and file Republicans (and their leaders) continue to operate today. They cannot, CANNOT ever agree with ANYthing a Democrat says.
This trend started before Obama. It was pretty strong when Bill Clinton was president. Newt Gingrich shut down the government with glee, thinking that the whole country would be behind him. Republicans took an "anything-goes" approach to dealing with Clinton.

Blocking judicial appointees and routine filibustering started in earnest during this time. The Republicans engineering a firing of (their own) Robert Fiske and replacement with Kenneth Starr when it became clear that Fiske was about to exonerate Clinton.

You can find these kinds of anti-Democratic/Liberal trends going pretty far back. It was done mostly at state and local stages during the Lyndon Johnson era. It was nationwide during McCarthyism. In the pre-New Deal era, corporations gleefully murdered employees trying to advocate for better working conditions and compensation. The idea that the left and liberals are evil and anything can be done to destroy them is deeply embedded in modern American conservatism. It wasn't always in action at the top national level, but it has been building for decades.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 04-27-2020 at 03:33 PM.
  #139  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:33 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post

My impression is that when Democrats hear a decree that you must stay home, their first reaction is that because the government said so then there must be some real substance to that decree because they, again generally, view the government as the provider of social good whether that is health care, or social security, or WIC, or education, or any of the litany of things that the left typically support.
This bit stuck me. It seems that you have a negative opinion of this "litany of things". The phraseology seems to imply that you disapprove of these things.

So healthcare for the population is not a good thing for the government to support. Nor is Education. Government should have nothing to do with education; Leave that up to individual families I guess? Social security - another bad government thing. Life was probably better for old people before this, was it?

Those lefties. Supporting stupid stuff for decades.
  #140  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:39 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Agreed. And this goes back for years. I remember reading that during the Obama years, Republicans in power became even more increasingly unwilling to compromise. Compromises between parties had been the way government was run for years. But this came to an end.

Why? The theory I read was that many Republican voters and an increasing number of Republican politicians viewed Obama (and by extension the entire Democrat Party) as not merely wrong... But actually EVIL. Obama was not just offering different policies - he was the LITERAL Antichrist, put here on earth to destroy mankind. This is what a significant portion of the Republican party actually thought. We can debate about WHY they thought this about the first president who was not white, but that's not important now.

The think is; You don't compromise with EVIL. You don't agree with the Literal Antichrist. And this has become how rank and file Republicans (and their leaders) continue to operate today. They cannot, CANNOT ever agree with ANYthing a Democrat says.
And next you'll tell them that Democrats do not do this, but if they do it's because the Pubbies are actually wrong and shouldn't be listened to anyway, am I right?
  #141  
Old 04-27-2020, 04:07 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,535
I'm not a Republican, but I do share this part of a common Republican belief, so I think I'm qualified to post on it: Republicans tend to trust non-governmental institutions a lot more than Democrats. They're more likely to think that churches and business and local organizations and individuals are going to figure things out.

In the extreme, this comes off as anti-authority, anti-intellectual, anti-science. And to some extent it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that if you elect people who claim government is ineffective, they are ideologically opposed to making government effective. But in many respects, they are right. There are a lot of problems that government is not a good solution to.

And even in this case, they were right about lots of things. The NBA, the Vegas resorts, the ski resorts, Broadway all shut down before a government edict. They were ahead of the curve!

WHO and CDC were telling us for weeks not to wear masks.

I do worry that in this particular case, those instincts may be disastrous. Slow moving problems and linear problems are well-suited to experimentation and decentralized solutions. Exponential problems are not. By the time a local church realizes things are a problem in their area, a bunch of their congregants are going to die.
  #142  
Old 04-27-2020, 04:51 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Republicans tend to trust non-governmental institutions a lot more than Democrats. They're more likely to think that churches and business and local organizations and individuals are going to figure things out.
But for some reason they don't trust universities.
  #143  
Old 04-27-2020, 05:26 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
But for some reason they don't trust universities.
Sure, just as liberal people tend to not trust churches (I say this as a somewhat moderate liberal who doesn't really trust churches).
  #144  
Old 04-27-2020, 06:32 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
And next you'll tell them that Democrats do not do this, but if they do it's because the Pubbies are actually wrong and shouldn't be listened to anyway, am I right?
The left thinks that Republicans are immoral people when they advocate for locking children in cages away from their parents for the crime of being brought to the USA.

Republicans think that Democrats are evil and anti-christ worshippers when they advocate for access to healthcare for all, or good education for all of the people, not just the wealthy.

So I guess they ARE just both the same.
  #145  
Old 04-27-2020, 07:49 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't think me or anyone else in the thread has said any such thing. The thread is "Why do Republicans want to end the corona virus restrictions?" and my answer is that Republicans, generally, do not like government intrusion. When the government tells me that I must stay at home, my first reaction is to recoil and protest against that, and then continually think that we must have a better solution than that. So something like ending restrictions and getting herd immunity will instinctively get a much more positive response from a Republican for that reason alone.
But this isn't some new Liberal power grab. Quarantines go back at least as far as the revolution. The government using its authority to enforce public health regulations has been one of its fundamental roles throughout history. The only reason it feels extreme is that its been so long since we had a severe health crisis like this, and that modern transportation means its hitting everywhere at once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
My impression is that when Democrats hear a decree that you must stay home, their first reaction is that because the government said so then there must be some real substance to that decree ...
Actually no. Democrats hear a decree to stay home and think there must be some sense to it because epidemiologists and expert economists say that that is the best course of action.

On to the OP, I also wonder if there is a bit of blame avoidance either calculated or instinctive on the part of Republican politicians. The deaths caused by the Covid-19 are not directly caused by any policy action, they may be exacerbated by a failure to act but the direct cause is a natural phenomenon. On the other hand, economic hardship is a direct consequence of government enforced shutdown. So that can be laid at their feet. This is basically the trolley problem all over again. A million deaths on one side of the track and a million job losses on the other side. But to switch from the deaths to the job losses requires actively inflicting those losses.

ETA Disclaimer: the numbers above are poetic license and not meant to reflect actual predicted outcomes.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 04-27-2020 at 07:53 PM.
  #146  
Old 04-27-2020, 09:18 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Ike (that's General of the Armies, Columbia U. president, and POTUS Eisenhower) nailed it: "If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power." Sickening citizens by slashing environmental protections and medical services is not moral. Disenfranchisement of citizens and voter suppression is not moral. Ignoring physical reality is not moral.

Today's GOP are indeed a gang of thugs as described by the leader they would now despise. Their current party leader said there are nice Nazis and Klansmen. Fuck that.
  #147  
Old 04-27-2020, 09:40 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,300
For republicans it's now a matter of timing. If the country can somehow get to the point where coronavirus becomes old news, where there are fewer and fewer COVID -19 deaths and new cases, maybe, just maybe, the story fades.

They can then shift the focus back on the economy. Sure, it's shitty now but they can have a debate if the focus goes back to opening up more of the economy and who gets the government handouts: brown people or white small business owners.
  #148  
Old 04-27-2020, 09:44 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
This conservative wants to end the stay at home work order because it isn't sustainable. Now I am ok will all kinds of restrictions (wear face mask, stay 6' away, wash hands etc) but people have got to get back to work. I and my family all are lucky enough to have jobs that we can do from home, a lot of others do not, and a lot of other industries business models are failing because they also CANNOT

I will also attribute it to a false belief that this may be a chicken little moment also but I lack faith in any government entity telling me what is best for me or my family. I'd rather make those calls myself.
See, I get it. I disagree like hell, but I don't think this is batshit crazy.

I do think that getting out in the streets, hoisting a confederate flag, and holding big signs saying Trump 2020 is kinda batshit, though.

But I think even some democrat-leaning voters are mildly skeptical of whether we really have to live weeks and months on-end locked in our basements and binging on Netflix.
  #149  
Old 04-28-2020, 02:00 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
And next you'll tell them that Democrats do not do this, but if they do it's because the Pubbies are actually wrong and shouldn't be listened to anyway, am I right?
You do remember that Pelosi negotiated with the White House on the stimulus bill, right? She cut McConnell out, but McConnell is the we do not negotiate guy, so he cut himself out.
  #150  
Old 04-28-2020, 08:31 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
You do remember that Pelosi negotiated with the White House on the stimulus bill, right? She cut McConnell out, but McConnell is the we do not negotiate guy, so he cut himself out.
This stuff writes itself. She cut him out but he did it himself.
Kinda like the bullshit hold up of that same stimulus bill, for partisan reason. Did she do that too?
I am more than willing to call out that partisan bullshit from both parties, are you? I somehow doubt it
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017