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.
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.
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.
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!”
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…?
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.
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.
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?
I have another book which discusses the transubstantiation of [sup]235[/sup]U into [sup]90[/sup]Sr. Is it something like that.
[quote="Sam_Stone, post:13, topic:852128"]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Cite?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
