Lunkhead wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:19 pm
And why do you want your state equally represented? It means that you personally will be over represented, so I get how that's appealing, but, I don't get how that's fair.
I guess ask any member of the European Union why they don't want to be represented by population. Do you honestly not see how a split congress (one based on population and one on geography) is a real attempt at fairness or are you trolling me?
What if we rephrased that as "Is it worth losing any reigning in of the opposition party for decades for 230000 and counting dead Americans out of 10M and counting sick Americans?". I would take that chance.
What can be accomplished at the federal level that can't be done at the state level? The only answer I can come up with is deficit spending. They can send out trillions of dollars (some of it to people, a lot of it to cronies) to offset the huge economic costs associated with the lockdown. That's a big one, I admit. But the Republican version vs the Democrat version was just a matter of how much and when (once you take away some of the crony spending on both sides.) Remember, the Republicans had a bill ready to go that the Nancy refused to even vote on because "it didn't go far enough." Which to me is idiotic. Pass it, or at least vote on it, and then put forth an additional one. The Democrats could have gotten most of what they wanted if they would have pieced it together. Unless they wanted to save political face or what they wanted really didn't have anything to do with helping citizens.
That's typically true. And I guess if Cuomo can keep his support after sending sick old people back to nursing homes way back at the beginning of the pandemic is any indicator then you're point is very, very valid.
But I think we both agree on term limits. So that's one solution. I also think that if it's egregious enough and the opposition actually puts forth a decent candidate then representatives get voted out. Clinton vs Trump proves that neither party can be counted on to put forth their best candidate, though.
It's a national crisis so I think a national response is appropriate, both medically and economically. A national response doesn't mean a "one size fits all" approach either.
If only we had an organization like the CDC that "Assists state and local authorities in surveillance and outbreak investigations; by invitation, provides laboratory and epidemiology support; participates in multistate and international outbreaks."
I don't think anybody has been trying to push for any kind of one size fits all mandate, although, it may be that that is what is required,
Then why do you need both houses of congress to be one party?
if people are traveling between areas with different rules it will spread regardless of how strict any one state gets about it.
Which is exactly why you don't a one size fits all policy. If we would have locked down the entire country when New York first started spiking, we would be looking at catastrophic damages (in both economic terms and in unintended deaths.) The, in my opinion, premature lockdown here has already been projected to cause additional deaths from a lack of pre-screening and it resulted in at least two deaths (that I'm aware of) from surgeries that were postponed. (If you think that two isn't much, compare that to a total of four deaths from COVID at the time.)
Lunkhead wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:19 pm
Pigfarmer Jr wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:47 pm
You have no rights if a simple majority of voters can take them away. Not to be too crude, but gang rape is a form of democracy with the victim being out voted by his or her attackers.
Also, you are a white dude, you are really not in any jeopardy of having your rights taken away from you, especially not by the party that's not openly fascist/white-supremacist.
I noticed you didn't provide an argument about democracy.
I'd like to point out that we all lost some of our rights when the Patriot Act was passed with support from both parties and signed into law by Obama as just one example.
Do you remember when San Fran was trying to outlaw circumcision? I brought up to my friend, Mike Skliar (who has submitted here once or twice back with Hoops back when he was alive) and he insisted that it was some midwestern red state. I mean, certainly, no true blue city would EVER discriminate against his religion, right? And he's a white male. What's the odds? To be fair, you're right, it was the democrats doing the rights taking away thing in this case.
(To be fair, I honestly don't know how I feel about circumcision. I can see that it is a religious ritual that has been in place for thousands of years and I also see it as no longer necessary in today's world of science and medicine. My grandfather wasn't circumcised, but his male children were because he saw how easy infection and other problems were solved through the surgery.)
And finally, I've had many of these discussions with an employee that's black. If I bring him in to make these arguments for me then do they suddenly become valid? Asking for a friend.