2 2
skybytch

Prepping?

Recommended Posts

(edited)
13 hours ago, jakee said:

It may only be hindsight for you but not for the rest us. This is exactly what you were being told at the time.

No it isn't.  Back in March you were saying that we "don’t face any additional risk from people coming in from the outside," and how we'd pose more of threat to travelers coming in than they would on us, and how some unnamed expert  "seems to say"  that the travel ban isn't an effective strategy - that there are economic concerns and the additional strain on businesses.

And then you say I'm the one that wasn't ok with real measures to stop covid?  I mean would you have seriously been ok with it if Trump didn't restrict international travel and allowed businesses or whoever to just come and go as they please, without quarantine?

 

13 hours ago, jakee said:

The fact that you appear to be conceding that the travel ban was useless, while you're still trying to bash us for not supporting it is frankly baffling.

You baffle yourself.   I never said it was useless - and practically everyone here has expressed the importance of travel restrictions/quarantine, with the main objection being that they weren't implemented sooner.  The only reason we're even talking about this right now is because olof is just trolling again and tried using it as a lame example of how trump supposedly tricked me, somehow.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

One of the rolls of the EC is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.  We have a federalist system for a reason.  A solution that may work for 51% of the population living in cities may be awful for the 49% who don’t.

That is absurd prima facie nonsense which can only possibly make sense if you consider that having a President at all is tyranny. In which case the only thing the EC does is sometimes substitute tyranny of the minority for tyranny of the majority.

 

Yay.

Share this post


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

No it isn't.  Back in March you were saying that we "don’t face any additional risk from people coming in from the outside," and how we'd pose more of threat to travelers coming in than they would on us, and how some unnamed expert  "seems to say"  that the travel ban isn't an effective strategy - that there are economic concerns and the additional strain on businesses.

And I (among others) also questioned exactly what we're talking about now - how the thousands of incoming travellers from places that had been "banned" were supposed to be screened and where they'd be quarantined if they were. You (or someone) said that was all going it work perfectly. 

Quote

And then you say I'm the one that wasn't ok with real measures to stop covid?  I mean would you have seriously been ok with it if Trump didn't restrict international travel and allowed businesses or whoever to just come and go as they please, without quarantine?

You literally just said you weren't ok with either a real travel ban or quarantine for incoming travellers. In what way are you in favour of effective measures to stop covid from entering the country?

I would have been ok with not restricting international travel and I would have been wrong - but Covid was already embedded in enough places inside the borders by then that domestic social distancing measures to control the spread of the virus within the country were already hugely more important than trying to stop the virus fom getting in. That battle had already been lost.

Quote

You baffle yourself.   I never said it was useless - and practically everyone here has expressed the importance of travel restrictions/quarantine, with the main objection being that they weren't implemented sooner.  The only reason we're even talking about this right now is because olof is just trolling again and tried using it as a lame example of how trump supposedly tricked me, somehow.

Well, apparently he's tricked you into thinking it wasn't useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

And then you say I'm the one that wasn't ok with real measures to stop covid?

Nice deflection. That's the entire point, they weren't real measures to stop covid - Trump was just full of BS doing fake measures to stop covid. That's what we saw, and that's what you fell for, hook, line and sinker.

And it's just one example - I could probably find another one regarding Trump's hyperbolic BS about crime-infested democrat run states. Maybe you believe that Portland is in complete anarchy and control of the antifa? Haven't spent time to look, but it's pretty common. I read something from the right-wing news one day, the next day I hear it almost verbatim from my "independent thinker" acquaintance at work. It's so predictable. Not you, but it's really common on your side. Even Turtle keeps saying he's centrist but he's pretty much a Fox news repeater here. You can predict his talking points by watching Fox (ugh) the previous evening.

Brains on rails. Ron says it best - "where we go one we go all." Exactly what sheep do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, mbohu said:

However, that really should already be taken care of by the proper division of powers between local, regional, state and federal governments.
When you are electing one person (and their team) for the entire country, I don't think that should play a role at all.--but at least that could be a logical argument.
There is also the fact that it's somewhat outdated, as so many people move around, and why should the power of their vote have anything to do with where they happen to be living at a given time?

The "tyranny of the 51%", while a true concern, is not addressed by the EC whatsoever (as someone else pointed out, you could divide the population into many other arbitrary groupings, rather than location--and say that the majority should not freely govern the minority--are we going to assign electors based on race or sexual orientation, now? Or based on people who prefer Netflix versus Amazon Prime? However you divide up population, there will always be majorities and minorities. Location is not unique in this regard.)

This is spot on.

There will always be majorities and minorities. The EC only converts a "tyranny of the majority" into "tyranny of the minority" but it's a problem that should really be solved by other methods - for example, homosexuality is a minority and is protected by law from discriminatory bakers for example (which right wingers still complain regularly about here).

Edited by olofscience
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Is that owing to a potential conservative advantage?

No, it is because it is what is prescribed in the Constitution.  If you don’t like it you can change it, as has been done seventeen times since the Bill of Rights.
 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No, it is because it is what is prescribed in the Constitution.  If you don’t like it you can change it, as has been done seventeen times since the Bill of Rights.
 

You like something just because it is in the constitution? Weird. Most people I know tend to think at least a little bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Coreece said:

 I never said it was useless - and practically everyone here has expressed the importance of travel restrictions/quarantine, with the main objection being that they weren't implemented sooner. 

No.  The main objection is that they weren't implemented, period.  The "travel ban" did not ban travel - it just banned Chinese aliens from coming into the US.  Hong Kong?  Anyone from there was still welcomed no matter what their citizenship.  Macao?  Still allowed in.  Travelers passing through China?  Allowed in.  Any Americans in China?  Allowed in.  It banned less than 25% of the people who would ordinarily come in to the US from China.  In fact, the very first case in the US was an American returning from China - someone who was never affected by any restrictions.

And if a Chinese citizen wanted in to the US?  They'd just make sure their flight connected through Hong Kong.

He fooled you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No, it is because it is what is prescribed in the Constitution.  If you don’t like it you can change it, as has been done seventeen times since the Bill of Rights.
 

So, whatever is in the Constitution is good until changed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No, once it is changed (in a constitutional manor) it is still the constitution.  Some folks might not like it but it has served us well for more than two hundred years.

Hi Brent,

You seem to never see the real discussion.

We are talking about the EC vs the popular vote.  We are not talking about changing the constitution.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 2 hours ago, billvon said:
14 hours ago, Coreece said:

I never said it was useless - and practically everyone here has expressed the importance of travel restrictions/quarantine, with the main objection being that they weren't implemented sooner. 

No.  The main objection is that they weren't implemented, period.  The "travel ban" did not ban travel - it just banned Chinese aliens from coming into the US. 

He fooled you.

No, we're not talking about the China ban in Jan.  We're talking about the travel ban in March after the WHO and Trump declared a pandemic.  As far as I remember, nobody here was even talking about the Jan ban or even knew about it until I brought it up months later after stumbling upon it when researching something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

11 hours ago, olofscience said:
13 hours ago, Coreece said:

And then you say I'm the one that wasn't ok with real measures to stop covid?

Nice deflection.

This entire inquiry into my support for the travel ban is a deflection, as if my support for travel restrictions and quarantining are even remotely the same thing as you and dekker falling into biden's pile of horsehit about us protecting ducks more than children.  When was the last time someone was given a death sentence for murdering a duck?:p

 

11 hours ago, olofscience said:

That's the entire point, they weren't real measures to stop covid - Trump was just full of BS doing fake measures to stop covid. That's what we saw, and that's what you fell for, hook, line and sinker.

No, travel restrictions and quarantining help reduce the spread.  If there was another outbreak I'd still support it regardless of who was president and how effective they were in it's implementation.

 

11 hours ago, olofscience said:

And it's just one example - I could probably find another one

No, it's not an example, and you can't find any because there are none.

 

11 hours ago, olofscience said:

Not you, but it's really common on your side.

You've only been here several months.  There are people that have been here for 10-20 years, they've met in person and still haven't figured them out or which "side" they run with. 

Take wolfriverjoe for example and how verbally barbed he is against religion, republicans and conservatism in general.  For years you rarely heard a positive word from him when it comes to the right, and hardly a negative word when it comes to the left.  He's still a registered republican if he didn't change it yet and has never voted for a democrat president.

Now take me, born in a working class democrat household in the middle of Detroit, formerly a registered democrat, now a registered independent, never registered as a republican, and never voted for a republican president. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
14 hours ago, jakee said:

 You (or someone) said that was all going it work perfectly. 

  wasn't me

14 hours ago, jakee said:

You literally just said you weren't ok with either a real travel ban or quarantine for incoming travellers.

What's going on with you lately?  If you're going to say that I literally said something, then you should quote what I literally said. That is not literally what I said.  You did something similar earlier when you said "the fact is that I seem to be conceding."  If you got a ticket for blowing a red light, how would it sound to you in court if the cop said "but, but, the fact is that it just seemed like a red light? :p

 

14 hours ago, jakee said:

I would have been ok with not restricting international travel and I would have been wrong - but Covid was already embedded in enough places inside the borders by then that domestic social distancing measures to control the spread of the virus within the country were already hugely more important than trying to stop the virus fom getting in. That battle had already been lost.

I understood what you were trying to say, but at that time I wasn't looking at the travel ban as a means to stop covid.  If it was implemented sooner, fine, maybe, but nobody was really advocating that.  I just saw the travel restrictions/quarantine as standard procedure to slow the spread at that point.  Better late than never.

 

14 hours ago, jakee said:

Well, apparently he's tricked you into thinking it wasn't useless.

How was it entirely useless?  You just said it would've been wrong to have unrestricted travel and that a "real" travel ban could stop covid, so why wouldn't restricting travel to non citizens limit the spread?  Even if it didn't have a significant effect on the overall numbers, it still would've prevented infections and even more deaths.  There was just no reason for non-citizens to be here, not for business, not for pleasure.  No reason for them infect others or get infected and spread it around even more when they have no good reason to be here during a pandemic.

I mean if olof is going to suggest that the lack screening/quarantining of citizens contributed to the 200K+ deaths, then by that logic, preventing non citizens from even entering and taxing the system even further would still limit the number of cases/deaths.

 

 

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


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

No, once it is changed (in a constitutional manor) it is still the constitution.  Some folks might not like it but it has served us well for more than two hundred years.

Where exactly is this manor located?  Is there a Lord of the Manor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Coreece said:

No, we're not talking about the China ban in Jan.  We're talking about the travel ban in March after the WHO and Trump declared a pandemic. 

Let me quote for you the text from the State Department dated March 13th:

"There you will find information about President Trump’s proclamation from March 11 regarding the travel restrictions on foreign nationals who have been in the Schengen zone. The restrictions do not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents and (generally) immediate family members of U.S. citizens.  The Department of Homeland Security has announced that U.S. citizens who have been in the Schengen zone in the last 14 days may only be permitted to arrive at select airports, in order to facilitate enhanced screenings."

On the 14th he extended it to Ireland and the UK.  Again no restrictions on Americans, or on people from the Ireland or UK not flying from there.

It is worth noting that "enhanced screenings" didn't get implemented either.  People got a flyer saying "call us if you get sick" - and were sent on their merry way.  It wasn't until months later that anyone started screening in a consistent way at airports for COVID-19 carriers.

Again - he fooled you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

  wasn't me

What's going on with you lately?  If you're going to say that I literally said something, then you should quote what I literally said. That is not literally what I said.  You did something similar earlier when you said "the fact is that I seem to be conceding."  If you got a ticket for blowing a red light, how would it sound to you in court if the cop said "but, but, the fact is that it just seemed like a red light? :p

What's going on with you? You really did say it wasn't ok to keep people out or make them quarantine.

 

Share this post


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

No, once it is changed (in a constitutional manor) it is still the constitution.  Some folks might not like it but it has served us well for more than two hundred years.

So... if the constitution was changed to abolish the EC and institute a popular vote, you would then support the popular vote because it was in the constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, Coreece said:

regardless of who was president and how effective they were in it's implementation

You're saying...you'd support something regardless of whether it's completely useless.

Have you actually thought this through?

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

I mean if olof is going to suggest that the lack screening/quarantining of citizens contributed to the 200K+ deaths, then by that logic, preventing non citizens from even entering and taxing the system even further would still limit the number of cases/deaths.

I see you're still not familiar with the term "exponential growth". How about the term "going viral"? It is a virus after all.

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

I just saw the travel restrictions/quarantine as standard procedure to slow the spread at that point.  Better late than never.

In the case of exponential growth, late is almost indistinguishable from never.

 

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jakee said:

So... if the constitution was changed to abolish the EC and institute a popular vote, you would then support the popular vote because it was in the constitution?

Yes, I might not like it but it would be the law of the land, sort of like Heller for you lefties.

Share this post


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

Let me quote for you the text from the State Department dated March 13th:

"There you will find information about President Trump’s proclamation from March 11 regarding the travel restrictions on foreign nationals who have been in the Schengen zone. The restrictions do not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents and (generally) immediate family members of U.S. citizens.  The Department of Homeland Security has announced that U.S. citizens who have been in the Schengen zone in the last 14 days may only be permitted to arrive at select airports, in order to facilitate enhanced screenings."

On the 14th he extended it to Ireland and the UK.  Again no restrictions on Americans, or on people from the Ireland or UK not flying from there.

It is worth noting that "enhanced screenings" didn't get implemented either.  People got a flyer saying "call us if you get sick" - and were sent on their merry way.  It wasn't until months later that anyone started screening in a consistent way at airports for COVID-19 carriers.

Again - he fooled you.

What exactly do you think he fooled me into doing, and how does your copy/paste illustrate that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jakee said:

You really did say it wasn't ok to keep people out or make them quarantine.

  Ya, as a general rule I'm not ok with shutting out our own and/or just leaving them for dead.   Moving forward, if travelers were notified that they'd be subject to a mandatory quarantine during another pandemic, it might help prepare them to respond more favorably.  I would hope that next time we'd all be a bit more cooperative, but I wouldn't necessarily be against non-violent ways to compel one to quarantine, short of police or military involvement.

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.

2 2