[johnu]

Only a Third of Republicans Think Voting Is a Fundamental Right: Poll

Quote

New polling released Thursday by Pew Research Center showed stark divides among Democratic and Republican voters on their views regarding voting rights—appearing to align with the political battle playing out in the Capitol and across the country.

Only 32 percent of Republican and Republican leaning voters said that they viewed voting as a fundamental right for every citizen that should not be restricted. Meanwhile, 67 percent of GOP supporters said voting is a privilege with responsibilities that can be limited.

For the 67% of GOP supporters, one of the voting responsibilities is being white and voting Republican.

[Winstonm]

 johnu, on 2021-July-22, 15:11, said:

Only a Third of Republicans Think Voting Is a Fundamental Right: Poll



For the 67% of GOP supporters, one of the voting responsibilities is being white and voting Republican.

The unalienable rights are: life, liberty, and the big con.

[Winstonm]

According to Yahoo news, 40% of all new Covid cases are in Missouri, Texas, and Florida, also known as the Show Me and the Blow Me states.

[Winstonm]

Mr. Darwin, I hope you are hearing this...

Quote

A Louisiana man who contracted COVID-19 and wound up hospitalized said he would rather be ill than get vaccinated against the coronavirus.

"Here I am recovering, getting out of here finally tomorrow. Am I going to get a vaccine? No," Scott Roe told CBS News as he lay in a bed getting supplemental oxygen at Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center in Baton Rouge.

The father and small-business owner recently caught COVID-19 and developed pneumonia, but he said he still would not have gotten vaccinated if that meant he could have prevented the infection.

"I would have gone through this, yes sir," Roe, who said he's a Republican, told CBS News' David Begnaud. "Don't shove it down my throat. That's what local, state, federal administration is trying to do - shove it down your throat."

Hard to argue with that. It's such a well-developed logical conclusion.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2021-July-23, 21:37, said:

Mr. Darwin, I hope you are hearing this...





Hard to argue with that. It's such a well-developed logical conclusion.

The same article that you cite has this quote:

Quote

'I want to be clear after seeing what I've seen the past two weeks. We only have two choices: we are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic. Or we are going to accept death.' said Dr Catherine O'Neal, chief medical officer at Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, during a press conference Friday per a report from The Advocate.

Combine this with what Scott Roe says and I think the situation is clear.

It's hard to see how we can force vaccinations. Too many people, too complicated. But I think we can, both legally and practically, restrict their participation, I think we can sharply restrict their participation, in public activities. I am no legal expert but it seems we have always had the right to regulate behavior in health emergencies. This is a clear health emergency. Lives are at stake, hospitals can be overwhelmed, the economic and social well-being of the country, and the world is in danger. What further argument is needed? A serious health emergency is at hand, we have been fortunate in having a vaccine developed, some refuse to take it, it's not all that practical to make them take it, so simply restrict their activities. This is fully justified. Regrettable, but necessary and justified. As I mentioned, some time back I said to a refusenik friend "You are allowed to commit suicide, you are not allowed to take others with you". That's the argument in a nutshell.

[johnu]

 kenberg, on 2021-July-24, 11:39, said:

It's hard to see how we can force vaccinations. Too many people, too complicated. But I think we can, both legally and practically, restrict their participation, I think we can sharply restrict their participation, in public activities. I am no legal expert but it seems we have always had the right to regulate behavior in health emergencies. This is a clear health emergency.

As I have previously suggested, we can make refusing to get vaccinated a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid can refuse to cover medical costs for those anti-vaxxers who refuse to get vaccinated and put a burden on the health care system. The pre-existing condition exclusion would be waived for those who have a legitimate medical condition that prevents them from getting vaccinated, but I think those would be very, very rare. There would be no waiver for religious objectors. There is no reason for other citizens to subsidize their anti-social cult practices.

We basically had the same argument in the US over seat belts, motorcycle helmets, smoking, ??? Life insurance companies have long had higher premium rates for smokers.

[pilowsky]

Vaccination in the USA has been compulsory in many situations for more than 100 years (see the extract from Wiki below).
The right to be stupid vis a vis protecting the public has been tested through the courts on many occasions.

Mind you; there are many other things in the USA that cause no real harm to anyone that is also completely illegal (e.g. being naked on the beach, failing to give a press conference after playing in a tennis championship).

The argument about the legality of compelling people to do anything is a herring of many different colours.
OTOH, there are unintended consequences of compelling people to register and get vaccinated.
One such problem may be that all the people in the USA that are there illegally may have trouble.
According to Pew research, there are more than 10 million 'unauthorised immigrants' in the USA. It is possible that a portion of these people either cannot get the vaccine or do not wish to identify themselves.
Add to that those ornery people that manage to fake it or otherwise evade it and those that claim that harming others is an important part of their right to religious expression.

To cap it all off, it was reported on my news feed this morning that having had COVID19 makes you stupid.
This may be true since Senator Rand Paul, who swam in the Congressional pool while infected with the virus (they really do have a swamp there), has sent a 'criminal referral' to the DOJ saying that Dr ("You don't know what you are talking about Senator") Fauci lied about funding to Wuhan.
On top of all that a march of more than 3000 stupid people was organised in Sydney yesterday to complain about lockdowns and dozens of truck (lorry) drivers did their block-the-roads-in-the-city BS to protest as well.

Quote

https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States
...The court in Prince said:
The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. ... Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience. Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.

[johnu]

 pilowsky, on 2021-July-24, 16:28, said:

Mind you; there are many other things in the USA that cause no real harm to anyone that is also completely illegal (e.g. being naked on the beach, failing to give a press conference after playing in a tennis championship).

Good story, except Naomi Osaka was fined in Paris during the French Open.

 pilowsky, on 2021-July-24, 16:28, said:

To cap it all off, it was reported on my news feed this morning that having had COVID19 makes you stupid.
This may be true since Senator Rand Paul, who swam in the Congressional pool while infected with the virus (they really do have a swamp there), has sent a 'criminal referral' to the DOJ saying that Dr ("You don't know what you are talking about Senator") Fauci lied about funding to Wuhan.

I have to defend Rand Paul. He has been stupid for decades before Covid became a thing. He did not need Covid to reach his current level of stupidity and incompetence.

[kenberg]

 johnu, on 2021-July-24, 13:44, said:

As I have previously suggested, we can make refusing to get vaccinated a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid can refuse to cover medical costs for those anti-vaxxers who refuse to get vaccinated and put a burden on the health care system. The pre-existing condition exclusion would be waived for those who have a legitimate medical condition that prevents them from getting vaccinated, but I think those would be very, very rare. There would be no waiver for religious objectors. There is no reason for other citizens to subsidize their anti-social cult practices.

We basically had the same argument in the US over seat belts, motorcycle helmets, smoking, ??? Life insurance companies have long had higher premium rates for smokers.

When push comes to shove, I am not sure I am willing to do this. I am opposed to going over Niagara Falls in a barrel but if someone does it and needs medical help, I suppose he should get it. Still, if hospital beds get crowded, as well they might, then irresponsibility, however manifested, should put a person on low priority.

Let me compare the situation with two motor vehicle regulations. We are to wear seat belts. Not doing so risks personal injury. Cross-country truck drivers are limited in how long they can be on the road without taking a break. Ignoring this rule endangers the drivers, but it also endangers others. It's this second one that seems closer to vaccine refusal. Sure they should get the shots for their own good but I favor focusing on others. So if they refuse the shot, then ban them from just about all public activities. They can get their groceries by calling ahead and having what they order brought out and put in the trunk of their car. And so on. Don't get the vaccine? Stay away from the rest of us. I think such an approach would have broad support.

Of course I still hope many will come around. To call their refusal adolescent understates the matter by quite a bit. Even as an adolescent I got my shots.

[pilowsky]

Naomi who?

Quote

World No.1 Djokovic didn't face the press after he got disqualified at the US Open 2020. As a result, the Serb had to pay a total fine of about $20,000.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-July-24, 17:46, said:

When push comes to shove, I am not sure I am willing to do this. I am opposed to going over Niagara Falls in a barrel but if someone does it and needs medical help, I suppose he should get it. Still, if hospital beds get crowded, as well they might, then irresponsibility, however manifested, should put a person on low priority.

Let me compare the situation with two motor vehicle regulations. We are to wear seat belts. Not doing so risks personal injury. Cross-country truck drivers are limited in how long they can be on the road without taking a break. Ignoring this rule endangers the drivers, but it also endangers others. It's this second one that seems closer to vaccine refusal. Sure they should get the shots for their own good but I favor focusing on others. So if they refuse the shot, then ban them from just about all public activities. They can get their groceries by calling ahead and having what they order brought out and put in the trunk of their car. And so on. Don't get the vaccine? Stay away from the rest of us. I think such an approach would have broad support.

Of course I still hope many will come around. To call their refusal adolescent understates the matter by quite a bit. Even as an adolescent I got my shots.

I think your plan risks armed conflict with folks similar to the ones who planned to kidnap the Michigan governor.

For the first time in my life I am genuinely concerned over the immense number of people who 20 years ago would have been dismissed as fringe crazies but who now are being elected to both state and federal offices.

Peter Turchin, a researcher claims we are in for tough sailing for many years and I hope we survive it.

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2021-July-24, 13:44, said:

As I have previously suggested, we can make refusing to get vaccinated a pre-existing condition.

Didn't Obamacare do away with refusing insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions? Hoisted by our own petard.

[hrothgar]

 barmar, on 2021-July-24, 20:25, said:

Didn't Obamacare do away with refusing insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions? Hoisted by our own petard.

Yes, but it didn't do away with with differential pricing

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2021-July-24, 17:46, said:

Let me compare the situation with two motor vehicle regulations. We are to wear seat belts. Not doing so risks personal injury. Cross-country truck drivers are limited in how long they can be on the road without taking a break. Ignoring this rule endangers the drivers, but it also endangers others. It's this second one that seems closer to vaccine refusal. Sure they should get the shots for their own good but I favor focusing on others. So if they refuse the shot, then ban them from just about all public activities. They can get their groceries by calling ahead and having what they order brought out and put in the trunk of their car. And so on. Don't get the vaccine? Stay away from the rest of us. I think such an approach would have broad support.

The unfortunate thing is that GOP leaders are going the exact opposite direction. A number of states have made it illegal for businesses to require vaccination of customers. Florida has been battling the CDC over cruise lines. CDC requires cruises ships to check the vaccination status of customers, but Florida took them to court to get this stopped because it would cause too much of a burden on the cruise industry (what I think they actually object to is that the cruises will depart out of other states that allow them to operate safely, so Florida will lose the tax revenue). It's gone back and forth through various appeals, and the latest was yesterday when the 11th Circuit withdrew its decision and allowed the district judge's injunction to take effect, so Florida is currently winning.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Republicans are just evil. They don't care who dies as long as they make money. While minorities have been hit the worst by the pandemic, cruises are mostly an "old white people" thing, so these decisions will impact the heart of their base.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2021-July-24, 20:40, said:

The unfortunate thing is that GOP leaders are going the exact opposite direction. A number of states have made it illegal for businesses to require vaccination of customers. Florida has been battling the CDC over cruise lines. CDC requires cruises ships to check the vaccination status of customers, but Florida took them to court to get this stopped because it would cause too much of a burden on the cruise industry (what I think they actually object to is that the cruises will depart out of other states that allow them to operate safely, so Florida will lose the tax revenue). It's gone back and forth through various appeals, and the latest was yesterday when the 11th Circuit withdrew its decision and allowed the district judge's injunction to take effect, so Florida is currently winning.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Republicans are just evil. They don't care who dies as long as they make money. While minorities have been hit the worst by the pandemic, cruises are mostly an "old white people" thing, so these decisions will impact the heart of their base.

There are times that it is hard to know just what else to say. A virus does what a virus does because it is a virus. I would like to hope for better from people.

The development of the vaccine was a wonderful accomplishment. We now have the Delta variant of the virus. Luckily the vaccine works reasonably well against it, but Delta is not the last letter in the Greek alphabet. The virus, and virus-related deaths, are surging in the areas where people are not vaccinated.

The responsibility for what happens next lies entirely with those who fail to act on the need for vaccination. There is no way around that. They need to decide if that is who they wish to be. I have made mistakes, who hasn't, but here the consequences will be immense. Guys, the hour is getting late.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2021-July-25, 06:38, said:

The responsibility for what happens next lies entirely with those who fail to act on the need for vaccination. There is no way around that. They need to decide if that is who they wish to be. I have made mistakes, who hasn't, but here the consequences will be immense. Guys, the hour is getting late.

Can't help but notice that the word "those" can be interpreted in more than one way

1. First, you have the vaccine hesitant
2. However, you also have the sane portions of the population who are not insisting on vaccination mandates.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2021-July-25, 07:25, said:

Can't help but notice that the word "those" can be interpreted in more than one way

1. First, you have the vaccine hesitant
2. However, you also have the sane portions of the population who are not insisting on vaccination mandates.

Agreed, and I am not sure who I hold the most responsible. Both, maybe. We usually agree to blame the sane and give a pass to those who are hopeless. But sometimes it is hard to believe an insanity defense.

A completely off-topic amusement that came to mind when I re-read my "who I hold". I am reading Inside Comedy by Davis Steinberg. I had never seen him perform but apparently he did religious comedy routines, one being a discussion between Moses and God.

Moses: Who shall I say sent me?
God: Whom.

If you are ok with an author repeatedly telling you how intelligent he is, and I am ok with it, it's a fun book.

So yeah, make that whom to hold responsible.

[Winstonm]

I see that Adam Kinzinger has agreed to join the House select committee and that is good. I hope he is not punished by his constituency.

[Winstonm]

The GOP has overshot - they were hoping to take us back to the 50s but instead took us back to 1st century 50:

Quote

A gunman opened fire on a group of people in west Fort Worth early Monday, killing one and injuring three others before he was stoned to death...

my emphasis

[pilowsky]

From a news feed on the Fort Worth matter:

Quote

Community leaders in Como are eager to see an end to what they call senseless shootings.

Which begs several questions.
Mind you, the item came from Fox4, where a pandemic of idiocy and incompetence is raging.
https://www.fox4news...stoned-to-death


According to the item, a person became 'upset', left, returned with a gun and started shooting.
Which begs the question: what do people do in Texas if they became angry?