Red Wave rides to victory
29 responses | 0 likes
Started by wglassfo - Nov. 2, 2021, 11 p.m.

I have been reading for some time how the pubs are in trouble  wrong

After  to nite I would say Biden is leading the Dems down hill in up coming 2022 elections

Wonder what his carbon foot print was on his recent tour. But he tells us to be green

Comments
By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 12:28 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Wayne,

I guess we owe it all to Donald Trump (-:


Trump Takes Credit for Youngkin Win Moments After Suggesting Voter Fraud: ‘He Would Not Have Been Close to Winning’ Without ‘My BASE’

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-takes-credit-for-youngkin-win/






By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 12:38 a.m.
Like Reply

Trump’s ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’ play in Virginia

The former president wants credit for a Youngkin win. He’s also eager to show he’s still the big boss in the GOP. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/02/trump-virginia-governor-election-518500


“If there’s one constant with Donald Trump, it’s that he’s going to declare himself the winner — regardless of the outcome,” said Tucker Martin, an adviser to that Gillespie campaign, which struggled when faced with a similar Trump balancing act back in 2017.

"Trump’s lower profile has been a relief for some Republicans on the ballot in states such as Virginia that aren’t so ruby-red. Martin specifically noted two huge differences between this political environment and the one four years ago: An unpopular Joe Biden is struggling in the White House right now — not an unpopular Trump — and Trump is banned from Twitter, where his rapid-fire stream-of-consciousness posts often shaped the debate."

metmike: Funny thing is that banning Trump from social media has been a blessing to Trump and the republican party and actually gives them a chance to win.

In the past, the more that Trump posted and said to shoot himself and his party in the foot, the more it drove people away from him and the party. Now at a distance, his  direct damage is minimized and people can focus on the incompetence and disastrous policies of the Biden administration. 

Put Trump in the front seat again and people will be reminded of why they resoundingly rejected him..........and there are millions more people that hate Trump now than did a year ago when he was crushed at the polls because of it. 

If you disagree, than ask yourself. After the 2020 election loss, since those most loyal to him all voted, where would he get the additional votes to do better.............if he actually increased those that hate him by millions?

There is virtually NOBODY that didn't vote for Trump in 2020 that actually thinks there is the tiniest chance that the  election was stolen from him.


Maybe a good way to think of it is that if Trump himself were running in these races, he would likely lose all of them except the strongest red counties/states, with LESS votes than he got in 2020.

A little bit of Trump from a distance like this............probably doesn't hurt and could help.

Too much Trump is fatal because of who he is and what he says. He has already caused the republican party far more damage than other republican  or person in history....by a wide margin.  

Biden is messing up. The main thing that could sabotage the republicans from maximizing it/taking advantage is too much Trump.

Since he got kicked off of social media, that may not happen. It's a blessing for the republicans. 


By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 1:49 a.m.
Like Reply

This is what probably  helped the republicans a bit. All they needed was a tiny bit of help. Joe and his agenda are pretty unpopular right now.

President Joe Biden greets Virginia democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe as he arrives to speak at a campaign event.

The White House and its partners are closely coordinating their efforts and have been speaking with Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe's campaign nearly every day. | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo


Joe Biden and Democrats know they won’t be able to spin a loss in Virginia. So they’re raising the stakes of the election instead.

Biden is back stumping for Terry McAuliffe on Tuesday as he tries to hold off Glenn Youngkin, the Trump-backed Republican, in a bitterly tight race. With the election coming next week, both the president and the Democratic Party are increasingly embracing the notion that it is in large part a referendum on their handling of the pandemic and their support of massive government spending programs — as well as a broader repudiation of the Jan. 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol.

The White House and its partners are closely coordinating their efforts and have been speaking with the McAuliffe campaign nearly every day, with one Biden adviser telling POLITICO they think McAuliffe has performed well and is hitting on issues they viewed as most important to voters.

Biden’s own decision to up the stakes of the race comes as Virginia occupies a much different place in the minds of Democrats than it had under Obama. The state is bluer, which has convinced advisers and party leaders even more that a loss would be difficult to dismiss as an isolated political moment, even if the Democratic freakout over it will undoubtedly prove over-torqued. Last year, Biden won the state handily, and Republicans haven’t won a statewide race there in more than a decade.

“Youngkin is trying to tell everyone he doesn’t have any surrogates,” Schwerin said. “I am really glad that Biden is trying to raise the stakes because we need voters to wake up. It turns up the noise.”

By TimNew - Nov. 3, 2021, 5:40 a.m.
Like Reply

Actually, what defeated him was his statement "I don't want parents telling the schools what they should teach".  That's the moment the polls started to shift.

Thank gawd he lost.  That it wasn't an absolute landslide tells me we have more and more people embracing totalitarianism.  Or, sheep,  useful idiots,   there are lots of terms you can select from history.  Events that lead to very dark days and untold millions of deaths.

By TimNew - Nov. 3, 2021, 6:35 a.m.
Like Reply


EARLY BY MAIL VOTES  9%

McAuliffe  75%
Youngkin   24%
Blanding 1% 
Write-ins  0%


Quite the landslide for McAuliffe in the early mail in votes.      I wonder how many were legitimate.

By joj - Nov. 3, 2021, 7:24 a.m.
Like Reply

"I wonder how many were legitimate."  - More than 99% I reckon.

Insurrectionists win = Republic is in grave danger.

By TimNew - Nov. 3, 2021, 7:41 a.m.
Like Reply

Insurrectionists win = Republic is in grave danger.


A republic where a candidate can say something like "I don't think parents whould have a say in what is taught in schools" who is not only  not run out of town,  but remains a contender, is certainly in danger.  And trust me,  the danger does not come from so called "insurrectionists". 

By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 2:06 p.m.
Like Reply

 "Events that lead to very dark days and untold millions of deaths."

Yes,  that can also be said about something else. So lets compare those 2 items.


What socialism will do to us in some distant future.  Speculation but you might be right.

What  COVID IS doing to us RIGHT NOW based on science and ALL THE DATA?

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75252/#75261

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75252/#75262

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76747/#76822


Is it logical to embrace a speculative/future scenario that you might be right on which will kill millions while intentionally ignoring the one right in front of your eyes that's doing it right now and causing dysfunctionality and serious adverse health affects for 6 months and longer in at least 11 million people so far?

That's exactly what politics does to us. 

Our party belief system determines what we think instead of letting the science, facts and critical thinking rule. 


By TimNew - Nov. 3, 2021, 2:16 p.m.
Like Reply

You continue to confuse god given rights with politics.    Politics, and by extention, governments do not grant these rights.  A good government works to protect them. 

I don't know how else to explain this to you.  You seem incapable, or perhaps unwilling to understand.

But socialism, communism, totalitarianism has been responsible for well over 100 million deaths in the last century. And then there are the exiles and imprisonments and thousands of other devastating effects on day to day life that come with a lack of freedom.

By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 2:33 p.m.
Like Reply

"You continue to confuse god given rights with politics."

Since you are now bringing God into it, I think this this guy knows a few more things X 10 about God and our rights than both of us combined.

Don't you agree with that?



Pope Francis urges people to get vaccinated against Covid-19

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-08/pope-francis-appeal-covid-19-vaccines-act-of-love.html


Covid-19: Pope puzzled about vaccine hesitancy in the Church

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58573892


Tim,

The person that the world and US people see as the most followed individual on the planet for guidance when it comes to things related to God is completely baffled by your position on vaccinations and God given rights.

Are you smarter about God than Pope Francis?

Again, my position is based entirely on the science because, as a scientist, I feel confident in ascertaining the authentic science. 

I am willing to consider God, if that's what you want to do.............but I'm using an authority on God to provide my guidance...........as others should do.

Again, YOU brought it up, not me.


There is also a bogus claim by some trying to use aborted fetal cells from 40 years ago on OTHER vaccines and religion as a reason to reject the COVID vaccines. 

The insanity of peoples thinking when it comes  trying to use religion FOR THEIR ENTIRELY POLITICAL agenda is amazing.  It baffles the pope and doesn't fool me. 

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76988/#76998


In A Message To Americans, Pope Francis Says Getting Vaccinated Is 'An Act Of Love

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/08/18/1028740057/in-a-message-to-americans-pope-francis-says-getting-vaccinated-is-an-act-of-love

By TimNew - Nov. 3, 2021, 3:07 p.m.
Like Reply

Now you are being deliberately obstuse, or so it would appear.

Perhaps I should have used "Creator", as the founders did in the Declaration.

The point is,   we are born with rights.  These rights do not come from politics or government.  It is the job of politics/government to protect those rights,  not to abuse them.

I can make scientific arguments for all sort of government intervention/intrusion for the good of the state,  but none of them overrides our inalienable rights.   We should outlaw obesity right off the bat.  Lot's of great scientific arguments for that, not to mention the increased cost of insurance for all of us.   Shall I go on?

You actively support totalitarianism and then take offense when that is pointed out.  Perhaps you only support certain forms of totalitarianism,  the "good" totalitarianism,  the "good" censorship, so it's "OK" ,  right? <G>.

The fact is,  I am not opposed to vaccines, as you seen to attempt to suggest.   I think everyone should get one, provided they don't have a condition that makes it risky.   I just don't believe the government has the right to force people to inject anything into their bodies. I'm sorry that you do,  but you are very very wrong. From every historical, ethical and moral objective, wrong.


By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 3:45 p.m.
Like Reply

Not being obtuse.

When I wanted to focus on science, you said it was a legal thing. Great point.

So I brought into the discussion based on this....... the experts on law and the Constitution.....................the Supreme Court and past decisions related to this.


Now you are bringing up God. Great point. Tons of people are trying to use religion. We should discuss this.

So I am bringing up a top authority ...maybe THE top authority on Christian religion and how to practice in a manner that God would want us to.

You say "God given right" but are you saying that everybody gets to determine what they want their own rights to be?

What if I like punching people in the face?

Oh, that would hurt another person.

Exactly.

Why is the God given right to not get vaccinated, scientifically proven to hurt people still valid? Because everybody gets to determine what they want their God given rights to be?

OK, great, I can punch people in the face then.......if they say something mean to me, so I'm justified.

This is why I will let a moral/ethical authority rule on a controversial issue that is TOTALLY related to politics.............if not, then why aren't any of the other people in other countries that are EXTREMELY religious insisting on their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS just like the republicans in the one country of the USA are?

This is obtuse?

No, you just don't like the logic because it proves that this issue is entirely politics.



By joj - Nov. 3, 2021, 4:05 p.m.
Like Reply

The Trump cult seems to think mandates are something new.  They are most definitely not. 

The long, long history of vaccine mandates:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/08/states-have-mandated-vaccinations-since-long-before-covid-19/

By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 5:14 p.m.
Like Reply

Tim and others that keep insisting about this totally political stuff related to the vaccines.

If I can get your attention for just this one post. Instead of constantly being in the defensive mode, trying to prove that your position is the right, just try to  read this one post with an open mind please.


The right is being severely threatened by the far left's cultural revolution and progressive movement that wants global socialism and US socialism. 

This is what the Climate Accord is really all about and I've been following and reporting on the politics of the Climate Accord and global socialism for 15 years.

This is a very legit issue for the right to be extremely concerned about.

However, I am telling you with absolute certainty that the vaccine mandate has absolutely nothing to do with that. This issue is being used to get republicans fired up about having their freedoms/rights taken away and this is supposedly an example of them imposing their control over us that is just the start of losing all freedoms/rights.

Supposedly, if we don't take a stand here on the vaccine mandates, they will take everything else.

This is just  paranoid nonsense, targeting you to make you afraid and to  get you angry to fight harder against the current administration and everything that they stand for as well as to fight against the cultural revolution and socialism that is coming up. 

Hey, I'm good with your fight against these things but you are making a grave mistake in being tricked into thinking that the vaccination mandate has anything to do with it.

So the question is. Do you want to fight for all GOOD reasons or do you want to fight for good reasons and then, mess up by throwing in a bs reason which poisons the integrity of your cause.

Whether you agree with it or not..........it is a fact.

The vaccine mandate is 100% based on authentic science and rational thinking and is in the 100% best interest of Americans and the health of our country. The more people that get vaccinated, with certainty the better America does..........period. 

It's insane that you are adding this anti science, anti American success, anti COVID vaccine, total losing position to your cause. You want more freedoms??? Get vaccinated!

How many objective people that use science and critical thinking will want to join you?

None.

You have more than a dozen reasons to fight for your cause that are legit.

You are totally messing up your credibility for the entire cause but focusing all this attention to fight something GOOD for all Americans. It's backfiring totally! You are looking really bad(and for all the right reasons) and they other side is looking really good(for all the right/legit reasons).

I'm not one of THEM trying to trick you. I'm your friend trying to help you. 

Do fight for right and just causes and for good things and for science, honestly, integrity and for capitalism and for freedom/rights and less government and lower taxes and cheap, reliable energy and religion and say in what our kids are taught and so on but please stop embarrassing yourselves on this totally counterproductive battle against the COVID vaccine.

It's beyond proven relatively safe compared to the massive benefits based on almost all the data and experts.

Finding outlier doctors who cherry pick anomalous data and speculate does not negate the vast majority of the proven  with data science.

Ignoring that  50% of people that get COVID(over 11 million) have serious adverse health consequences for 6 months(long COVID) and instead just stating that it kills 2% is quintessential  cherry picking. 

What in God's name would motivate people in large numbers to fight so hard against the most effective tool that we have to help crush this deadly, incapacitating virus????

For once. On just this one item. Please go along with the right thing to do.........despite it meaning you have to cooperate with the other party. Do it for America .............and to build your own personal character and the credibilty of your ideology. 

There is actually no downside(other than in your imagination) and nothing but upside.

By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 5:16 p.m.
Like Reply

As always, I'm telling you this as an objective friend not an adversary.

Who does this make sense to?



By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 6:02 p.m.
Like Reply

joj, 

Thanks for assisting in shining light on the topic.

By TimNew - Nov. 4, 2021, 5:31 a.m.
Like Reply

MM.  you are being obtuse because you continue to insist that I "brought god into this".  

I understand how you could latch  on to that argument after I used the phrase "God given rights",    but I went on to clarify that it's a phrase that means "rights with which we are born".  As the founders said, "Endowed by our creator.

You continue to use the pope  in your argument for madates  He does not advocate mandates. If you can find a direct quote of the pope urging governments to mandate vaccines,  I'll concede.     But I don't think you can.  Like me,  he thinks people should get vaccinated.

"So I brought into the discussion based on this....... the experts on law and the Constitution.....................the Supreme Court and past decisions related to this."

You brought a case from the early 1900's.  I cited an academic discussion from 2005 that refuted the decision and cited several later decisions that would seem to overrule the original  as well as several legal arguments.  Your reply "Things have changed since 2005".  I'm sure that in your mind,  you really "put me in my place".  I strongly disagree.


JOJ, if I want to go to grade school or travel to foreign countries, I undertsand I'll need vaccines.    But to leave my house?  Different subject altogether. 

By metmike - Nov. 4, 2021, 8:58 a.m.
Like Reply

Mandates are a legal realm. We discussed that earlier with authorities there......Supreme Court.....constitution.

God is a religious and ethical realm....YOU brought that word up so I used an elite authority and only expressed his views.

My ball of wax remains solidly based on the science.

Furthermore, since only the Republican Party of the United States of America is so vigorously objecting to vaccinations (and to justify objecting to mandates, vaccinations must be seen as a bad thing by the majority objecting-because strongly objecting to mandating a good for America policy would  be-unAmerican) and we don’t see this in other countries, it must not be because of the science or ethical/religious or even rights violations.

So it has to be political since that’s the only exclusive thing that sets them apart from the rest of the world on this topic......especially the democrats in the same country.

And it’s silly to even have to phrase it that way because everybody knows it’s political.....except all the ones objecting because acknowledging it really is political is...........I’ll let you fill in the blank.

If it was political, then what would that mean Tim?

Since you don’t think it’s political(unless I’m mistaken) in your opinion what would be some true idendentifiers  that are missing in this case which would tell us conclusively that it’s political?

BTW, I don’t try to put people in their place as you stated. I try to help them to know objective truths And be honest........to appreciate our wonderful world and be positive contributors to it.....to help have happy and fulfilling lives .....which is the MAIN reason that I’m here.

Seriously.

And along those same lines.....despite our difference on this item that’s huge for you, we have many things in common and I’m very greatful to you for your long lived, wonderful positive contributions, especially on the trading forum with the comprehensive weekly economic reports that take a ton of work.

By TimNew - Nov. 5, 2021, 3:05 a.m.
Like Reply

God is a religious and ethical realm....YOU brought that word up so I used an elite authority and only expressed his views.

My ball of wax remains solidly based on the science.

Furthermore, since only the Republican Party of the United States of America is so vigorously objecting to vaccinations (and to justify objecting to mandates, vaccinations must be seen as a bad thing by the majority objecting-because strongly objecting to mandating a good for America policy would  be-unAmerican) and we don’t see this in other countries, it must not be because of the science or ethical/religious or even rights violations.

Lets look at the numerous flaws in your argument 1 by 1.  I hope you'll read along with me.


1st and formost, my argument has nothing to do with vigorously objecting to vaccines. I've made that quite clear so many times,  I have to assume you don't read my posts.   What I oppose is totalitarian government, one where they decide what is best for all of us.  What you are  doing here closely resembles the arguments  liberals use in immigration.  "You're anti-immigrant" when in fact, they are leaving the "illegal" part out of the discussion.  Very dishonest.

2nd, I did not bring "God" into this. I used a phrase "God Given Rights", which I further clarified twice, is actually refering to rights with which we are born.    Rights which are not granted by the government, but should be protected by a good government.

3rd,  You have brought the pope into this debate several times.  Actually well before I mentioned "God Given Rights" as support for your desire for totalitarian government.  But the flaw here is that the pope does not agree with you.  He actually more likely agress with me in that "Everyone should be Vaccinated",  but has never once come out in suport of mandates. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Arch Diocess in New York City has recently stated that they will not allow vaccine mandates in their schools. I suspect the pope is at least vaguely aware of this.


By metmike - Nov. 5, 2021, 3:14 a.m.
Like Reply

I’ve already made all my points covering every aspect. No sense repeating.


This seems to be all you guys want to talk about in every thread.

Time to move on.


By TimNew - Nov. 5, 2021, 3:17 a.m.
Like Reply

Actually, you did not address any of the points.

Also,  this thread started with the results of recent elections.  You morphed it into a vaccine mandate debate.


Honestly MM.  

By metmike - Nov. 5, 2021, 7:30 a.m.
Like Reply

Tim,

You brought up the “God given rights”  which is the battle cry for fighting mandates.

I have already agreed with your points on the issue regarding attacking parents for objecting to what is being taught at schools.

The vaccine mandate thing is getting to be off the charrts absurd.

 For some reason you equate having been vaccinated somehow makes your defending people not getting vaccinated different. ....it doesn’t. 

That you getting vaccinated makes it ok to defend anti COVID vaxxers because they have legal rights that you chose to apply in a smart way or they have GOD given rights that you chose to apply in a smart way or its ok to defend  their right to be anti science and insist that the vaccine kills more people than COVID and try to saturate social media with vaccine disinfortion or like Gunter ....defend  OCD posting disinformation about the vaccine at  marketForum and right after he gets back from being suspended .....he goes back to posting disinformation about the COVID vaccine but you defend that and think that somehow....getting vaccinated yourself puts you in an elite class that can be for those wrong things without having to answer for all the flaws in the actions of those actually doing it.

It makes as much sense as me being for the right to murder.....even if i didn’t murder somebody. 

Just because I didn’t do the bad\wrong thing doesn’t somehow make my position that  people can do wrong things any better than the position of the people doing the wrong thing.

We are talking about the position. The science. The legal. The religious.....and the political, in this case which is dividing the 2 parties and is dividing the republicans with most of the rest of the world.

And the craziest thing of all is that the position .....is to have the right to do something ....that maximizes the LOsS of freedoms. Losing the right to travel to other countries...where they are following the science and not the republican,politics.

Or attending certain venues, or colleges where they are following the science. And not getting vaccinated increases the time with mask mandates and increases the chances of more lockdowns.

Vaccinations are the #1 gift to Americans that can help to restore all the freedoms that have been taken away because of COVID....but it’s been twisted to mean the complete opposite as if the REAL freedom is whether to get 2 shots or not and the government wants to take that away from you because it’s part of their plan to steal the rest of your freedoms and they are just trying to trick you by pretending its because of science and to save lives.

Reality check.....COVID vaccines have nothing to do with the progressive movement or cultural revolution or going to socialism. This is paranoid conspricy theory stuff!


We covered all this several times now. You don’t remember?

Later today I will be glad to review both sides for you but for Petes sake, please stop confusing what you did personally with the position....

And then claiming that’s what I’m doing.

edit: Or that me personally deciding what to do, that was different than these people............means I can't understand those deciding to do something different and I'm unqualified to see the position objectively.

As if this  has anything to do with the position. What I or you decided to do personally has zero to do with the position.

I totally see everything that you and those opposed to mandates see.

I just think that its wrong based on all the facts and especially the science......which, as a scientist is where I've been coming from since the beginning........and I showed all the  authentic science/data repeatedly at other threads.

Vaccines are safe.

Vaccines are effective.

Vaccines aren't perfect but they blow away everything else  combined that we could do to help the health of the  human race right now........... to fight a pandemic killing millions and the worst  global and US health crisis in our life time....by an astronomically wide margin.......2nd place ain't even close.





By TimNew - Nov. 5, 2021, 11:50 a.m.
Like Reply

 For some reason you equate having been vaccinated somehow makes your defending people not getting vaccinated different. ....it doesn’t.

Your strawman arguments are getting so tiresome.  Anti-mandate does not mean anti-vaxxer.  I am not defending people who don't want to get the vaccine. I think it's the wrong choice.   I have said that no less than a dozen times. But I also believe holding a gun to their heads to force them to accept a vaccine they don't want is morally reprehensible. And don't dare think that government force is anything less.

And you can deny that you injected this debate into the discussion about the Red Wave, but it's up there for everyone to see.  Do so at the peril of your own credibility.

And keep  deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of  "God Given Rights" even after I explained exactly what I meant no less than 3 times, again, at your own peril. 

I am opposed to mandates, for all the reasons I stated.  You want to rationalize mandates with science?   Great idea.  Science has become so infailable today.  Government can use it to rationalize all sorts of mandates.  Let's pass a mandate against obesity.  Probably our number one medical problem in the country today. The root cause of so many health issues.  Oh, and smoking.  Drinking too.  So many problems both medical and social associated with that one.  Of course, the last ban on drinking gave us organized crime and the Kennedys,  but what the heck.. We're much smarter now.  And the science totally backs all these mandates.

It will be a wonderful world once we make all our decision based purely on science,  which has already been hijacked for so many causes.



By metmike - Nov. 5, 2021, 12:04 p.m.
Like Reply

And the science totally backs all these mandates.

(-:

No sense in continuing the discussion on any level if you believe that and we already discussed it ad nauseam.

Again, time to move forward please.

ps. I did interpret your God given rights to apply to the vaccine and apparently you didn't mean that part of it.


By TimNew - Nov. 6, 2021, 5:10 a.m.
Like Reply

And the science totally backs all these mandates.

(-:

No sense in continuing the discussion on any level if you believe that and we already discussed it ad nauseam.


BullPucky.  I realize your personal rule is to never concede no matter how badly your argument has been trampled.  Then you side step the discussion.   I am not letting you off that easily this time.


Explain to me WHY science does not support a mandate against obesity or smoking or drinking but DOES support a mandate for a vaccine.


By metmike - Nov. 6, 2021, 11:11 a.m.
Like Reply

Background: Tim insists that the science and laws are on his side and are solidly  against mandates and doesn't want to drop our discussion (argument going nowhere) because he is convinced that he is right and thinks that metmike is ducking out because Tim is crushing him and Tim thinks that he can draw more blood.


Tim says: BullPucky.  I realize your personal rule is to never concede no matter how badly your argument has been trampled.  Then you side step the discussion.   I am not letting you off that easily this time.


metmike: This is where, in the past you dig your holes deeper..........but you insist again.......so here goes.

And who is it that will never concede or stop arguing?

metmike suggested that we move on/forward 2 different times now in this thread. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

I showed this numerous times, including in this thread, specifically TO YOU at the link below. 

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77014/#77070


"What  COVID IS doing to us RIGHT NOW based on science and ALL THE DATA!"

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75252/#75261

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75252/#75262

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76747/#76822

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Tim says: Explain to me WHY science does not support a mandate against obesity or smoking or drinking but DOES support a mandate for a vaccine.

metmike: Quintessential/picture perfect examples for me to use to prove the points Tim. Thank you.

We DO have long lived laws that are completely accepted in the US and other country regarding the use of alcohol and tobacco to protect society/other people from us, regarding those 2 drugs.

Alcohol consumption can be easily monitored-breathalyzer(and it leaves our bodies quickly), as can tobacco use and the threat with tobacco is DURING our consumption, which causes the laws of use to be adjusted according to the threat that it poses to society..........which is the key factor used to base most laws on..........not the consumption pattern(which changes) BUT THE THREAT THAT IT POSES TO SOCIETY.

 With alcohol, the very strict laws maintain that when our body has alcohol in it,  we are a danger to others. Not just when operating a vehicle but public intoxication is a crime to. The SCIENCE of alcohol metabolism in humans is used to determine many of the laws. 

With smoking, just like with alcohol, we are allowed to consume as much as we want BUT SOCIETY MUST BE PROTECTED. When SCIENCE determined that second hand smoke was dangerous to other people. The laws responded TO PROTECT SOCIETY and banned smoking from many places. The laws got stricter TO PROTECT SOCIETY. This is consistent across the board with most laws. 

Consistent with that. A person with COVID is actually an astronomically HIGHER RISK TO SOCIETY than a person smoking a cigarette, for instance. All you need to do is look at the links that I provided above to see, not just what COVID does to people but what happens when people DON'T get vaccinated, which causes them to be a scientifically proven risk to other people. The risk from COVID, like the risk from the other 2 must be determined BY THE SCIENCE and laws based on that.

If science had an extremely affective way to identify people walking around with COVID(like we can with breathalyzers and physical observations-like a person exhaling cigarette smoke) then laws like those imposed with alcohol and tobacco would make sense. But COVID is an invisible killer virus. So the laws to PROTECT SOCIETY must be adjusted accordingly.............not the laws to provide convenience or freedoms from the threat.  

The freedoms of the sources of the threats........ARE ALWAYS SECONDARY to the scientifically established THREAT TO SOCIETY.

With both  tobacco and alcohol, the laws are different and they are NOT based on the freedoms of the users but instead are adjusted based on the proven science and most importantly ........ protecting society.

This actually is nothing new Tim.

It's well established and been well accepted for many decades. Mandatory  vaccinations to protect society have been with us for over a century. 

But I guess you wanted to try to make an apples to oranges to bananas comparison by throwing in alcohol and tobacco.  You wouldn't eat a banana or orange with the skin on would you?

They are all fruits but much different and as clearly demonstrated above, the laws obviously must be adjusted in each case to accomplish what laws are for............TO PROTECT SOCIETY.

 I appreciate you challenging me on this Tim. It allows for a deeper thought process that leads to authentic discernment and understanding. This would be exactly how the Supreme Court would contemplate as they discussed all the elements in a realm like this. Of course they are several orders of magnitude more qualified than me but this is exactly how they would do it.

You are convinced that they will rule against mandates.

I say...........let's let them decide.


By TimNew - Nov. 6, 2021, 1:03 p.m.
Like Reply

 Tim insists that the science and laws are on his side and are solidly  against mandates and doesn't want to drop our discussion (argument going nowhere) because he is convinced that he is right and thinks that metmike is ducking out because Tim is crushing him and Tim thinks that he can draw more blood.

Once again, you are mischaracterizing my argument.  I am not saying science is on my side.  I am saying our rights allow us to choose.

Now,  you are correct that we have laws to protect society.   But,   if I refuse to wear a mask or get vaccinated, I should not be much of a threat to someone who does both, or are you saying masks and vaccines don't work?  If that's the case, than mandates are useless.  You want to override personal choice for something that might help some people?   Not a very good argument for trashing personal freedom. Don't try that one on the Supreme Court.

It's well established and been well accepted for many decades. Mandatory  vaccinations to protect society have been with us for over a century.

Another flawed argument that has already been debunked.  There are specific cases where vaccines are required. Foreign travel,  public schools.    No one is required to get any vaccines just to leqve their house, or in the case you apparently support, even if they don't leave their house.  Your argument is identical to banning smoking and drinking in private homes.

The fact remains,   this is not a country whose constitution would allow force to inject someone with a vaccine they don't want.  Sadly, we have more and more who not only don't understand this but actively seek to reverse it.


 

By metmike - Nov. 6, 2021, 1:54 p.m.
Like Reply

You say:  I am not saying science is on my side.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77014/#77240


On your previous post you said(and why I said we should move on/forward the 2nd time since you believe that):

Tim: We're much smarter now.  And the science totally backs all these mandates.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77014/#77162

"totally"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/totally

adverb wholly; entirely; completely: The two sisters have totally different personalities.Informal. (used as an intensifier): I totally cried when the movie ended. That was totally not what I meant.
interjectionInformal. definitely; absolutely  (used to express complete agreement or strong affirmation): Yes, totally, he should apologize to you!


metmike: So I apologize for misinterpreting your previous statement on the science to mean the opposite of what it did.


Seriously Tim,

We really should move on. I can do this all day but what is it accomplishing. 


By TimNew - Nov. 7, 2021, 5:48 a.m.
Like Reply

ODG.  Do I really have to explain that this is sarcasm?

Tim: We're much smarter now.  And the science totally backs all these mandates.