COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[darrowdisciple]

Trump said "if you test more, you have more cases." By that logic, my sister-in-law should have just refused that colonoscopy and she wouldn't have had cancer. One scratches one's head and wonders how it's possible someone that ignorant became president of a country that has any higher education at all.

[Johnsonville]

Essentially ALL of this violence/rioting/looting is occurring in cities who have voted for Democrat administrations for decades. I completely approve of the President's decision to keep the federal government out of state and local affairs where they have no constitutional authority to intervene. Had Obama intervened, it would have been pure politics, like everything else he did, so it's fine with me if you want to interpret Trump's lack of intervention as election-year politics too. People are learning a lot of important lessons right now -- class should not be dismissed just yet.

At what point is it justifiable for the feds to come in and squash this? For example: those in chaz who have had their rights destroyed by being taken over by a rogue authority; is that justification for the federal government to take action to do what is essentially its sole purpose, protecting natural rights? Or is that up to the state, and what do you do when the states don’t help those in need? I’m pretty torn on this issue myself, because I am a believer in federalism and state rights going as far as the civil war, but my gut just says this is wrong and has to be stopped.

I’m genuinely curious what your and others thoughts are towards the situation from a federalist and constitutional view, rather than the coming from wanting to see them lay in the bed they made type deal, which I want to see as well.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Trump said "if you test more, you have more cases." By that logic, my sister-in-law should have just refused that colonoscopy and she wouldn't have had cancer. One scratches one's head and wonders how it's possible someone that ignorant became president of a country that has any higher education at all.

I'm approving this one so you can see why I delete the rest of them.

At what point is it justifiable for the feds to come in and squash this? For example: those in chaz who have had their rights destroyed by being taken over by a rogue authority; is that justification for the federal government to take action to do what is essentially its sole purpose, protecting natural rights? Or is that up to the state, and what do you do when the states don’t help those in need? I’m pretty torn on this issue myself, because I am a believer in federalism and state rights going as far as the civil war, but my gut just says this is wrong and has to be stopped.

I’m genuinely curious what your and others thoughts are towards the situation from a federalist and constitutional view, rather than the coming from wanting to see them lay in the bed they made type deal, which I want to see as well.

I understand your frustration. It is wrong, and it should be stopped, but not by the federal government. This is not China. This is what the people of Washington and Seattle have voted for, and this is what must happen before they will vote in a different way. It's their right to be governed by a mob if they choose to be. I don't know what federal laws have been broken by the occupiers of downtown Seattle, and I don't know that a leftist federal judge would not immediately issue an injunction against any action the Trump Administration would propose. So, it stands for now. This is federalism.

The people who voted differently and lost now have to vote with their feet. I have been telling our friends in New York and California to move for years. Inertia is a problem, and it gets worse as you get older. But at some point the surfing and the chic little ameeezing restaurants are no longer enough to hold you, if they're even legal. There will be a major reshuffling of the population of the US as a result of these riots, and it's already well under way. The November election has already been decided by the rioters, and unless the Democrats get very busy very soon with their plans to rig the vote very thoroughly, Trump is in office until 2025. Two more SCOTUS nominees. Full employment. Business-friendly climate. Unless they can kill him. Then they have to deal with Pence.

I think the west coast should secede immediately. I see no other way out of a civil war.

[George Christiansen]

At what point is it justifiable for the feds to come in and squash this? For example: those in chaz who have had their rights destroyed by being taken over by a rogue authority; is that justification for the federal government to take action to do what is essentially its sole purpose, protecting natural rights? Or is that up to the state, and what do you do when the states don’t help those in need? I’m pretty torn on this issue myself, because I am a believer in federalism and state rights going as far as the civil war, but my gut just says this is wrong and has to be stopped.

I’m genuinely curious what your and others thoughts are towards the situation from a federalist and constitutional view, rather than the coming from wanting to see them lay in the bed they made type deal, which I want to see as well.

I am huge on states rights, but we are currently dealing with two international terrorist groups in the form of Antifa and BLM. That definitely falls into the purview of the Federal government.

The overall "Let them learn their lesson." idea is demented. Even in Dem controlled cities the population din't all vote the powers that be into power and even those who did din't necessarily approve of all their actions. People's lives are being ruined and taken.

[Mark Rippetoe]

People's lives are in fact being ruined. What do you want the federal government to do?

[George Christiansen]

People's lives are in fact being ruined. What do you want the federal government to do?

The same thing they should do to any terrorist organization attacking US interests: arrest and/or kill them.

This is literally what the FBI and Homeland Security are for.

[CommanderFun]

Trump said "if you test more, you have more cases." By that logic, my sister-in-law should have just refused that colonoscopy and she wouldn't have had cancer. One scratches one's head and wonders how it's possible someone that ignorant became president of a country that has any higher education at all.

No, by that logic her particular case of cancer wouldn't be a reliable gauge of an increase in cancer rates as compared to a setting where colonoscopies were not (or less) available.

[CommanderFun]

The November election has already been decided by the rioters, and unless the Democrats get very busy very soon with their plans to rig the vote very thoroughly, Trump is in office until 2025. Two more SCOTUS nominees. Full employment. Business-friendly climate. Unless they can kill him. Then they have to deal with Pence.

I wish I felt this optimistic. It's hard to get a good feeling for where things stand as far as public sentiment goes. The big polls are so unreliable. I KNOW there's the big universal mail-in push with COVID as the excuse, and I suspect we will see more like what happened in Tulsa with people artificially emptying Trump events, as well as excuses made to keep Biden from confronting Trump in person in debates (also because COVID).

[David A. Rowe]

People's lives are in fact being ruined. What do you want the federal government to do?

At this point? Save the statue of Theodore Roosevelt and burn the entire island to the ground. I'm shocked, myself, at how quickly all of my remaining good will evaporated tonight after hearing about that. I want a full collapse of every Democrat-run institution yesterday. Then I can safely vote for the libertarian again.

[ltomo]

At what point is it justifiable for the feds to come in and squash this? For example: those in chaz who have had their rights destroyed by being taken over by a rogue authority; is that justification for the federal government to take action to do what is essentially its sole purpose, protecting natural rights? Or is that up to the state, and what do you do when the states don’t help those in need? I’m pretty torn on this issue myself, because I am a believer in federalism and state rights going as far as the civil war, but my gut just says this is wrong and has to be stopped.

I’m genuinely curious what your and others thoughts are towards the situation from a federalist and constitutional view, rather than the coming from wanting to see them lay in the bed they made type deal, which I want to see as well.

If we could remove the political science part of the equation, quashing the riots is completely justifiable. Destruction of public property demands automatic detainement, no exceptions. No rational person thinks any of this is acceptable.

The problem is the election. Rule of law doesn't function well when those enforcing the law have to worry that enforcing the law might lose them their jobs. This is one of the downsides of democracy that is rarely talked about.

It has to he stopped, but what if the cost of stopping it is Trump losing the election? I'm willing to wait a bit longer before pulling out the big guns. If it looks like losing battle by September/October, it may be time for a scorched earth policy.

As in most things, the correct decision is a matter of trade-offs and risk mitigation.