Reply With Quote
Yes.
and
Nope.
SAD!
If they admitted he was a ty leader, they would have to owe up to getting conned.
Some of the smarter ones already know it, but won't admit it, which I am sure includes one or two that post here.
Yeah, why would a state want to follow the recommendation of the Center for Disease Control? That is just waaay too much to expect or demand. (strains eyes rolling them so hard)You expect 50 different governments to volunteer to follow a central federally driven agency?
Ideologue solutions aren't actually solutions. They are just wishes. As long as there are two parties fighting for power over federal funds, there will always be incentive based directives that states have the freedom to choose (poor states) or ignore (more self sufficient states).
So after all this bloviating about federal responsibility, it really isn't under federal control. Why all the bull ?
Diseases do not give a about state borders, responses to such should be federal. Just like invading armies do not care.
Yes.
and
Nope.
SAD!
If they admitted he was a ty leader, they would have to owe up to getting conned.
Some of the smarter ones already know it, but won't admit it, which I am sure includes one or two that post here.
I think most of them would take the federal money and the advice. So much the worse for them if they don't.You expect 50 different governments to volunteer to follow a central federally driven agency?
I didn't learn about about disease mitigation from Democratic politicians. I doubt very many people did. Diagnostic testing, contact tracing, masking, social distancing and quarantine are all off-the-rack epidemic countermeasures. I'm not sure what role you think political ideology has here, can you unpack that?
It's not bull . National leadership matters, it's one of the main differences between countries that have done better and those that have done worse. The states do have to buy in, but that hardly means there's no role for the federal government. Quite the contrary. Only the federal government has the resources to fight COVID-19 on a nationwide basis.
Holy . I called 400k deaths by 2021 and today:
Reuters) - U.S. deaths from the coronavirus will reach 410,000 by the end of the year, more than double the current death toll, and deaths could soar to 3,000 per day in December, the University of Washington's health ins ute forecast on Friday.
Nostrahateramus
3,000 carcasses a ing day
Where we gona put these rotting ing carcasses now? They aint gone be enough refrigerated trucks
So we are basically expecting 100k dead in the month of Dec?
1 Sept 11 every single December day????
Piss poor reading comprehension. States have the freedom to choose. Why they would or would not choose this or that is irrelevant. Incentives work for some, not for all. A comprehensive, national strategy has to have teeth else it's a national suggestion.
Do you think the feds should force their decisions on states under federal law that supersedes state directives?
It's not a national strategy if it's just a suggestion. What kind of strategy is it to hope states do something you have zero control over?
You are wishing states would all get together and enact the most effective laws and rules regarding mitigation of the pandemic. You haven't even bothered to address how it's possible from the view of the federal government to enforce anything. Are you considering "national strategy" to be collective agreement or federal mandate? Since you don't have an answer for that, it's just ideologue tire spinning and finger pointing.I didn't learn about about disease mitigation from Democratic politicians. I doubt very many people did. Diagnostic testing, contact tracing, masking, social distancing and quarantine are all off-the-rack epidemic countermeasures. I'm not sure what role you think political ideology has here, can you unpack that?
Cool story. Explain how the national leadership can force states to comply with federal regulations regarding COVID related issues when they cannot even force them to comply with immigration laws.It's not bull . National leadership matters, it's one of the main differences between countries that have done better and those that have done worse. The states do have to buy in, but that hardly means there's no role for the federal government. Quite the contrary. Only the federal government has the resources to fight COVID-19 on a nationwide basis.
Every day is WW infinityHoly . I called 400k deaths by 2021 and today:
Reuters) - U.S. deaths from the coronavirus will reach 410,000 by the end of the year, more than double the current death toll, and deaths could soar to 3,000 per day in December, the University of Washington's health ins ute forecast on Friday.
Nostrahateramus
called it
We should bomb wuhan and call it a victory over the virus
He's lower iq than TimDunkem
Sure it is, if the states buy in. It's in their economic and political self-interest to do so.
It doesn't have to be a formal agreement or a mandate. Ideally, the CDC sets guidelines and the states go along because they don't want to bear the cost or the political responsibility.
The CDC wasn't a politcal wedge issue until Trump made it one. Present US pandemic policy in its present form was largely established by GWB, with some tweaks by Obama. Calling me an ideologue for preferring GWB's pandemic policy to Trump's is surely true, but not in the sense you intended.
I've already stipulated the government can't force states to go along. Government isn't all about coercion. Money, material assistance and the federal assumption of politcal responsibility for pandemic response are strong incentives for states to play ball.
Just move there. They'll instantly be a hole with an ELE in their immediate future.We should bomb wuhan and call it a victory over the virus
So the strategy at the federal level is to hope the states buy in? Let's apply that to other things. I have a strategy for getting wealthy. Step 1 - hope I get wealthy. If others buy in then bam.. I'm set.
"a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim."
What's the plan of action, hoping?
Policy isn't a strategy. Thinking all states would bend to the will of the feds is naïve. Like I said before, they cannot even agree on proper protocol for travel restrictions. That has nothing to do with the feds and everything to do with the state governments and their individual economic ties/needs and to a degree, their ability to respond.It doesn't have to be a formal agreement or a mandate. Ideally, the CDC sets guidelines and the states go along because they don't want to bear the cost or the political responsibility.
The CDC wasn't a politcal wedge issue until Trump made it one. Present US pandemic policy in its present form was largely established by GWB, with some tweaks by Obama. Calling me an ideologue for preferring GWB's pandemic policy to Trump's is surely true, but not in the sense you intended.
I've already stipulated the government can't force states to go along. Government isn't all about coercion. Money, material assistance and the federal assumption of politcal responsibility for pandemic response are strong incentives for states to play ball.
Again, you're not even beginning to offer what a national strategy would look like. It's one thing to say federal response, but to have a national strategy, states would need to adopt it and it wouldn't be effective if you could simply cross state lines and encounter a myriad of protocols. , you cannot even find consistent protocol within your own city.
I get it though, you need someone to pin it on. Never mind the fact that you cannot even postulate a feasible alternative.
Piss poor reading comprehension and short term memory. You're pettifogging or emitting pot smoke, not sure which.
(If the latter, pass that dutchie over here)
(Political fatalist DMC says there's no pplicy without coercion and additionally suggests there is no alternative to the course Trump has plotted.)
You tipped over again. You were wobbly but now you're supine.
No feasible strategy. You're another salesman in a room of salesmen, all trying to sell to one another, not a customer in site, no one buying anything..
Bwahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahaj
Cdc can't even tell you how many actual cases or deaths there are. Not to mention those quarantine rules. Bwahahahhahaha
Eh, you aren't "everybody." i can't help what you're unable to see or remember.You tipped over again. You were wobbly but now you're supine.
No feasible strategy. You're another salesman in a room of salesmen, all trying to sell to one another, not a customer in site, no one buying anything..
Color commentary based strawman aside, you moved the goalpost from strategy to policy.
Who said "everybody" that you just put in quotes?
I'm still waiting for you to offer a viable national strategy complete with details on how you're going to get all 50 states to comply. I expect instead for you to beat a hasty "better than Trump" smokescreen retreat.
Without a federal mandate, policy is useless. If it made sense states would be doing it already, they have the power.
Wonder if we can reach 100k new cases today. Would be a great milestone for Trump’s legacy.
I hope so. 100k asymptomatic cases. Win
At least 35 states have criminal laws that punish HIV-positive people for exposing others to the virus, even if they take precautions such as using a condom. Should the states do the same with COVID?
Yes and plenty already do.
There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)
Posting Permissions
