Trump Consciousness

Whereas vaccines are not sure things like seat belts.
Seat belts aren't a sure thing Sam. You just personally believe they are. That's the problem. You don't believe in vaccines, all or in part, while many do. You believe in seat belts, while some question the official narrative and see seat belt laws as infringing on personal freedoms.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

Make what you will of the above article. I personally believe in wearing seatbelts myself, but I also believe in vaccinations. I'm not seeing the distinction you are trying to draw between the two. I don't see one. Seems its likely just your own biases (as we all have them).

So how does a society implement the rule of law if we ultimately have to rely on each individual's ability to make the "lawful" choice? Aren't we treading into anarchy here?
 
Seat belts aren't a sure thing Sam. You just personally believe they are. That's the problem. You don't believe in vaccines, all or in part, while many do. You believe in seat belts, while some question the official narrative and see seat belt laws as infringing on personal freedoms.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

Make what you will of the above article. I personally believe in wearing seatbelts myself, but I also believe in vaccinations. I'm not seeing the distinction you are trying to draw between the two. I don't see one. Seems its likely just your own biases (as we all have them).

So how does a society implement the rule of law if we ultimately have to rely on each individual's ability to make the "lawful" choice? Aren't we treading into anarchy here?
We cannot have a conversation when you make false statements. Nowhere did I say (write) that seat belts are a sure thing.

It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who is either incompetent (cannot discern correctly what another says or writes) or willfully mis-characterizes what is said or written or is simply lazy in what they perceive in what they read.

I will strive one last time to make the distinction clear.

Making and enforcing laws that compel drivers to wear seat belts is shown to statistically reduce (and significantly) injury from auto accidents.

Making and enforcing laws that compel licensed drivers have liability insurance statistically shows that if you are in an accident where the fault is of the other driver, the chances the medical bills of your injuries are covered by the at fault driver's insurance is raised.

The results are that a.) liability insurance is cheaper for everyone because the magnitude of injuries is significantly reduced by seat belts and b.) that drivers are likely more responsible drivers when they are responsible enough to get liability.

We all benefit as drivers on the shared road system by greater safety and by lower insurance rates.

Yet there is vast evidence (the article I posted is just one example) that vaccinations (in general) are far from as effective as advertised and in fact may likely do far more harm than good.

And all I did was defend your right to choose for yourself, Silence. But hey... go ahead and get one...

Maybe move to Denmark where you can be sure everyone else must do so by force of law (if this law is passed) -

https://www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching-emergency-coronavirus-law

As well as enforcing quarantine measures, the law also allows the authorities to force people to be vaccinated, even though there is currently no vaccination for the virus.
 
Seat belts aren't a sure thing Sam. You just personally believe they are. That's the problem. You don't believe in vaccines, all or in part, while many do. You believe in seat belts, while some question the official narrative and see seat belt laws as infringing on personal freedoms.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

Make what you will of the above article. I personally believe in wearing seatbelts myself, but I also believe in vaccinations. I'm not seeing the distinction you are trying to draw between the two. I don't see one. Seems its likely just your own biases (as we all have them).

So how does a society implement the rule of law if we ultimately have to rely on each individual's ability to make the "lawful" choice? Aren't we treading into anarchy here?
I always wear my seat-belt - ever since I learned to drive 45 years ago, but vaccinations are a different matter - I take each one individually. The flu jab seems to have very low effectiveness, and may just be a money spinner for Big Pharma - so I skipped it this year. I might take a Covid-19 jab if it ever becomes available, I'm not sure, and I intend to take a Shingles jab in a week's time.

David
 
I always wear my seat-belt - ever since I learned to drive 45 years ago, but vaccinations are a different matter - I take each one individually. The flu jab seems to have very low effectiveness, and may just be a money spinner for Big Pharma - so I skipped it this year. I might take a Covid-19 jab if it ever becomes available, I'm not sure, and I intend to take a Shingles jab in a week's time.

David
And I defend your right to make that choice for yourself and prefer that "governments" not force you to get them.
 
And I defend your right to make that choice for yourself and prefer that "governments" not force you to get them.
Well the theory is that if you don't have a seat belt on, you can get jolted out of position and then lose control and hit someone else - so I tend to think people should wear them regardless. Would you fly in a plane if the pilot had no seat belt?

David
 
We cannot have a conversation when you make false statements. Nowhere did I say (write) that seat belts are a sure thing.

It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who is either incompetent (cannot discern correctly what another says or writes) or willfully mis-characterizes what is said or written or is simply lazy in what they perceive in what they read.

I will strive one last time to make the distinction clear.

Making and enforcing laws that compel drivers to wear seat belts is shown to statistically reduce (and significantly) injury from auto accidents.

Making and enforcing laws that compel licensed drivers have liability insurance statistically shows that if you are in an accident where the fault is of the other driver, the chances the medical bills of your injuries are covered by the at fault driver's insurance is raised.

The results are that a.) liability insurance is cheaper for everyone because the magnitude of injuries is significantly reduced by seat belts and b.) that drivers are likely more responsible drivers when they are responsible enough to get liability.

We all benefit as drivers on the shared road system by greater safety and by lower insurance rates.

Yet there is vast evidence (the article I posted is just one example) that vaccinations (in general) are far from as effective as advertised and in fact may likely do far more harm than good.

And all I did was defend your right to choose for yourself, Silence. But hey... go ahead and get one...

Maybe move to Denmark where you can be sure everyone else must do so by force of law (if this law is passed) -

https://www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching-emergency-coronavirus-law
Sam,

The governing bodies in the U.S. take pretty definitive stances on both topics (vaccines and seat belts). There are laws/regulations in regard to both.

You stand with the government's position in relationship to seat belts, but do not agree with the government's position on vaccines. Is that correct? Please clarify if I've misstated your position.

I linked one article that someone taking a negative stance on seat belts might present as evidence against the required use of seat belts. Whether you personally find it compelling or not isn't really the issue. The issue is that while you might find it ridiculous for someone to be against seat belts and fully support laws that eliminate the freedom of choice, others may feel the exact same way regarding your stance on vaccines (presuming I have it right). Who's the arbiter here?
 
Sam,

The governing bodies in the U.S. take pretty definitive stances on both topics (vaccines and seat belts). There are laws/regulations in regard to both.

You stand with the government's position in relationship to seat belts, but do not agree with the government's position on vaccines. Is that correct? Please clarify if I've misstated your position.

I linked one article that someone taking a negative stance on seat belts might present as evidence against the required use of seat belts. Whether you personally find it compelling or not isn't really the issue. The issue is that while you might find it ridiculous for someone to be against seat belts and fully support laws that eliminate the freedom of choice, others may feel the exact same way regarding your stance on vaccines (presuming I have it right). Who's the arbiter here?
That would be fine if the relevant science was all open and transparent. However a great many people are starting to question the safety of certain vaccines, particularly regarding autism. Unfortunately, these vaccines make a huge amount of money for Big Pharma, and they definitely don't want any link with autism to be acknowledged, so the fact that autism often appears shortly after the MMR jab is claimed to be a coincidence - the jab is given just at the age when autism is likely to start to show symptoms. However with the $billions at stake here, an increasing number of people fear a cover up.

Mere assurances that the clever scientists have checked this out and found no link isn't good enough.

David
 
That would be fine if the relevant science was all open and transparent. However a great many people are starting to question the safety of certain vaccines, particularly regarding autism. Unfortunately, these vaccines make a huge amount of money for Big Pharma, and they definitely don't want any link with autism to be acknowledged, so the fact that autism often appears shortly after the MMR jab is claimed to be a coincidence - the jab is given just at the age when autism is likely to start to show symptoms. However with the $billions at stake here, an increasing number of people fear a cover up.

Mere assurances that the clever scientists have checked this out and found no link isn't good enough.

David
David, I'll concede every point you wish to make about vaccine science as its not relevant to the question I'm asking.

What I find interesting is the push/pull between individual freedoms and safety/health sacrifices such as vaccines/seat belts/second hand smoke/etc. Again, many here question the science behind certain vaccine policies. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who question the science behind mandating seat belts. How does an otherwise free society arbitrate on these various issues?
 
That would be fine if the relevant science was all open and transparent. However a great many people are starting to question the safety of certain vaccines, particularly regarding autism. Unfortunately, these vaccines make a huge amount of money for Big Pharma, and they definitely don't want any link with autism to be acknowledged, so the fact that autism often appears shortly after the MMR jab is claimed to be a coincidence - the jab is given just at the age when autism is likely to start to show symptoms. However with the $billions at stake here, an increasing number of people fear a cover up.

Mere assurances that the clever scientists have checked this out and found no link isn't good enough.

David
That echoes the reasons for my point to Silence... the legal mandate for wearing seat belts is apples and state mandatory vaccinations is oranges. He tried to make them both apples.
 
David, I'll concede every point you wish to make about vaccine science as its not relevant to the question I'm asking.

What I find interesting is the push/pull between individual freedoms and safety/health sacrifices such as vaccines/seat belts/second hand smoke/etc. Again, many here question the science behind certain vaccine policies. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who question the science behind mandating seat belts. How does an otherwise free society arbitrate on these various issues?
The only answer is to make all the information open and transparent - precisely how did they determine that the MMR vaccine was not causing autism. That is not rocket science, nor is it 'woo'. The arbitration you require comes out of absolute transparency, so that any suitably qualified person can check the reasoning behind the result.

The difference between the seat belt and vaccine issues is the large sums of money the pharmaceutical companies make out of vaccines.

David
 
Yes, I think at one point I thought you were arguing that seat belts should be optional.

David
I surmised you misunderstood... thanks for checking up.

Here's one for Silence -

Currently it is being recommended that folks do this thing called "social distancing." We are being asked to do this. Guidelines were just released in this regard (initially set for 15 days).

My personal opinion is that this is a moral thing to do / an ethical thing to do... and it appears quite rational that if one feels a moral and ethical compelling to do all one can to protect others who might get the virus from you, either because you might already have it and not know it or that by heeding the recommendations you reduce if not eliminate your chances of getting it (which then lowers the chances you give it to another, by all means... I am happy to advise folks follow the recommendations. Also, by reducing one's own risk in getting the virus, one can only lower the potential strain on the medical system.

Note: in the US, as of today (March 16, 2020), these recommendations are just that, not law... adding the fact they are recommended strongly. It is my hope that as many folks as possible will take these recommendations seriously and that for those who clearly cannot do so because of some extreme circumstance such as being indigent (for example), the local and state governments step up in their responsibility to address and deal with this problem. In hindsight, some local and state governments might re-evaluate their approach to dealing with the vast homeless problem and understand, to do so, the drug problem must be taken more seriously as well... and to do that, the border issues must be taken more seriously. Its sad something like COVID-19 has to be that type of wake up call.
 
Last edited:
That echoes the reasons for my point to Silence... the legal mandate for wearing seat belts is apples and state mandatory vaccinations is oranges. He tried to make them both apples.
I'm afraid you are missing the point of my comparison.

Many people, certainly the majority here in the U.S. from polls I've read, support vaccinations in general. Many, again a majority, support the notion of this being a mandate for children to attend public schools. Something like half the adult population in the U.S. get the influenza vaccine each year. They have, whether you believe it be prudent or not, bought into the official public health narrative on vaccines.

The same can be said about laws mandating the wearing of seat belts while operating motor vehicles. There is majority support and agreement on the public health and safety aspects put forth by the governing bodies. Still, there is a minority who see these laws as an infringement of personal freedoms and even a danger to motorists.

My only point here is that any free citizen can choose to disagree with either or both public policies. They can feel justified in their own views; citing whatever evidence they wish. At some point, however, a decision and supporting policy has to be made. So, while it may be easy for you and David to support the logic/evidence behind seat belt laws, it is just as easy for others to support the logic/evidence behind vaccine policy.

So who's right and who's wrong? Its really tough when such an issue begs to be handled in a binary fashion, as the group against must either comply (against their own personal judgement) or resist with the latter potentially being viewed as a crime.
 
I surmised you misunderstood... thanks for checking up.

Here's one for Silence -

Currently it is being recommended that folks do this thing called "social distancing." We are being asked to do this. Guidelines were just released in this regard (initially set for 15 days).

My personal opinion is that this is a moral thing to do / an ethical thing to do... and it appears quite rational that if one feels a moral and ethical compelling to do all one can to protect others who might get the virus from you, either because you might already have it and not know it or that by heeding the recommendations you reduce if not eliminate your chances of getting it (which then lowers the chances you give it to another, by all means... I am happy to advise folks follow the recommendations. Also, by reducing one's own risk in getting the virus, one can only lower the potential strain on the medical system.

Note: in the US, as of today (March 16, 2020), these recommendations are just that, not law... adding the fact they are recommended strongly. It is my hope that as many folks as possible will take these recommendations seriously and that for those who clearly cannot do so because of some extreme circumstance such as being indigent (for example), the local and state governments step up in their responsibility to address and deal with this problem. In hindsight, some local and state governments might re-evaluate their approach to dealing with the vast homeless problem and understand, to do so, the drug problem must be taken more seriously as well... and to do that, the border issues must be taken more seriously. Its sad something like COVID-19 has to be that type of wake up call.
Its gone beyond "recommending" Sam.

Schools are closed.
Bars/Restaurants are closed.
Any gathering of more than 10 people has been banned.

These are all live examples of government mandated restrictions. Its scary to see freedoms being curtailed so aggressively. We must be diligent in holding our governmental bodies accountable for prudent uses of these extreme measures. In light of the public health risk COVID-19 presents, I find these actions prudent. Doesn't make them any less scary though.
 
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...nts-to-send-checks-to-households-immediately/
Americans Need Cash Now’ — Donald Trump Wants to Send Checks to Households Immediately​
President Donald Trump said at the White House Tuesday he wanted the federal government to send direct payments to Americans suffering economically from the coronavirus as part of a larger rescue package.​
...​
“It’s going to be big, it’s going to be bold,” Trump said. “And the level of enthusiasm to get something done, I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite like it.”​
 
A Miracle

Ilhan Omar praises Trump's 'incredible' response to coronavirus pandemic

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar unexpectedly praised President Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic on Wednesday night, saying it was "incredible and the right response in this critical time."

Omar, normally a staunch critic of the White House who herself has repeatedly drawn the president's ire, went on to quote Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., as saying "unprecedented times require unprecedented leadership" -- and, Omar added, "we are seeing that in our country right now."


"Finally, we should never let politics get in the way of good policy," Omar concluded. "This is a great start and hope others will be part of a united front to push for good policies that will help us work through the economic anxiety the country is feeling right now."

Omar was responding to a post by The Intercept's Lee Fang, who noted: "Trump suspending mortgage foreclosures, demanding cash payments to Americans, now invoking the Defense Production Act to force private firms to produce needed supplies is incredible. Kind of a shell shock for anyone who reported on any economic policies in the Obama years."


Her praise for the president was matched this week by other Democrats and left-of-center commentators. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, on Tuesday, told reporters, “His team is on it. They’ve been responsive. ... I want to say thank you.” And, CNN's Dana Bash asserted that Trump's new tone on the coronavirus made him the "kind of leader that people need."

On Wednesday, Trump invoked rarely used emergency powers to marshal critical medical supplies against the coronavirus pandemic. Trump tapped his authority under the 70-year-old Defense Production Act to give the government more power to steer production by private companies and try to overcome shortages in masks, ventilators and other supplies.

Describing himself as a “wartime president” fighting an invisible enemy, the president also signed an aid package — which the Senate approved earlier Wednesday — that will guarantee sick leave to workers who fall ill.
 
Last edited:
Top