dwy000

What a ridiculous answer. Nobody is saying "goverrnment" is the answer for every problem (generalization again). We are talking about how to protect people (children here) from being harmed by other people's decisions. I have never once heard anybody argue for a mandate for shingles vaccines. Why? Because if youre stupid enough to not get it (for political reasons) you deserve all the suffering you may end up getting. We are only talking about communicable diseases for children. There is no federal vaccine mandate. It is only at the state and local levels and solely for purposes of schools. And there are health and religious exemptions. The only reason this is even an issue for the first time in decades is because we have health "leadership" that is questioning science and parents are exposing their kids to own the libs.

Yes, society determines that when they are supported by science, facts and medical leadership that follows science. Thata not what is happening. Our government is actively promoting anti vaccine ideology and recommendations. You're right anyone listening to the government over their doctor for medical advice is a loser. But you have a cult that is doing exactly that - especially when the health leadership is telling them to question vaccines. So at what point is the parent stupidity that you point out, harming the child?

Insurance is the new AI.

At what point does a parent's freedom (and stupidity) cross the line of harming the child? I dont remember vaccine arguments coming up much at all in the last 25 years until we put a nut job in charge of HHS.

As always a massive generalization. The entire argument I've been making is that you dont need a mandate if you dont have a government pushing stupidity against vaccines but instead supports science. How is that not a valid argument?

A mandate is not needed in most countries because common sense takes care of it. It would be less of an issue if the government here wasnt actively suggesting people question vaccines. Then there's also the question of at what point your child's health risks (and their classmates) takes precedent over your personal right to do something that could be harmful.

Its not just when they cant fix the problem. Plastic surgery and Ozempic seem to get a pass when questioning medicine.

It was a nice boring report. Given the personnel stuff recently and announcing a buyback literally months after issuing $4bn of shares, I was bracing for bad news. Its obvious they have a lot of work to integrate the acquisition but it certainly doesnt appear to have harmed the organic business.

And never once have I taken that position - and yet you immediately start going off about liberals and choice. My post actually suggested there was a decision to be made. And implied tongue-in-cheek that the decision is so obvious that the only reason anyone would throw common sense out the window is because the cult master suggested it. But the decision is yours to make.

Always a generalization. And sorry, I'm hardly a liberal. A former republican. Nowhere in my post did I suggest people shouldnt think for themselves. In fact the whole point of the post was thinking for yourself. For those who wish to be told what to do, there's a cult out there that is happy to tell you exactly how to think and react to everything even if it contradicts many of the underlying principles that the cult claims to represent. Good luck.

Vaccines are always a quandary. On one hand you've got decades of evidence, thousands of doctors and medical experts and hundreds of clinical studies saying they are safe and effective. On the other hand you've got a heroin addict with a brain worm and no medical degree pushing conspiracy theories. So it really is something I have to weigh up for my kids and do my online research.

If you want to live off the system NYC is the absolute worst place to do it. If you think there are millions of people living large off of welfare and medicaid in NYC, that's crazy. This is one of the highest cost places in the country.

Senators represent states. And they are voted for by one person, one vote across the entire state. Governors too. Why should a national vote for a single representative not hold the exact same democratic rules? The electoral college does not balance out votes - it explicitly unbalances votes by subverting one person, one vote representation. If republicans cannot win a majority of voters nationally they should either change the representative or change their policies such that they can attract the majority. Thats how every other election works. Otherwise you are subjecting a majority of people to the whims of a minority.

The USA is a democratic republic.

If conservatives cant win without the electoral college you are undermining democracy by not allowing one person, one vote for president. And where they live is irrelevant. If more Americans want person A over person B, that's who should be president. Thats how it works for governors, that's how it works for senators. Thats how it works in every other direct election for a person in the whole country. If a party cannot win a popular vote that candidate is representing more people who voted against them than for them. That is just plain wrong.

Re-read what you just wrote. "The large population centers would dictate law and policy everywhere" Population centers dont dictate law and policy (and shouldn't). Voters should - wherever they live equally. If conservatives dont have a fighting chance when everyone's vote counts equally (like it would if we eliminated the electoral college) then you are undermining the will of the voting public.

States rights are already preserved thru Congress. The electoral college plays zero role in any decision other than presidential elections. Zero. And when voting for a single person to represent the country nationwide states shouldn't come into play. Its the same president for all US citizens and therefore each citizen should have their vote counted equally. The electoral college undermines that.

Policies and elections should be dictated by the voting population. Thats what a democracy is. The electoral college doesnt retain integrity it opposes it. If you truly believe in one person, one vote (like a real democracy) then having an electoral college opposes that. Just have every vote count and whoever gets the most votes wins. How is that bad?

Because they dont vote and wouldnt have impacted that voting map whatsoever. And any transition at all is irrelevant unless it changes electoral college maps. So let's get rid of those.

Who's they? And OK for what? If you think a thousand year global trend of urbanization is going to stop because the US hired extra ICE agents for a year or two, youre in denial. Cities will get bigger. Urbanization will continue. Suburbs will grow and expand. Its just the way it is.

Won't even move the needle.

Those statistics are data. What youre talking about are projections based upon personal anecdotes and desires. Cities have been growing at the expense of rural for hundreds of years and will continue to. What is more likely to happen is suburbs will continue to grow and expand outward. But the idea that mass quantities of population are going to move to remote rural areas in the center of the country is just not going to happen.

The details are that the populations of the top 300+ cities grew as a whole with NYC, Houston and LA being the top 3 by number. And its why that map will get even more irrelevant. Voting reflects population not land. If you want to make voting even more directly reflective of population we should get rid of the electoral college.

Not according to data. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/vintage-2024-popest.html With NYC and LA having 2 of the 3 largest increase in numbers.

That's not what your post said. Your post said "The voting map vividly demonstrates the divide in this Country and how a few of the most heavily populated, mostly coastal cities try to to dictate policy for the rest of us, who aren't buying it." And cities are getting bigger as people move from all those rural areas to urban area. That map is going to get even more extreme - and it should because it reflects populations.