2016 Presidential Horse Race

[DonnieNarco]

Anti-vaccination: bringing fringe lunatics on both sides together. Beautiful.

 

[RDU Irish]

And yes, Rand Paul hurt his cause when he bought into the anecdotal, friend of a friend vaccine story. The core message was sound and provocative. The man is a medical doctor for crying out loud. He should be fully aware that correlation does not equal causation, which is at the core of much of the anti-vaccine debate.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Rand Paul isn't going to win regardless. His real sinker is what he's said in the past about the Civil Rights Act.

 

[pkt77242]

Some idiot "expert" doctor responding to Rand Paul said the vaccines are 100% effective. That is patently false and if true would negate the concern since anyone with the vaccine would not be at risk. Depending on the vaccine, maybe 90% is a reasonable estimate of efficacy.

I would love to see people promote 100% vaccinated day cares and private schools in response to this B.S. No reason private enterprises should be forced to accept these BS waivers.

I can't speak for all vaccines but one dose of the MMR vaccine is about 95% effective and the recommended two doses are about 99%. It isn't 100% effective but if everyone is vaccinated with two doses it is pretty damn close.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The freedom argument for vaccine goes right out the window when it affects the health of others. Infants, those who can't get the vaccine for health reasons, and people for whom the vaccines did not work. All of those people can get ill because of one person's stupid misinformed decision.

Your freedom to throw a punch ends when it is aimed at a face. I can't throw my trash into the middle of the street because it would be a public danger. Not being vaccinated is a public danger. People who do not vaccinate their kids should have their insurance premiums go through the roof.

So the feds can't deport millions of illegal immigrants but can go around the country vaccinating millions of kids against their parents' wishes?

 

[GoIrish41]

Well he's running the primary in his party so science isn't the biggest concern. How many people in the bases he will be pandering to believe in evolution? Or climate change? It will not hurt him.

Unless he wins the primary, then he has all of that to deal with.

 

[GoIrish41]

lol. none. people won't be voting based on his position on vaccinations.

I guess we will see. But, I suspect that his personal liberty schtick being more important than legitimate public health concerns is going to be more of a problem than you make it out to be. It might not hurt him in the primary (although he almost certainly won't win that anyway), but he would be crucified in the general election on this issue.

 

[wizards8507]

...but he would be crucified in the general election on this issue.

Again, based on what? If he runs against Clinton, she's made past comments about vaccines being linked to autism, so it's not a winning issue for her.

Also, I think you're missing the mark big time on who exactly makes up the anti-vaccine crowd. Anti-vaxxers aren't tea party libertarian conservatives for the most part, they're new age hippie organic Whole Foods Gaia mother earth don't-shave-my-pits Prius driving feminists.

 

[GoIrish41]

Again, based on what? If he runs against Clinton, she's made past comments about vaccines being linked to autism, so it's not a winning issue for her.

Also, I think you're missing the mark big time on who exactly makes up the anti-vaccine crowd. Anti-vaxxers aren't tea party libertarian conservatives for the most part, they're new age hippie organic Whole Foods Gaia mother earth don't-shave-my-pits Prius driving feminists.

I don't think its a deomocrat-republican issue at all. I know that are probably more left wing nuts who believe this garbage that those on the right. I just don't think the GOP primaries will focus on the issue as much as it will be an issue in the general election. People with extreme positions on issues that 90 percent of the electorate have settled in their minds tend to be viewed as nutty. And to be fair, Clinton made comments several years ago that suggested there had been research that suggested a link and has since backed away from that stance when those studies were debunked. Paul made those comments last month and seems to be defending that position currently.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I guess we will see. But, I suspect that his personal liberty schtick being more important than legitimate public health concerns is going to be more of a problem than you make it out to be. It might not hurt him in the primary (although he almost certainly won't win that anyway), but he would be crucified in the general election on this issue.

Complete non issue. Rand is a right leaning Libertarian, so he'll say, "This is what I personally believe, but I'll leave it up to the states because the Feds don't have this power."

 

[GoIrish41]

Complete non issue. Rand is a right leaning Libertarian, so he'll say, "This is what I personally believe, but I'll leave it up to the states because the Feds don't have this power."

Ah, the Libretarian answer for everything they do not want to deal with. Pass the buck to the states. The fact that it is what he personally believes is what matters in the context of him running for President. It speaks to his judgement that he is a contrarian in the face of indisputable facts. This is a public health issue. Disease does not recognize borders or personal ideologies. If you advocating for ideas that could put people at risk, it will be an issue.

 

[wizards8507]

Ah, the Libretarian answer for everything they do not want to deal with. Pass the buck to the states. The fact that it is what he personally believes is what matters in the context of him running for President. It speaks to his judgement that he is a contrarian in the face of indisputable facts. This is a public health issue. Disease does not recognize borders or personal ideologies. If you advocating for ideas that could put people at risk, it will be an issue.

1. Federalism is not a libertarian position in the strictest sense, it's a Constitutionalist position.

2. Saying "this is a public health issue" is not an intellectual trump card.

We should castrate all men with the HIV virus... "because it's a public health issue. Disease does not recognize borders or personal ideologies. If you advocate for ideas that could put people at risk, it will be an issue."

We should close the border and halt all immigration, legal and otherwise... "because it's a public health issue. Disease does not recognize borders or personal ideologies. If you advocate for ideas that could put people at risk, it will be an issue."

We should probably just kill anyone who's sick with a contagious illness... "because it's a public health issue. Disease does not recognize borders or personal ideologies. If you advocate for ideas that could put people at risk, it will be an issue."

You see how stupid that sounds?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Ah, the Libretarian answer for everything they do not want to deal with. Pass the buck to the states. The fact that it is what he personally believes is what matters in the context of him running for President. It speaks to his judgement that he is a contrarian in the face of indisputable facts. This is a public health issue. Disease does not recognize borders or personal ideologies. If you advocating for ideas that could put people at risk, it will be an issue.

Or ya know...follow our Constitution and remind all proponents of a US nanny state that the 10th Amendment exists for a reason.

 

[GoIrish41]

1. Federalism is not a libertarian position in the strictest sense, it's a Constitutionalist position.

2. Saying "this is a public health issue" is not an intellectual trump card.

We should castrate all men with the HIV virus... "because it's a public health issue. Disease does not recognize borders or personal ideologies. If you advocate for ideas that could put people at risk, it will be an issue."

We should close the border and halt all immigration, legal and otherwise... "because it's a public health issue. Disease does not recognize borders or personal ideologies. If you advocate for ideas that could put people at risk, it will be an issue."

We should probably just kill anyone who's sick with a contagious illness... "because it's a public health issue. Disease does not recognize borders or personal ideologies. If you advocate for ideas that could put people at risk, it will be an issue."

You see how stupid that sounds?

Yes. I think we all see how stupid that sounds. We also see castration, immigration, and killing the sick people has little to nothing to do with immunization.

The Constitution begins thusly:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I would say that immunizations pretty clearly "promote the general welfare."

 

[wizards8507]

Yes. I think we all see how stupid that sounds. We also see castration, immigration, and killing the sick people has little to nothing to do with immunization.

The Constitution begins thusly:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I would say that immunizations pretty clearly "promote the general welfare."

1. The preamble is not an enumeration of powers, it is a statement of purpose.

2. The very next clause makes the exact opposite point you're trying to make: "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

 

[DonnieNarco]

It's not my freedom to shit in the street and water supply because it's a public health issue. Vaccinations are not castration or murder. They are harmless and helpful.

 

[wizards8507]

It's not my freedom to shit in the street and water supply because it's a public health issue.

You can prevent someone from doing something "bad," but you can't force someone to do something "good."

Examples:

I'm not allowed to beat you up but I don't have to help you if someone else is beating you up.

I'm not allowed to steal your lunch but I don't have to buy you one if you're hungry.

They are harmless and helpful.

I agree. But if I disagreed, fuck you.

Again, nobody is saying "don't vaccinate your kids." All they're saying is "we're not going to MAKE you vaccinate your kids... but it's probably a good idea.'

 

[PerthDomer]

How is a quarantine constitutional like we do for ebola? What if the person didn't believe they were actually harmful to the general public? Or mandating typhoid Mary wash her hands etc?

 

[wizards8507]

How is a quarantine constitutional like we do for ebola? What if the person didn't believe they were actually harmful to the general public? Or mandating typhoid Mary wash her hands etc?

It's different once someone's actually contracted a disease or illness because then there's a proximate linkage between your actions and the endangerment of others. It's the difference between punishing someone for drunk driving versus forcing every vehicle to have a breathalyzer lock on the ignition switch.

 

[PerthDomer]

Except there is a proximate relationship to getting a disease. You destroy herd immunity by intentionally becoming a disease vector.

 

[PerthDomer]

Furthermore, we just quarantined people with fevers because they came back from Africa.

 

[wizards8507]

Except there is a proximate relationship to getting a disease. You destroy herd immunity by intentionally becoming a disease vector.

But if the "victim" has been vaccinated, he's 99% immune even if he's in an entire room full of sick people. You need better than 1% odds to rationalize proximate cause IMO.

 

[PerthDomer]

Pertussis is more like 5% fail rate. Not to mention you have babies and immunosuppressed folks who not only can't get vaccinated, but get these diseases in a more severe fashion.

 

[PerthDomer]

So basically you're saying the right of everyone to not risk a 1% chance of getting measles, mumps, etc. outweighs some yuck's right to not inject "toxins" into their body?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It's not my freedom to shit in the street and water supply because it's a public health issue. Vaccinations are not castration or murder. They are harmless and helpful.

I think that potent Colorado marijuana is clouding your judgment. Running is harmless and helpful too (prevents heart disease, weight gain, etc) but no one forces you to do it. Notice the difference?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yes. I think we all see how stupid that sounds. We also see castration, immigration, and killing the sick people has little to nothing to do with immunization.

The Constitution begins thusly:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I would say that immunizations pretty clearly "promote the general welfare."

Ah, the typical "general welfare clause" card. What's the biggest killer in the US? Heart disease, and it isn't close. If I were president and unilaterally decided to shut down ALL fast food restaurants in the country (citing general welfare), I suppose you'd support that too.

 

[PerthDomer]

Your decision to pork up and die.of an mi doesn't make me more likely to do the same. Your decision not to vaccinate puts me at risk of getting sick. See the difference?

 

[GoIrish41]

Ah, the typical "general welfare clause" card. What's the biggest killer in the US? Heart disease, and it isn't close. If I were president and unilaterally decided to shut down ALL fast food restaurants in the country (citing general welfare), I suppose you'd support that too.

LOL. What's wrong Mr. Constitution? Don't like what the document you always bring up actually says?

Your choice to eat at a fast food restaurant does not make anyone else fat or unhealthy. Not the same as refusing to be vaccinated and advancing the notion that your "liberty" is more important that the "general welfare" of others in your community.

 

[Corry]

Ah, the typical "general welfare clause" card. What's the biggest killer in the US? Heart disease, and it isn't close. If I were president and unilaterally decided to shut down ALL fast food restaurants in the country (citing general welfare), I suppose you'd support that too.

Dude that's because most people are vaccinated.

 

[GATTACA!]

Ah, the typical "general welfare clause" card. What's the biggest killer in the US? Heart disease, and it isn't close. If I were president and unilaterally decided to shut down ALL fast food restaurants in the country (citing general welfare), I suppose you'd support that too.

You can't catch heart disease.

It boggles my mind that this is even a discussion. If your baby is born in a hospital you should be mandated to get them vaccinated or risk your child being taken away by the state for negligence. This isn't a case of individuals choice to put their own children at risk (which is bad enough) they are putting other innocent children at risk.

IMO if you don't vaccinate your child and they end up infecting another person and they die, you should be charged with murder.