Jump to content

JBJ

Full Members
  • Content Count

    1,587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

612 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Am I missing what the law actually does? It reimburses public accomodations who stock their restroom with tampons, right? You can't walk into a public restroom and get a vaginal ring or diabetus prescription. You can walk in and use all their toilet paper. I guess I'm with Gil here and thought this was already a normal thing to do. Maybe not for a gas station, but at a sit down restaurant or hotel lobby restroom.
  2. I thought I read somewhere that the diagnosed case morality is 3-4%, but they think the real morality rate is lower ~2% because many cases can go unreported or misdiagnosed.
  3. Toilet paper is a better comparison than prescription meds.
  4. The small states in the northern Great Plains and Rockies aren't mostly rural, they are mostly uninhabitable. Most of the people who are there still live in cities/suburbs. The two rural majority states are VT and ME. PA and NC have the most number of rural districts.
  5. Do people buy tampons for back to school? Also this quote:
  6. It's not as much as you'd think. The problem is going to be convincing a lot of states to vote against themselves. Used 270-to-win's forecast consensus to set R/B/Swing states. Used the Webster method (it's what we currently do) to apportion seats. 876 EVs is the maximum the Consitution allows with Webster apportionment. 538 EVs (current): 34.6% R, 46.7% B 876 EVs 33.7% R, 46.9% B There are more R-leaning swing votes than B-leaning on 270s map, so the percentage of B-votes above is close to what's actually happening. Basically, it is fairly tiny partisan-wise. 31 of the smaller states lose vote%, so it's unlikely to get Senate support. 13 are blue, so it's not very partisan either.
  7. I agree. The ratio is historical but not intentional. It's a happy little error /bobross. The general intent behind each apportionment bill was to grow the chamber as little as possible without losing any existing seats. That produced the ratio effect as newly annexed / rapidly growing states would tend to pull existing house seats away from the existing states without the House-to-Senate ratio staying approximately the same. It's kind of a mistake that we even started with that ratio.The Constitution called for 26 and 65 seats (2:5). So if there's any actual intended state-to-district ratio it's there. But I will double down a bit and say that the % growth of the population apportionment was actually higher during the 1800-1860 period than we have with the locked number of seats.
  8. "Shall not exceed." Apportionment was never set to 30,000 it just can't be less than that. There was never any attempt to maintain this. The Apportionment ratio had already quadrupled by the Civil War. But there were 237 house seats to 62 Senate seats after the census of 1850. That's 2:~7.6 and very close to the original apportionment bill which was close to exactly 2:7.
  9. The top 1% or 10% vote against their own interests. They are not vulnerable enough to be understand the concerns of Brett. So they vote to use Brett's income (and above) to support Clyde. Brett is the one really getting fucked.
  10. But the original Senate to House vote ratio was about 2:7, so we'd actually have to reduce house districts to 364 to get back to the historical EC ratio. Districting the EC is probably the best solution, whether that's a fully districted model (colonial VA) or district-plus-state model (Nebraska). Nebraska makes the most intuitive sense and lets house and electoral districts be the same. I don't think it would actually impact the outcome of most elections, but it would undoubtedly force the national campaigns to be more broad and therefore broaden policy concerns of both parties.
  11. Government action to preempt harm caused to others is generally not morally justifiable without strict application to the known causes/effect relationships and immediacies of the threat. Intrusion must be limited to prevent very specific actions/actors. Also, some form of recourse is necessary for those who might be still wrongfully adversely affected. The ebola quarantines were very targeted. Do you have the disease? Have you been contacted by the disease? There was recourse: Have you been cleared despite being in contact? Presumably someone could also sue the hospital/locality for release. Volunteers provided the medical care. But this only partially applies in the context of a general quarantine. Because the threats are unknown threats, the normal factors that allow and limit action can't apply - at least until time is given to study the new outbreak. And waiting usually isn't an option. There are hierarchies of response. Self-quarantization (travel advisories) is less egregious than physical restriction. The hierarchies are important to the moral discussion, but I assume the OP meant to focus on the most intrusive policies. The nature of general quarantine is to restrict the movements of all people. 99% of those effected are healthy. Because we can't identify the 1% who are unheatlhy or know how much harm will be caused by them, the modern ethical approach is the take precautions against the worst reasonable scenarios. For example, Dallas and Tarrant counties publicly spray for mosquitoes after West Nile cases are found. It has at least a perceived negative impact on flora and fauna, but much less negative than a West Nile outbreak. Whether in each instance it was the right thing to do, it impossible to know even in hindsight. However, it is at least morally justifiable based on the limited knowledge at hand. We should still be skeptical. There are too many historical abuses. SanFran used the plague outbreak as cover to decimate Chinatown. Various cholera quarantines have worked to exacerbate the problem by creating worse environments in the affected areas. Historical abuses almost always work to the detriment of the deplorable class du'jour.
  12. Thanks for the link. Read the background starting on the bottom of page 3. Organization 1 = Wikileaks. Person 1 = Corsi. Person 2 = Credico. Ranking Trump official = (supposedly) Bannon with the journalist friend being someone at Breitbart. Senior Trump official = someone else Corsi and Credico have both reaffirmed this narrative.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...