(07-07-2020 03:37 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 03:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'll offer up some free political strategy to Trump (although I know he'll completely ignore it). But three words could easily swing things back in his favor with this July maneuver.

National Mask Mandate

He won't do it of course. But that's all he needs to do to force schools to re-open, at least maintain the economy on where it's at and possibly open up things a bit further depending on how the next few weeks shake down. And he won't even have to admit he's made any mistakes.

Just say that data does show masks are effective. And that's the main difference in the countries that are handling Covid 19 cases and deaths more efficiently than the United States. He could say look I don't think Covid 19 is all that significant right now, and I would prefer to open up the economy even more. But to do that, everyone is going to have to chip in and wear masks indoors in high population areas (schools, stores, etc.). A lot of Republican Governors and administrators have realized that. And 70 to 80 percent of the American public agree that masks should be mandated nationally. Now it's up to the president to listen to the country and make that announcement.

And if he puts on a mask when he's making that announcement, even better.

Ironically, if he doesn't do that now, I maintain he'll be forced to do it just prior to the election. But by then, it will be too late.

How exactly will a national "mandate" help?

lol...

#prescriptionfordisaster

(07-07-2020 06:50 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Not much different from the last election imo. Embarrass and bash Biden and the left at every turn relentlessly. Especially in regard to the Russian ties to him and his loser son. Focus on the economy, immigration and step up the long used GOP winning message of Law and order...safety..security. Biden is a clueless old man that has nothing to really offer anyone and has a RECORD of failure to go after..over and over and over. Trump is going to tear him a new arsehole. I almost feel sorry for Sloe.

Joe Biden is the new Mondale. He has no option but to attempt to tie himself to the progressive wing of the party that abandoned it last election. The Bernie Bros and the Warrenites have to be appeased to get them to the polls. This will open himself up to Trump attacking him as a radical lefty and as dangerous as those he has aligned with. The results could be Mondaleish in November.

Can you let me know when he actually starts attempting to "appease" Bernie Bro's? You do understand that "wokeism" and socialism are completely different things right? Biden is actually directly trying to appeal to "Warrenites" because that's mostly white professional middle class people who because their financial situations are secure care far more about social issues than economic ones. The average Bernie and Warren voter are not aligned. Him picking Warren as VP would actually backfire on him horribly. The hardcore Bernie supporter hates Warren, maybe more than Biden, and it doesn't attract any of the group of voters that are actually serious about being #NeverBiden.

(07-07-2020 05:39 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 05:35 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm guessing the SCOTUS would have to hear the constitutionality of mask mandates. But, I'm thinking the gov't would win on that one.

Of course they would, but that doesn't make it constitutional.

I wish I could remember the article... but I think most people would be surprised. In the event of a national health emergency (which has been called) the original language gave unbelievably wide power to just one, unelected person... which has been ceded more recently to the CDC. It almost literally says... to do whatever he thinks is necessary to protect the people.... and it's been in there for 100ish years. They took some extreme measures during the 1918 epidemic and some others.

Again, not saying I agree that 'this event warrants all of these proposed/discussed interventions'... just that the law has existed and been used for a very long time.... and been generally supported by the courts... The liberals would support it, and I'm betting Roberts would support is as 'precedent'.

(07-08-2020 10:12 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 05:39 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 05:35 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm guessing the SCOTUS would have to hear the constitutionality of mask mandates. But, I'm thinking the gov't would win on that one.

Of course they would, but that doesn't make it constitutional.

I wish I could remember the article... but I think most people would be surprised. In the event of a national health emergency (which has been called) the original language gave unbelievably wide power to just one, unelected person... which has been ceded more recently to the CDC. It almost literally says... to do whatever he thinks is necessary to protect the people.... and it's been in there for 100ish years. They took some extreme measures during the 1918 epidemic and some others.

Again, not saying I agree that 'this event warrants all of these proposed/discussed interventions'... just that the law has existed and been used for a very long time.... and been generally supported by the courts... The liberals would support it, and I'm betting Roberts would support is as 'precedent'.

I'm certainly not saying you're wrong, you aren't. I still contend it isn't constitutional.

(07-08-2020 10:30 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 10:12 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 05:39 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 05:35 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm guessing the SCOTUS would have to hear the constitutionality of mask mandates. But, I'm thinking the gov't would win on that one.

Of course they would, but that doesn't make it constitutional.

I wish I could remember the article... but I think most people would be surprised. In the event of a national health emergency (which has been called) the original language gave unbelievably wide power to just one, unelected person... which has been ceded more recently to the CDC. It almost literally says... to do whatever he thinks is necessary to protect the people.... and it's been in there for 100ish years. They took some extreme measures during the 1918 epidemic and some others.

Again, not saying I agree that 'this event warrants all of these proposed/discussed interventions'... just that the law has existed and been used for a very long time.... and been generally supported by the courts... The liberals would support it, and I'm betting Roberts would support is as 'precedent'.

I'm certainly not saying you're wrong, you aren't. I still contend it isn't constitutional.

the day I'm 'forced' to ad'dress', is going to be a sad day for a few on muh docket....