Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Earl Blumenauer Introduce Nationwide Vote-by-Mail Bill
Is vote by mail "democracy"? Isn't "democracy" just 50.1% of the mob imposing itself on the other 49.9%? Isn't that why any way to rig elections, fake votes, "automatic registration", just more ways to improve on Mayor Daleys motto "Vote early, and often"?
It is reasonable, in a republic, to expect that when citizens want to vote in an election, they will bring their bodies in and vote in person. If it's not that important to them, they shouldn't vote.
Now there may be reasons for some exceptions: being away on military service, for instance (I voted that way once, in boot camp), being bed-ridden at home, etc. But it shouldn't be just allowed to everybody without a specific reason, across the board.
As to the 18-year-old vote, these young men were being enslaved and sent off to maybe die without any voice in the matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_ta...
While true it was used to suppress specific groups, the "black" claim is not valid, in that it was used against all poor people, women and had some wrinkles in it to ensure it focused on stable, wealthy people.
Voting was meant to be a physical act, inconvenient so as to show one really cares and is invested in the country.
A few,.. fill in the dots and a long walk to your mail box is not enough to show you are invested in liberty and freedom...in my opinion.
A government agency ran a ferry service.
When the time came for a new ferry, a bright spark suggested that the public be asked to name the new boat.
"We are a public service after all... blah blah."
Voting was organized.
There was a clear winner, the public wanted the name to be: Boatie McBoat Face.
The agency did not accept that result.
Question, something went wrong, was it-
-Not accepting the result
-Putting the question to a vote in the first place
-Democracy has its place but not that place
-Employing idiots
- ..etc .. .. ?
https://explainlife.com/vaccine-skept...
Looks like a medical dictatorship.
But if you are in the position of leading the public (nurse/midwife as stated) then you have already given up that "right" because you are in an enhanced position with regard to believability. At the very least, they should be forced - if taking this stance - to back it up with actual facts and statistics, just as any doctor/nurse/midwife in favor of the vaccines should (and can) back their endorsements up by statistical means.
So if one is against vaccines they should be exclused from a medical setting, and then they can espouse killing children with neglect to their heart's content.
By the way, question-
On this particular topic, what sort of evidence, if any, could be strong enough to require compulsion?
A certain bequest may -like to see a proposal for an erudite and publishable study on this question- etc. Any ideas?
Are Pharma companies protected from lawsuit (for damages by vaccination) by Australian law as they are in the US?
Based on my reading there are significant questions about the benefits and side effects of some of the required vaccinations. If such questions are valid, I can't see any rational support for compulsion. It appears that the parents have a vested interest in the health of their children. Government interests are not so clear to me.
1. No.
2. I think not. (Tho' the statins situation suggest otherwise)
3. Generally yes. But there was Thalidomide ~40 years ago, big payouts.
4. The current support for compulsion is mainly do-goodism, and there is always the steady work for the medics.
There may be a case for compulsion, I do not see it, yet anyway.
They also want to eliminate the Electoral College.