Angelia

Ako mozes da pojasnis....ili si zaboravila Kongres i Senat btw: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf Ostalo o podeli vlasti u US se uci u skoli, i kako i zasto je izborni sistem takav kakav jeste.

Mmmmm da, veoma smislen odgovor. Kao sto je i pitanje u cemu je problem sa jedan covek jedan glas. Ako ti nije jasno u cemu je tu problem, i zasto postoji electoral college - iako mozda ne savrsen sistem, onda ti nista o USA nije jasno. Definitivno je jasno zasto ne razumes razlog zasto Senat nije uopste obesmisljen, kao sto nije bio obesmisljen kad ga je drzala demokratska stranka.

Zato sto je ovo federacija - pa ne bi bilo ok da odluke o celoj zemlji donosi 3-4 drzave. Sve ostalo sto si napisao pokazuje koliko ne razumes USA, a ovo prvo pitanje ti je pokazatelj.

hmmmmm, prehlada pobedila H1N! a covid pobedio grip.... It was feared by many to be the perfect winter storm, a nightmare situation that would push our health service over the edge: the 'twin-demic' of flu, which kills about 10,000 Britons every year, and a second deadly wave of Covid-19. Such was the concern that the Government rolled out the biggest flu vaccination programme in British history. Thirty million people – 20 per cent more than normal, and now including all over-50s – are eligible for this year's jab. Take up of the vaccine is already the highest it has ever been in the over-65s and young children, according to the latest reports. There's just one curious problem: flu, it seems, has all but vanished. .... In the Southern Hemisphere, where the flu season happens during our summer months, the WHO data suggests it never took off at all. In Australia, just 14 positive flu cases were recorded in April, compared with 367 during the same month in 2019 – a 96 per cent drop. By June, usually the peak of its flu season, there were none. In fact, Australia has not reported a positive case to the WHO since July. In Chile, just 12 cases of flu were detected between April and October. There were nearly 7,000 during the same period in 2019. ..... In the UK, our flu season is only just beginning. But since Covid-19 began spreading in March, just 767 cases have been reported to the WHO compared with nearly 7,000 from March to October last year. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8875201/Has-Covid-killed-flu.html Nije neki izvor, ali sumnjam da su lazirali izjave. Samo mi je "strucno" objasnjenje malo tanko.

Ne znam kakvi su ti vasi testovi, ovde kod nas kazu preosetljivi - reaguju i na mrtve ostatek virusa i pokazuju pozitivno, kazu i da reaguje na male kolicine virusa koje nikad nece dovesti do bolesti. pitala sam se da li i druge drzave imaju taj problem.

Tako je taj komentar zvucao, nisam planirala da se prepucavamo. Mislim da je Morgan ovde izuzetno objektivan, i da njegova kritika medija u US potpuno stoji - totalno je nenormalno koliko mediji pokusavaju da ignorisu bilo sta negativno za Bidena. Takva manipulacija nije dobra.

Kad raspravljamo zasto ljudi odlucuju da ne postuju mere, jedna politicka situacija u Kaliforniji: Gov. Newsom Limits Gatherings to Three Families, Two Hours Or Less, No Singing Do riots and protests count as ‘gatherings?’ Recimo: Be sure to stay away from those dreaded wind instruments. As for requiring gatherings two hours or less because “the longer the duration, the risk of transmission increases,” this is totally arbitrary. And do riots and protests count as “gatherings?” Should they also be limited to “three families, two hours or less, no singing, no shouting?” Gov. Newsom’s rules are sounding eerily like a chapter out of George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” As California Globe reported last week, more than 30,000 medical practitioners and medical & public health scientists recently released a letter called the Great Barrington Declaration, telling politicians who continue to keep people in lockdown, they are causing more health issues and deaths than COVID-19 Inace u ovim merama se moze otkriti da ako pricas glasno - maske ne funkcionisu

Ja rekoh odlican komentar debate i medijske reakcije, misleci na medijsku reakciju po pitanju Biden skandala. Koliko vidim cak i da dobije izbore Bidenu sleduje impichment, a Trump jos uvek moze da se kandiduje 2024 Ne znam sta ideoloski obojeno ocekujes od engleskog novinara. Covek jeste naveo dobre i lose stvari i kritikovao medije, potpuno opravdano.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6204148574001?playlist_id=930909787001#sp=show-clips Odlican komentar debate, i medijske reakcije.

Ne svodi se sve na pare. Ljudi nisu hteli da se izlazu virusu a samo za NY su trazili par hiljada tracera. Pricamo o velikim brojevima, a ne 3.5 mill stanovnika.

Desava se, ali Sr nije bas bila 6 meseci pod lockdownom, vas su pustili za izbore komplet E sad, tu ce se nase misljenje razlikovati oko zdravstvenog i welfare sistema, posto ja smatram da nas uopste nije los. Zato ja i podrzavam zdravstveni sistem ovde, ovakav kakav jeste. Kad kazem resurse ne mislim samo na pare. Jedan od ogromnih problema je recimo bio da regrutuju tracere - nisu hteli ljudi.

Kako mislis? PA ima 677 umrlih po mil populacije a svedska 586. Osim ako ne citam pogresne podatke.

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six. President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later. On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932. On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote. On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero. Znaci i demokrate i republikanci to radili i ranije pa se nije histerisalo, i nije se SC proglasavao ne-legitimnim, i nije se pricalo o packing the court.

Mislim da imati resurse za 3.5 mill i za recimo 60 mill u UK, nije ista stvar. A koliko umire i zavrsava u bolnici? Meni nista ne govori to sto sad u PA, koja ima 12.5 mill, ima 1,770 slucajeva...sta mi to govori ako je smrtnost ista i ne menja se znacajno? A bolnicki kapaciteti na 23%. Zasto je hiljadu ipo jedva? Podseticu te, da imate u Svedskoj manje umrlih po milion populacije nego mi, a mi smo u lockdownu bili skoro 6 meseci, a imamo i obavezne maske.

Zasto i te mere ne bi dovodili u pitanje? Pa strucnjaci se ne slazu oko maski, kako da se mi slozimo koji smo laici? Uz to poenta je da te mere kako ih ti objasnjavas uglavnom ne dolaze bez nekih dodatnih. Da nisu ljude smorili mesecima besmislenim merama, mozda bi tako nesto i uspelo da da neke rezultate. Ovako, nije bilo dovoljno resursa za testiranje, i pracenje kontakata, strucnjaci nisu mogli da se dogovore sta moze da radi. I zbunjeni ljudi nesto postuju a nesto ne. Naravno da mi svi mozemo, sta god smatrali sad da budemo pametni kako je to moglo bolje - eto Svedska bas probala taj princip, samo nije imala dovoljno resursa za pracenje i testiranje, a svi je pljuvali zbog tog izbora. Ali da me Vili ne pojuri nije ni tamo bilo sve idealno.

Naravno da mozemo: - jel moralo da se zatvaraju golf igralista? - jel moralo da se zatvore sve prodavnice koje su mogle da rade sa kontrolisanim kapacitetom, bez guzve? - jel moralo da se sve bolnice pretvore u covid, i da niko ne radi? ovo su ti primeri kod mene, ali recimo u SR, jel morao policijski cas od 3 dana? Mogu tako da ti dam mnogo primera, mera koje nista nisu pomogle a samo su odmogle. Znaci ipak smo birali mere, tj birali ih politicari za nas, pa kako kome zapalo.

Pa moras da uzmes u obzir da ti uzimas SR i USA, u kojima su pandemije u oba slucaja bile toliko politizovane, da tu nikog nije interesovalo da uspesno zaustavi pandemiju. Iako su suprotne situacije, Vucic recimo ima kontrolu da je to mogao da sprovede, ali nije. Tramp ionako nije mogao, jer ne kontrolise USA. Nije svaki sistem mera primenjiv jednako svuda, moramo da uzmemo u obzir politicku situaciju i ekonomsku, i geografsku. Zato sam ja recimo navijala za neki globalni koncenzus politicara, ali to se nazalost nije desilo. Ispalo je da se utrkuju umesto da rade zajedno.

https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-flirting-destruction-judiciary-103028450.html Obama nije mogao da postavi sudiju jer nije imao Senat, on je kakndidovao svog kandidata ali je Senat odbio. Znaci situacija je drugacija, nije ista. Da je obrnuto, republikanci isto ne bi mogli nista. Poenta texta nije da se ne bi oni zalili, nego da taj i takav sud sa takvim pravilima - postoji jako dugo, i da se demokrate nisu zalile kad je to bilo u njihovu korist. Sad im je sud naprasno ne-legitiman.

O Urugvaju ne znam mnogo, ali citam ovaj text i pitam se da li njihova uspesnost ima nesto sa populacijom? 3.5 mill nije bas tesko kontrolisati sa tracing. Isto pise da jesu radili odredjeni oblick lockdowna, tj pozatvarali su sve biznise i skole. Deluju poprilicno uspesni bez drakonskih mera, ali posto ne znam detalje necu komentarisati. Da ne bude posle kao Nemacka koja je u prvom talasu bila izuzetno uspesna a onda u drugom sad ima znacajan porast, iako i dalje vode kao jedna od najboljih reakcija. Ako ja citam pravilno ove urugvajske mere, deluju kao nesto sto bi ja podrzala, umesto onog sto smo mi imali, ili SR, ili dobar deo evrope. Samo nisam sigurna da bi jednako uspesno bilo primenjeno na populaciju od recimo 20 mill, ili 330 mill kao US.

Ili ne bi umro jer su vlasti donele pogresnu odluku da se protiv virusa bore sa lockdownom? Zamisli da te u saobracaju udari pijani vozac, koga je policajac upravo pustio da se odveze jer kao eto nije mnogo pijan, i ti kazes u tom slucaju za smrt je kriv auto - a ne vozac koji se napio i ne policajac koji je odlucio da nije strasno pijan.... Svi strucnjaci razdvajaju smrt od virusa i smrt kao posledicu mera, a ti kazes sve je to isto. Kako da znamo da li su mere bile racionalne ako ne znamo ko je u stvari umro kao posledica mera?

Znaci oni sto su umrli od posledica lockdowna su u stvari umrli od corone. Interesatna ideja za pracenje smrtnosti virusa. Moji sugradjani su poprilicno disciplinovani po pitanju javnih prostora, dosta njih nosi maske i kad hoda ulicom i nikog nema blizu. To mogu da vidim. Isto kao sto sam mogla da vidim restorane u septembru i sada. ono gde nisu bili disciplinovani je da se privatno druze, uglavnom mladji, i to se nije promenilo. Crkve su takodje problematicne, ali isto kao u septembru Nije to precizno jer niko ne meri, ali bukvalno je ista situacija. Mi nemamo neku veliku populaciju ortodoxnih jevreja pa da su oni u vreme praznika izazvali outbreak Ti bi Kineske mere? i mislis da bi to moglo u evropi i USA? Tesko, to samo ako pratis testove i vesti, jer nemaju bas dobar izvor tih podataka https://covidtracking.com/data/state/pennsylvania/tests-viral

Izvini, ovo je malo bezveze pricati o coveku koji je OK a pod predpostavkom da se zavrsilo smrcu, ali da li si siguran da to ne bi pripisali coroni? Zamisli da je testiran, i dobio pozitivan test (iako nije bolestan, nije zarazan, mozda je imao coronu pre dva meseca) i umro usled hitne operacije? Naravno da bi bio u broju umrlih od corone... Pogledaj izvestaj CDC o umrlima od corone, i videces da svako ko je imao pozitivan rezultat bez obzira od cega je umro, pise se kao umro od corone, iako znaju da testovi nisu precizni, a da su nasli i do potencijalno 40% onih koji su dobili pozitivan rezultat a da u stvari nisu imali dovoljno virusa da budu oboleli - ili su negde preboleli coronu u prethodnim mesecima.

Odlican text: Today, every instance in which Democrats are denied a political victory is immediately transformed into a national “crisis” in which the public has “lost faith” in a system that worked perfectly fine when they were in power. Not that long ago, self-interest was a motivation for defending deliberative politics and republican order. But these days, undeterred by reality, partisans have convinced themselves they’ll be in power forever. It’s not merely the progressive fringe that demands Democrats blow up the courts. It is the partisan, self-proclaimed defenders of “norms.” In a recent piece in The Atlantic, the nation’s leading periodical of intellectual anti-constitutionalism, Lawfare’s Quinta Jurecic and Susan Hennessey argue that “if Republicans continue the smash-and-grab approach to confirming Barrett,” court packing “may be the only way for Democrats to save the Court.” The duly elected president and the duly elected Senate are observing the constitutionally stipulated guidelines for placing a highly qualified jurist on the Court. Someone will need to do a better job of explaining how dismantling the Court will “save” it. Now, perhaps if you’ve lost the ability to differentiate between ends and means, the idea makes intuitive sense to you. Perhaps you nod along as Biden spuriously argues that Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination is nothing more than the exploitation of a “loophole” to undo the Affordable Care Act, ignoring the fact that we don’t know how she’ll rule on the Obamacare lawsuit (and the fact that either way, Obamacare isn’t some untouchable edict handed down from Mount Sinai). But back here in the real world, we know that court-packing would be far more destructive to our political order than anything Donald Trump has done, Barrett’s nomination very much included. The notion that the Senate shouldn’t confirm Trump’s nominee because Biden might win the election or Trump lost the “popular vote” is highly dubious. Justices do not need consent of the majority, nor should they seek it. As Clark Neily, the vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, recently noted, some of the Supreme Court’s “most reviled cases—including Dred Scott (slavery), Plessy (separate-but-equal), and Buck v Bell (eugenics)—involved acceding to democratically enacted policies. I can think of no higher compliment to pay a judge than to characterize her as antidemocratic.” And that’s if Democrats take the charge seriously, which all evidence suggests they don’t: Remember, they had no problem with this “anti-democratic” institution when it was creating constitutional rights to gay marriage and abortion. It only becomes a problem for them when it threatens to defend the Bill of Rights.

Ja nisam rekla "apsolutno postujuci mere" - rekla sam jednako postujuci i ne postojuci, znaci - nit su ikada postovali sve mere apsolutno, ali se ni taj ratio nije promenio. Mere ocigledno ne funkcionise, jer inace ne bi imali outbreak zar ne? Bez obzira na razloge zasto ne funkcionisu, cak i ako kazes "zato sto se ne postuju" onda si izabrao pogresne mere. Za to nemam dovoljno informacija, pominjalo se ono o zamrznutoj hrani, malo mi je neprijatno da o tome nagadjam. Nisam razumela tu teoriju, sta je to - neka teorija zavere? Fali ti prosta opcija, da sada rade mnogo vise testova, koji nisu pouzdani, pa nalaze coronu tamo gde je nema, nije da smo pre pandemije testirali da smo svi dolazili u kontakt sa koronom, a sa nekim oblikom jesmo. Ako se kaze da testovi lociraju mrtvu coronu, onda treba razmisliti koliko je broj "obolelih" tacan.

Upravo. Ocigledno nisi razumeo komentar.