What I think people are missing that this is a win win for politicians. They institute a policy (in the name of a public health emergency of course), you either submit (good citizen, probable voter) or you leave (they don't want you anyway because you won't vote for them). There is no downside for the politicians doing the mandate.
What I think people are missing that this is a win win for politicians. They institute a policy (in the name of a public health emergency of course), you either submit (good citizen, probable voter) or you leave (they don't want you anyway because you won't vote for them). There is no downside for the politicians doing the mandate.
If it wasn't good for the elected politicians, they wouldn't allow the unelected ones to do this. The health department is only able to do any of this because the governor is allowing it. Since the dividing lines are extremely clear in this scenario, anyone who refuses a vaccine, is most definitely not voting for Newsome (in this case, I believe we are talking California), so win-win on the policy for them.
What I think people are missing that this is a win win for politicians. They institute a policy (in the name of a public health emergency of course), you either submit (good citizen, probable voter) or you leave (they don't want you anyway because you won't vote for them). There is no downside for the politicians doing the mandate.
Especially when they are unelected.
If it wasn't good for the elected politicians, they wouldn't allow the unelected ones to do this. The health department is only able to do any of this because the governor is allowing it. Since the dividing lines are extremely clear in this scenario, anyone who refuses a vaccine, is most definitely not voting for Newsome (in this case, I believe we are talking California), so win-win on the policy for them.