Coronavirus

[*jason*]

(04-18-2020, 02:26 PM)samhain Wrote: A little off the beaten path here: If I were to put myself in the shoes of a Trump adviser, charged with getting him re-elected this fall, I'd be really hesitant about telling him to go hard with the re-open and "liberate"(lol) trend.

I honestly don't believe that enough undecided voters will blame him for the initial outbreak/economic impact to cost him the election. I think a good enough number see it as a thing that was basically out of his hands. He can weather any fallout if things have already hit bottom, and we get back on track.

However, if he's on record being ride or die with "liberating" and arbitrarily throwing out tweets devoid of specifics, he's digging a hole that he won't get out of by November. If/when there's another big spike in cases, and more people get experience with it firsthand, he's going to get beaten like a mad dog with mange. Biden can just stand there and try to remember who he is for the next 7 months, and it won't matter, because Trump will be the guy that killed granny to save his re-election chances.

To boot, the effort to save the economy will be for naught if people are still too afraid to go out and spend. If it's bad enough for another quarantine, we'll end up in a recession/depression we won't dig out of for a year.

If I were advising him, I'd tell him to give it til June, get testing supplies, and keep his mouth shut on twitter. It would serve him well.

I think a majority of Americans are still on the side of playing it safe and taking the virus seriously. The protestors and squealers are a vocal minority. They won't be enough to keep him alive at the polls in swing states.

His advisors probably ARE telling him that... The problem is he likes to rely on those metrics in his head... Points at comb over (that seems to be thinning even more as of late)...

[GMDino]

(04-18-2020, 02:11 PM)samhain Wrote: I don't disagree with your argument.  People who feel their rights have been violated should have their day in court and likely will.  

All I'm saying is that these cases aren't as simple as yelling the word "Constitution" and storming the capital.  There are precedents and limits to all rights, and most if not all end where your right to exercise them becomes a danger to someone else's life or liberty.  I've given examples in other threads.  You can't threaten to kill the president.  I can't tell a guy that I'm going to curb stomp him for parking on the street in front of my house.  You can't assemble in front of a hospital entrance in a way that prevents emergency patients from receiving care.  You can't use language meant to incite a riot.  This is not a liberal/conservative argument.  Antonin Scalia himself acknowledged limits to the second amendment of all things.  

  I think that there's a case for that here, obviously.  The governors have powers when emergencies are declared.  They are written for anyone that cares to read them to see.  People that disagree can make their argument.  That's why the courts are there.  In the end, I think their cases will be nothing more than a persistent annoyance to the governors, unless people just want to pretend the virus never happened and was a hoax.



 

Listen I know you have rights but if a cop pulls you over, treats you poorly, seems to be denying you your rights just do what they say and then it will all work it out in court.  Don't speak out or fight back...just do what you are told until the courts handle it.  Don't be fighting the law.

Wait...wrong thread.

[samhain]

(04-18-2020, 03:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Listen I know you have rights but if a cop pulls you over, treats you poorly, seems to be denying you your rights just do what they say and then it will all work it out in court.  Don't speak out or fight back...just do what you are told until the courts handle it.  Don't be fighting the law.

Wait...wrong thread.

Yep, lol.  They are the authority after all and we have to respect them......  I'm sure the folks protesting the capital are all for questioning police brutality, right?

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2020, 03:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Listen I know you have rights but if a cop pulls you over, treats you poorly, seems to be denying you your rights just do what they say and then it will all work it out in court.  Don't speak out or fight back...just do what you are told until the courts handle it.  Don't be fighting the law.

Wait...wrong thread.

(04-18-2020, 05:37 PM)samhain Wrote: Yep, lol.  They are the authority after all and we have to respect them......  I'm sure the folks protesting the capital are all for questioning police brutality, right?

You're expecting coherent logic from the group with "Don't Tread On Me!", "Come and take it!" and thin blue line stickers on their vehicles?

[GMDino]

(04-18-2020, 05:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're expecting coherent logic from the group with "Don't Tread On Me!", "Come and take it!" and thin blue line stickers on their vehicles?

If I expected it I wouldn't be poking fun at it...lol.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-18-2020, 10:53 AM)GMDino Wrote:

White House economic advisor Stephen Moore says Americans protesting stay-at-home orders are “modern-day Rosa Parks.”

“I call these people the modern-day Rosa Parks — they are protesting against injustice and a loss of liberties.” @WashingtonPost https://t.co/yY6Ec4yFK1

— Willie Geist (@WillieGeist) April 18, 2020

 

You know things are bad when Republicans start protesting being confined inside their vacation home by the big bad government.

[samhain]

(04-18-2020, 05:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're expecting coherent logic from the group with "Don't Tread On Me!", "Come and take it!" and thin blue line stickers on their vehicles?

Yeah, that would be a lot like expecting coherent logic from the Teabag gang during the Obama era that somehow mysteriously disappeared upon the election of Trump.  Must have been because Trump and his Republican majority in both houses got spending under control and governed from an ultra-fiscally responsible playbook to balance the budget and debt, right?  Laughable liars these people are.

These people are the new Teabaggers.  They see an opening to take shots at politicians they dislike on issues they have an extremely poor understanding of.  They don't really care all that much about the virus or freedom.  They just want to get rid of Dem governors and spread false indignation among the usual video game army cosplayers.  I'd be shocked if the trogs weren't funded by some astroturf right wing/corporate groups  calling themselves local and "grassroots".  

I can't wait to see what lying, fake species of douche nozzle dolts pop up if Biden gets elected. They have zero credibility as participants in civil discourse.

[*jason*]

(04-18-2020, 08:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You know things are bad when Republicans start protesting being confined inside their vacation home by the big bad government.

RVs in the side yard maybe. Vacation homes?... Doubt it. At least for those Republicans.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-18-2020, 09:57 PM)jason Wrote: RVs in the side yard maybe. Vacation homes?... Doubt it. At least for those Republicans.

This is from the article . . .

Quote:In Michigan, Michael Lackomar called a lawyer after a run-in with state troopers.

Lackomar said he and his wife have left their home in the Detroit suburbs for their solitary second home on the shores of Lake Huron. But when Lackomar visited this week, two state troopers pounded on the door.

“You know you’re not supposed to be here,” Lackomar recalled the trooper saying as he explained Whitmer’s new order, which bans people from traveling between a primary residence and a vacation home. The troopers told the couple to stay put or risk a $1,000 fine or misdemeanor charge.

The interaction led Lackomar to rant on Facebook and then contact a lawyer.

“Sometimes you feel like you have no voice against the big monolithic government,” said Lackomar, who is one of several Michigan residents suing Whitmer. “They are trying to contain the infection, but there is a line. I’m sorry, my rights as an individual don’t always take a back seat to someone else’s fears.”

This guy isn’t protesting the loss of a job or opening the economy. Or his right to assemble. Or his right to worship in a mega church. He is complaining he was asked to stay inside his vacation home to help prevent the possible spread of disease.

Oh, boo f’n hoo. He was asked to stay inside his vacation home. I’m sorry, but his rights as an individual don’t trump public safety.

Added: A Google search reveals this guy is a militiaman which explains a lot.

[6andcounting]

(04-18-2020, 02:11 PM)samhain Wrote: I don't disagree with your argument.  People who feel their rights have been violated should have their day in court and likely will.  

All I'm saying is that these cases aren't as simple as yelling the word "Constitution" and storming the capital.  There are precedents and limits to all rights, and most if not all end where your right to exercise them becomes a danger to someone else's life or liberty.  I've given examples in other threads.  You can't threaten to kill the president.  I can't tell a guy that I'm going to curb stomp him for parking on the street in front of my house.  You can't assemble in front of a hospital entrance in a way that prevents emergency patients from receiving care.  You can't use language meant to incite a riot.  This is not a liberal/conservative argument.  Antonin Scalia himself acknowledged limits to the second amendment of all things.  

  I think that there's a case for that here, obviously.  The governors have powers when emergencies are declared.  They are written for anyone that cares to read them to see.  People that disagree can make their argument.  That's why the courts are there.  In the end, I think their cases will be nothing more than a persistent annoyance to the governors, unless people just want to pretend the virus never happened and was a hoax.



 

It's hard to disagree with the actions and precautions taken in this particular instance. As I've said, I think the government ultimately did what they had to is this case. My worry - and that what was my question was about - is the precedent it sets and how easily everyone was to control. Those who disagree and are protesting (who I think are dumb in this case) have been stamped out with relative ease. So sure I disagree with the protestors, but I don't like the government have the kind of power and control they have exhibited here. I myself don't have a good answer to my own question as it's hard to look at the question in context when I don't have a particular problem with the government's action in this situation. 

[GMDino]

(04-19-2020, 07:54 AM)6andcounting Wrote: It's hard to disagree with the actions and precautions taken in this particular instance. As I've said, I think the government ultimately did what they had to is this case. My worry - and that what was my question was about - is the precedent it sets and how easily everyone was to control. Those who disagree and are protesting (who I think are dumb in this case) have been stamped out with relative ease. So sure I disagree with the protestors, but I don't like the government have the kind of power and control they have exhibited here. I myself don't have a good answer to my own question as it's hard to look at the question in context when I don't have a particular problem with the government's action in this situation. 

Wait, so all those guns for the second revolution...the take over of government and getting "our rights back"...none of that happened during a time of almost martial law?  Weird.

And that was WITHOUT the army getting involved.

Ya know it's almost like these guys are all talk and no action.   That having the guns to make them feel "safe" is really more about the image of having the guns than actually being organized enough, dare I say "well regulated" enough, to fight back. Thinking that if they had a big enough stockpile they could overthrow the big, bad government whenever they wanted to.  Instead they carried signs and then went home.

Strange. 

[hollodero]

(04-19-2020, 07:54 AM)6andcounting Wrote: It's hard to disagree with the actions and precautions taken in this particular instance. As I've said, I think the government ultimately did what they had to is this case. My worry - and that what was my question was about - is the precedent it sets and how easily everyone was to control. Those who disagree and are protesting (who I think are dumb in this case) have been stamped out with relative ease. So sure I disagree with the protestors, but I don't like the government have the kind of power and control they have exhibited here. I myself don't have a good answer to my own question as it's hard to look at the question in context when I don't have a particular problem with the government's action in this situation. 

A state needs authority. If one doesn't like their authority, there are elections to vote for persons with a different approach. But when everyone still should be free to do dumb stuff that threatens the community, then this is not freedom. Not for those that get infected and possibly die because some folks won't respect sensible measures. Many seem to confuse freedom with recklessness and egocentrism. In fact it comes with responsibility.

Generally, I'd say folks need to listen to actual experts more. Which is hard, since your country is so divided and so many would believe Trump over everyone on any topic. But these experts and their recommendations could make one determine if measures are appropriate or over the top.

Admittedly, I live in a country where though we usually dislike our politicians very much, we still trust them to act reasonable and in good faith in times like those, and that their decisions are shaped by expertise. Makes it easier to see it that way.

[6andcounting]

(04-19-2020, 09:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Wait, so all those guns for the second revolution...the take over of government and getting "our rights back"...none of that happened during a time of almost martial law?  Weird.

And that was WITHOUT the army getting involved.

Ya know it's almost like these guys are all talk and no action.   That having the guns to make them feel "safe" is really more about the image of having the guns than actually being organized enough, dare I say "well regulated" enough, to fight back. Thinking that if they had a big enough stockpile they could overthrow the big, bad government whenever they wanted to.  Instead they carried signs and then went home.

Strange. 

If 1,000 people (including women and children) tried to take on the government in attempted hostile, violent revolution of course they would all be killed or imprisoned. A revolution would be more about resisting (Vietnam or Iraq style) and less about defeating the world's all-time biggest super power government and military. 

And I'm pretty sure their plan was to protest and honk their car horns and not stage a coup anyways

[6andcounting]

(04-19-2020, 09:50 AM)hollodero Wrote: A state needs authority. If one doesn't like their authority, there are elections to vote for persons with a different approach. But when everyone still should be free to do dumb stuff that threatens the community, then this is not freedom. Not for those that get infected and possibly die because some folks won't respect sensible measures. Many seem to confuse freedom with recklessness and egocentrism. In fact it comes with responsibility.

Generally, I'd say folks need to listen to actual experts more. Which is hard, since your country is so divided and so many would believe Trump over everyone on any topic. But these experts and their recommendations could make one determine if measures are appropriate or over the top.

Admittedly, I live in a country where though we usually dislike our politicians very much, we still trust them to act reasonable and in good faith in times like those, and that their decisions are shaped by expertise. Makes it easier to see it that way.

I like this answer. In this coronavirus situation, I totally agree. The problem is asking the US government to act in reasonable and good faith and not just abuse times of crisis to increase their own power and strip individual right is laughable. 

[GMDino]

(04-19-2020, 10:00 AM)6andcounting Wrote: If 1,000 people (including women and children) tried to take on the government in attempted hostile, violent revolution of course they would all be killed or imprisoned. A revolution would be more about resisting (Vietnam or Iraq style) and less about defeating the world's all-time biggest super power government and military. 

And I'm pretty sure their plan was to protest and honk their car horns and not stage a coup anyways

But isn't this "the moment they've been waiting for"?  Bundy is out running his mouth again...the right wing noise machine is speaking of "liberating" their states.

If not now, when?

The real answer is never but they don't want anyone to know that.

[masonbengals fan]

I would ask the liberal posters to name ONE Dem Senator or House member who helped the President in any way during this crisis. Just one. Name one who has offered encouragement or help. Name one who has placed our needs above their own political games.

Just one.

[GMDino]

(04-19-2020, 01:26 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I would ask the liberal posters to name ONE Dem Senator or House member who helped the President in any way during this crisis.  Just one.  Name one who has offered encouragement or help.  Name one who has placed our needs above their own political games.

Just one.

Why would you ask that?  The stimulus packages were passed bipartisan...and DJT didn't invite one Democrat to the signing.  Not one.

They are doing their job and not bootlicking the POTUS.

Is there one republican that has stood up to his lies about how he has handled things?  Or against his calls to "liberate" states with Deomcratic governors?

So why?

[hollodero]

(04-19-2020, 10:04 AM)6andcounting Wrote: I like this answer. In this coronavirus situation, I totally agree. The problem is asking the US government to act in reasonable and good faith and not just abuse times of crisis to increase their own power and strip individual right is laughable. 

I have a bit of a hard time to grasp how you totally agree and still address a problem. I do see the problem in general, of course. I'm not naive. Maybe the time to worry about that is not right within the crisis that justifies the otherwise problematic measures though.

For sure, ciizens need to stay very vigilant. But not to the point where effectively fighting an epidemic gets impossible out of principle. That's just dumb. And somehow I read your posts as "yeah it's dumb, but...", and the time for focussing on said "but" is after the crisis passes.

[samhain]

(04-19-2020, 07:54 AM)6andcounting Wrote: It's hard to disagree with the actions and precautions taken in this particular instance. As I've said, I think the government ultimately did what they had to is this case. My worry - and that what was my question was about - is the precedent it sets and how easily everyone was to control. Those who disagree and are protesting (who I think are dumb in this case) have been stamped out with relative ease. So sure I disagree with the protestors, but I don't like the government have the kind of power and control they have exhibited here. I myself don't have a good answer to my own question as it's hard to look at the question in context when I don't have a particular problem with the government's action in this situation. 

I get that completely.  I'm willing to give executives and officials some slack when it comes to emergencies, and legally they have powers that they normal would not.  This isn't a scenario that any president or governor has been tasked with dealing with for a century.  Information changes seemingly hourly.

As I said before, if you're a governor in charge of mitigating potential damage form something like this, would you rather do a little too much and make some people mad, or do too little and kill a few hundred extra citizens?  You will be criticized either way, so it comes down to what you're able to accept form an ethical standpoint.  I'd rather be criticized for the questionable at best constitutional issues than for a mass die-off that I could have potentially prevented.

As to your concerns, I think we need to watch for what they do in the aftermath of the pandemic.  What happens when it's clearly no longer a threat?  DO things go totally back to normal?  Are all emergency powers relinquished?  The time to watch is the end.  if there's going to be an overreach or abridgment of rights, that's when it will happen.  Think Patriot Act post 9-11.  

[hollodero]

(04-19-2020, 01:26 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I would ask the liberal posters to name ONE Dem Senator or House member who helped the President in any way during this crisis.  Just one.  Name one who has offered encouragement or help.  Name one who has placed our needs above their own political games.

Just one.

What are you talking about? All the financial aid packages were negotiated with the WH and passed in Congress by both parties. Democrats support all messages and measurements taken to fight the epidemic, even those coming from the WH. What else is expected? Do they also need to bow?

That so many things from the WH are BS and not worthy of acclaim is not the Dems' fault. Thank god no Democrat supported Trump in suggesting untested medicine or in spurring on social distancing rebels or whatever.