Anonymous wrote:

By your logic in response #1, only politicians you don’t like can subvert people’s Constitutional rights. That is completely irrational imo. The mistrust you have for Trump is the same mistrust a lot of people on the other side had for Obama. Politicians don’t get to annul the Bill of Rights and the Constitution based on how much half the country trusts them.

The difference is, people mistrust Trump because he has spent a lifetime as a borderline criminal who has told over 17,000 lies while in office. People mistrusted Obama because, well, you can guess.

Anonymous wrote:While this group seemed to be MAGA cheerleaders, I think this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of escalating civil unrest and leaders would do best to pay attention. You can’t throw the country into a Depression without an adequate plan to protect the people most affected by it. For instance, people have lost their health insurance just when they may need it the most- what is being done for them? I keep reading articles that the economic collapse is “worse” than expected. Really? Who didn’t see this coming??

From the start the coronavirus response has been so haphazard and reactionary.

This is exactly why we have the Executive branch of the Federal government. They are responsible for monitoring overseas' threats to national security (like a global pandemic), approving nationally standardized protocols for testing and best practices, AND coordinating the right actions among the states.

The Executive branch FAILED on all these measures. A global pandemic is the Executive's responsibility and they have abdicated to the states. It's no wonder we have a haphazard and reactionary response when you have 50 states taking 50 different courses of action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s it at all surprising that so many of you will go out of your way to defend nonviolent civil disobedience unless it doesn’t meet your purpose.
You people are hypocrites.

Those morons just infected each other and will pass it on to MeeMa in their rural towns. They literally just spread the virus all over the state because they don't know how to practice self-discipline.

If they act like spoiled children, they should get the belt.

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

Cool story, bro. You comrades are responsible for this - preventing a nurse from getting to the hospital:

You lose the right to crow about "freedom" and "natural rights" when your actions lead to the deaths of your fellow Americans.

Actually you don’t. The Bill of Rights doesn’t have a “if x number of people die because we exercise these rights then everything in here is void” clause. Failure to read someone their rights when they get arrested leads to criminal going free and potentially harming people again. I’m sure a free press has led to a few deaths here and there.

Again, why are you hell bent on subverting our freedoms for a little more safety? You are the same type of person who was cool with interning Japanese citizens and torturing Muslims because it “made is safer.” Shame on you...you sound like a fascist.

Go to church online, on the radio, on tv, have a pastoral meeting on the phone, via text, or Zoom. Do a drive by confession. No one is quashing your rights. You’re being stupid and regimentation for no reason at all. (And even before ulcers are my stomach, I didn’t drink, but a three minute trot to pick up one’s preferred vodka is nothing whatsoever like sitting in a sanctuary sharing the same air for 45-100 minutes.)

Anonymous wrote:

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

He cannot ban the election in November. The date is set by Federal law and executed at the state and county level. The terms of the President and Vice-President expire at noon on January 21, 2021. If there is not a 'presidential vote' then the Speaker of the House would become president. Given California has mail-in voting, that would mean Pelosi would become president. If, for some reason, there was no voting at all, then the Pro-Tem leader of the majority party of the Senate would become President. Given the number of GOP whose terms expire, the democrats would control the Senate, and ergo, Sen Leahy would become president.

While this group seemed to be MAGA cheerleaders, I think this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of escalating civil unrest and leaders would do best to pay attention. You can’t throw the country into a Depression without an adequate plan to protect the people most affected by it. For instance, people have lost their health insurance just when they may need it the most- what is being done for them? I keep reading articles that the economic collapse is “worse” than expected. Really? Who didn’t see this coming??

From the start the coronavirus response has been so haphazard and reactionary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s it at all surprising that so many of you will go out of your way to defend nonviolent civil disobedience unless it doesn’t meet your purpose.
You people are hypocrites.

Those morons just infected each other and will pass it on to MeeMa in their rural towns. They literally just spread the virus all over the state because they don't know how to practice self-discipline.

If they act like spoiled children, they should get the belt.

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

Trump has no Constitutional authority or ability to do either of the things you suggest. #StrawmanArgument

Yes, people can sit home for a couple weeks. The federal government needs to pay them to stay home, lest they infect their communities. 2% mortality is nearly 7 million of your fellow Americans needlessly dying.

How did you end up so damaged to view life so cheaply?

Right now in states across the country religious services are banned and liquor stores are open. They are banned regardless of what safety precautions people take. For example there is no stipulation that I’ve seen that people can hold services even if congregants are spaced 10 feet apart, wearing masks, and the service is held outside.

How is it even legal for governors to violate people’s rights to practice religion and to publicly assemble? How is it legal to ban people’s rights to protest? If Donald Trump ordered Border Patrol agents to shoot anyone crossing the border illegally and people - rightly - protested in front of the White House, would you be fine with him making the protest illegal because of coronavirus, even 10 months from now when it’s still around and we don’t have a vaccine?

Just think how dangerous these precedents are and how willing your fellow citizens are willing to curtail their Constitutional rights because of a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate. Now just imagine what kind of tyrannical dictatorship people would be willing to accept if we had a far deadlier virus or suffered a nuclear attack. It’s frightening to think about how so many Americans would just throw all their freedoms away in a more severe crisis. This same kind of blind obedience to power in a time of crisis is why FDR was able to throw Japanese people in internment camps.

The state Constitutions literally give the Governors the power to do these things in statewide and/or national emergencies. Some states give more power than others to the Governor.

There is literally a legal framework for temporary restriction of certain rights. These have been upheld time after time by the Supreme Court. They are not arbitrary and capricious, they often include time limits.

The fact of the matter is that congregating in large groups spreads the virus and therefore harms national security by prolonging the crisis. All these people will EXTEND the crisis by congregating. It's that simple. Your right to congregate in the short term does not trump our collective right to begin working as soon as possible.

Given that your latest post is a collection of strawman argument and ad hominems, I'm sure what else there is to say. Please remain inside, please limit your activity until the crisis subsides and we have better tools to manage it. If you insist on congregating, please do NOT use public health services and weather the sickness at home by yourself.

If you don't want to be a member of society, then don't rely on society's assets to keep you alive.

People throw out the “straw man argument” canard when they don’t have a response. There are dangerous precedents in this country of taking away people’s freedoms and even locking ethic groups in camps in the name of “public safety.” That was my only point. Blind fealty to power and authority instead of critical discussions about the decisions of our elected officials is not a good idea, ever.

As to your other point, much like “the war on terrorism,” there are few time limits put on these restrictions and they’re renewed every time a time limit has expired.

I still haven’t heard a cogent argument about why a governor can ban people from exercising their religion by banning services outright, without even stipulations that they can be done as long as people abide by social distancing standards, wear masks, etc. In Maryland I can go to a dry cleaner but I can potentially face a $5,000 fine or prison if I sit in a 5,000 square foot mosque with 10 congregants spaced out 15 feet apart wearing masks. That is absurd and a violation of the Constitution.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

No one is stopping you from practicing your religion in your home, online with fellow congregants, over phone or video chat, or even on your front lawn. But you can't congregate and worship in a large group setting, just like I can't go into my office and work with my colleagues on a really important project related to the pandemic. You also can't worship as a group on a street corner or in the park.

And yes, your strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks are bullsh#t. It's clear you've never taken a Rhetoric class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s it at all surprising that so many of you will go out of your way to defend nonviolent civil disobedience unless it doesn’t meet your purpose.
You people are hypocrites.

Those morons just infected each other and will pass it on to MeeMa in their rural towns. They literally just spread the virus all over the state because they don't know how to practice self-discipline.

If they act like spoiled children, they should get the belt.

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

Trump has no Constitutional authority or ability to do either of the things you suggest. #StrawmanArgument

Yes, people can sit home for a couple weeks. The federal government needs to pay them to stay home, lest they infect their communities. 2% mortality is nearly 7 million of your fellow Americans needlessly dying.

How did you end up so damaged to view life so cheaply?

Right now in states across the country religious services are banned and liquor stores are open. They are banned regardless of what safety precautions people take. For example there is no stipulation that I’ve seen that people can hold services even if congregants are spaced 10 feet apart, wearing masks, and the service is held outside.

How is it even legal for governors to violate people’s rights to practice religion and to publicly assemble? How is it legal to ban people’s rights to protest? If Donald Trump ordered Border Patrol agents to shoot anyone crossing the border illegally and people - rightly - protested in front of the White House, would you be fine with him making the protest illegal because of coronavirus, even 10 months from now when it’s still around and we don’t have a vaccine?

Just think how dangerous these precedents are and how willing your fellow citizens are willing to curtail their Constitutional rights because of a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate. Now just imagine what kind of tyrannical dictatorship people would be willing to accept if we had a far deadlier virus or suffered a nuclear attack. It’s frightening to think about how so many Americans would just throw all their freedoms away in a more severe crisis. This same kind of blind obedience to power in a time of crisis is why FDR was able to throw Japanese people in internment camps.

The state Constitutions literally give the Governors the power to do these things in statewide and/or national emergencies. Some states give more power than others to the Governor.

There is literally a legal framework for temporary restriction of certain rights. These have been upheld time after time by the Supreme Court. They are not arbitrary and capricious, they often include time limits.

The fact of the matter is that congregating in large groups spreads the virus and therefore harms national security by prolonging the crisis. All these people will EXTEND the crisis by congregating. It's that simple. Your right to congregate in the short term does not trump our collective right to begin working as soon as possible.

Given that your latest post is a collection of strawman argument and ad hominems, I'm sure what else there is to say. Please remain inside, please limit your activity until the crisis subsides and we have better tools to manage it. If you insist on congregating, please do NOT use public health services and weather the sickness at home by yourself.

If you don't want to be a member of society, then don't rely on society's assets to keep you alive.

Come on. You are replying to someone who has no clue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s it at all surprising that so many of you will go out of your way to defend nonviolent civil disobedience unless it doesn’t meet your purpose.
You people are hypocrites.

Those morons just infected each other and will pass it on to MeeMa in their rural towns. They literally just spread the virus all over the state because they don't know how to practice self-discipline.

If they act like spoiled children, they should get the belt.

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

Trump has no Constitutional authority or ability to do either of the things you suggest. #StrawmanArgument

Yes, people can sit home for a couple weeks. The federal government needs to pay them to stay home, lest they infect their communities. 2% mortality is nearly 7 million of your fellow Americans needlessly dying.

How did you end up so damaged to view life so cheaply?

Right now in states across the country religious services are banned and liquor stores are open. They are banned regardless of what safety precautions people take. For example there is no stipulation that I’ve seen that people can hold services even if congregants are spaced 10 feet apart, wearing masks, and the service is held outside.

How is it even legal for governors to violate people’s rights to practice religion and to publicly assemble? How is it legal to ban people’s rights to protest? If Donald Trump ordered Border Patrol agents to shoot anyone crossing the border illegally and people - rightly - protested in front of the White House, would you be fine with him making the protest illegal because of coronavirus, even 10 months from now when it’s still around and we don’t have a vaccine?

Just think how dangerous these precedents are and how willing your fellow citizens are willing to curtail their Constitutional rights because of a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate. Now just imagine what kind of tyrannical dictatorship people would be willing to accept if we had a far deadlier virus or suffered a nuclear attack. It’s frightening to think about how so many Americans would just throw all their freedoms away in a more severe crisis. This same kind of blind obedience to power in a time of crisis is why FDR was able to throw Japanese people in internment camps.

The state Constitutions literally give the Governors the power to do these things in statewide and/or national emergencies. Some states give more power than others to the Governor.

There is literally a legal framework for temporary restriction of certain rights. These have been upheld time after time by the Supreme Court. They are not arbitrary and capricious, they often include time limits.

The fact of the matter is that congregating in large groups spreads the virus and therefore harms national security by prolonging the crisis. All these people will EXTEND the crisis by congregating. It's that simple. Your right to congregate in the short term does not trump our collective right to begin working as soon as possible.

Given that your latest post is a collection of strawman argument and ad hominems, I'm sure what else there is to say. Please remain inside, please limit your activity until the crisis subsides and we have better tools to manage it. If you insist on congregating, please do NOT use public health services and weather the sickness at home by yourself.

If you don't want to be a member of society, then don't rely on society's assets to keep you alive.

People throw out the “straw man argument” canard when they don’t have a response. There are dangerous precedents in this country of taking away people’s freedoms and even locking ethic groups in camps in the name of “public safety.” That was my only point. Blind fealty to power and authority instead of critical discussions about the decisions of our elected officials is not a good idea, ever.

As to your other point, much like “the war on terrorism,” there are few time limits put on these restrictions and they’re renewed every time a time limit has expired.

I still haven’t heard a cogent argument about why a governor can ban people from exercising their religion by banning services outright, without even stipulations that they can be done as long as people abide by social distancing standards, wear masks, etc. In Maryland I can go to a dry cleaner but I can potentially face a $5,000 fine or prison if I sit in a 5,000 square foot mosque with 10 congregants spaced out 15 feet apart wearing masks. That is absurd and a violation of the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s it at all surprising that so many of you will go out of your way to defend nonviolent civil disobedience unless it doesn’t meet your purpose.
You people are hypocrites.

Those morons just infected each other and will pass it on to MeeMa in their rural towns. They literally just spread the virus all over the state because they don't know how to practice self-discipline.

If they act like spoiled children, they should get the belt.

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

Trump has no Constitutional authority or ability to do either of the things you suggest. #StrawmanArgument

Yes, people can sit home for a couple weeks. The federal government needs to pay them to stay home, lest they infect their communities. 2% mortality is nearly 7 million of your fellow Americans needlessly dying.

How did you end up so damaged to view life so cheaply?

Right now in states across the country religious services are banned and liquor stores are open. They are banned regardless of what safety precautions people take. For example there is no stipulation that I’ve seen that people can hold services even if congregants are spaced 10 feet apart, wearing masks, and the service is held outside.

How is it even legal for governors to violate people’s rights to practice religion and to publicly assemble? How is it legal to ban people’s rights to protest? If Donald Trump ordered Border Patrol agents to shoot anyone crossing the border illegally and people - rightly - protested in front of the White House, would you be fine with him making the protest illegal because of coronavirus, even 10 months from now when it’s still around and we don’t have a vaccine?

Just think how dangerous these precedents are and how willing your fellow citizens are willing to curtail their Constitutional rights because of a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate. Now just imagine what kind of tyrannical dictatorship people would be willing to accept if we had a far deadlier virus or suffered a nuclear attack. It’s frightening to think about how so many Americans would just throw all their freedoms away in a more severe crisis. This same kind of blind obedience to power in a time of crisis is why FDR was able to throw Japanese people in internment camps.

IMO, the difference between people practicing social distancing and the bafoons is that that they would wear masks and stand several feet apart and not touch each other as they protest, rather than high fiving each other; wearing no masks, and bringing their children along.

Dummies.. the lot of them.

As for the freedom to practice religion... many churches are holding virtual services, mine included. No one is stopping them from doing so. But for public safety, they should not congregate in one room, even if they are spaced apart. Do these folks not know how the virus spread so rapidly in S. Korea? It was from a church service. There was another case where people held choir practice, standing six feet apart. Some of those folks got covid, and it spread. There was a YT video of a S. Korean infectious disease expert that explained about why covid can spread so easily within a room when people are singing, shouting, and there is a lot of talking. It's a really informative video and explains why we need to not hold church services, unless the parishoners are willing to not just sit a part but also not sing, and not talk.

If people don't follow safe practices for the good of the public then yes, the rules need to be forced on them.

It's not about people willing to throw their freedom away. It's about trying to keep the community healthy and preventing hospitals from being overloaded.

I could turn it around and say that these people are super selfish to think being able have a party is more important than saving the lives of our overworked hospital workers.

And interning Japanese Americans in WWII is not the same as sheltering in place. That's a ridiculous comparison.

These protesters are simply not going to understand until the virus affects them directly. So if it takes spreading it around amongst themselves to get though to them, that’s what it takes. Yes I know it’s not fair to the health care workers that have to treat them, but I’m guessing most of these protesters did not come from Detroit, where the vast majority of MI cases are located.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s it at all surprising that so many of you will go out of your way to defend nonviolent civil disobedience unless it doesn’t meet your purpose.
You people are hypocrites.

Those morons just infected each other and will pass it on to MeeMa in their rural towns. They literally just spread the virus all over the state because they don't know how to practice self-discipline.

If they act like spoiled children, they should get the belt.

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

Trump has no Constitutional authority or ability to do either of the things you suggest. #StrawmanArgument

Yes, people can sit home for a couple weeks. The federal government needs to pay them to stay home, lest they infect their communities. 2% mortality is nearly 7 million of your fellow Americans needlessly dying.

How did you end up so damaged to view life so cheaply?

Right now in states across the country religious services are banned and liquor stores are open. They are banned regardless of what safety precautions people take. For example there is no stipulation that I’ve seen that people can hold services even if congregants are spaced 10 feet apart, wearing masks, and the service is held outside.

How is it even legal for governors to violate people’s rights to practice religion and to publicly assemble? How is it legal to ban people’s rights to protest? If Donald Trump ordered Border Patrol agents to shoot anyone crossing the border illegally and people - rightly - protested in front of the White House, would you be fine with him making the protest illegal because of coronavirus, even 10 months from now when it’s still around and we don’t have a vaccine?

Just think how dangerous these precedents are and how willing your fellow citizens are willing to curtail their Constitutional rights because of a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate. Now just imagine what kind of tyrannical dictatorship people would be willing to accept if we had a far deadlier virus or suffered a nuclear attack. It’s frightening to think about how so many Americans would just throw all their freedoms away in a more severe crisis. This same kind of blind obedience to power in a time of crisis is why FDR was able to throw Japanese people in internment camps.

The state Constitutions literally give the Governors the power to do these things in statewide and/or national emergencies. Some states give more power than others to the Governor.

There is literally a legal framework for temporary restriction of certain rights. These have been upheld time after time by the Supreme Court. They are not arbitrary and capricious, they often include time limits.

The fact of the matter is that congregating in large groups spreads the virus and therefore harms national security by prolonging the crisis. All these people will EXTEND the crisis by congregating. It's that simple. Your right to congregate in the short term does not trump our collective right to begin working as soon as possible.

Given that your latest post is a collection of strawman argument and ad hominems, I'm sure what else there is to say. Please remain inside, please limit your activity until the crisis subsides and we have better tools to manage it. If you insist on congregating, please do NOT use public health services and weather the sickness at home by yourself.

If you don't want to be a member of society, then don't rely on society's assets to keep you alive.

I live in Michigan and no wonder people call it Michitucky. What they did in Lansing is an insult to hard working citizens throughout the state of all socioeconomic levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s it at all surprising that so many of you will go out of your way to defend nonviolent civil disobedience unless it doesn’t meet your purpose.
You people are hypocrites.

Those morons just infected each other and will pass it on to MeeMa in their rural towns. They literally just spread the virus all over the state because they don't know how to practice self-discipline.

If they act like spoiled children, they should get the belt.

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

Very well-said!!

A few things:

1. Part of the problem is most people don't trust Donald Trump to make decisions for the benefit of Americans instead of for his own vain gain. So if he issued an order of course we'd question and dissent. That's why he should have tried hard to build trust through, I don't know, telling the truth and acting in our interest during his first three years in office. He'd have more political capital now.

2. I agree there is a tension between freedom and safety with these stay at home orders that is very hard to navigate. Again, communities with trust are more receptive to these orders, and I feel ilke - to beat a dead horse - that's why it's so important to have leaders who act in our interest (and believe in science and sht like that).

3. It's real hard to know how the first amendment is going to bump up against social distancing requirements. We'll see some interesting litigation, I imagine.

By your logic in response #1, only politicians you don’t like can subvert people’s Constitutional rights. That is completely irrational imo. The mistrust you have for Trump is the same mistrust a lot of people on the other side had for Obama. Politicians don’t get to annul the Bill of Rights and the Constitution based on how much half the country trusts them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s it at all surprising that so many of you will go out of your way to defend nonviolent civil disobedience unless it doesn’t meet your purpose.
You people are hypocrites.

Those morons just infected each other and will pass it on to MeeMa in their rural towns. They literally just spread the virus all over the state because they don't know how to practice self-discipline.

If they act like spoiled children, they should get the belt.

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

Cool story, bro. You comrades are responsible for this - preventing a nurse from getting to the hospital:

You lose the right to crow about "freedom" and "natural rights" when your actions lead to the deaths of your fellow Americans.

Actually you don’t. The Bill of Rights doesn’t have a “if x number of people die because we exercise these rights then everything in here is void” clause. Failure to read someone their rights when they get arrested leads to criminal going free and potentially harming people again. I’m sure a free press has led to a few deaths here and there.

Again, why are you hell bent on subverting our freedoms for a little more safety? You are the same type of person who was cool with interning Japanese citizens and torturing Muslims because it “made is safer.” Shame on you...you sound like a fascist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s it at all surprising that so many of you will go out of your way to defend nonviolent civil disobedience unless it doesn’t meet your purpose.
You people are hypocrites.

Those morons just infected each other and will pass it on to MeeMa in their rural towns. They literally just spread the virus all over the state because they don't know how to practice self-discipline.

If they act like spoiled children, they should get the belt.

If Donald Trump instituted a nationwide ban on public assembly and protests until there were ZERO coronavirus deaths would you be okay with that? What if he bans voting this November because coronavirus will still be around?

Tyranny is always brought on and accepted by myopic dolts like you because of national emergencies. It’s the same reason Muslims were stripped naked, tortured and treated like dogs in Abu Ghraib after 9/11. Shame on people like you for criticizing people for exercising their First Amendment freedoms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t have stipulations that they should be suspended for a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate.

Imagine what kind of dystopian police state you all would accept for a virus with a 25% mortality rate. Events like these really make you realize how fragile our democracy and freedoms actually are.

Trump has no Constitutional authority or ability to do either of the things you suggest. #StrawmanArgument

Yes, people can sit home for a couple weeks. The federal government needs to pay them to stay home, lest they infect their communities. 2% mortality is nearly 7 million of your fellow Americans needlessly dying.

How did you end up so damaged to view life so cheaply?

Right now in states across the country religious services are banned and liquor stores are open. They are banned regardless of what safety precautions people take. For example there is no stipulation that I’ve seen that people can hold services even if congregants are spaced 10 feet apart, wearing masks, and the service is held outside.

How is it even legal for governors to violate people’s rights to practice religion and to publicly assemble? How is it legal to ban people’s rights to protest? If Donald Trump ordered Border Patrol agents to shoot anyone crossing the border illegally and people - rightly - protested in front of the White House, would you be fine with him making the protest illegal because of coronavirus, even 10 months from now when it’s still around and we don’t have a vaccine?

Just think how dangerous these precedents are and how willing your fellow citizens are willing to curtail their Constitutional rights because of a virus with a .5% to 2% mortality rate. Now just imagine what kind of tyrannical dictatorship people would be willing to accept if we had a far deadlier virus or suffered a nuclear attack. It’s frightening to think about how so many Americans would just throw all their freedoms away in a more severe crisis. This same kind of blind obedience to power in a time of crisis is why FDR was able to throw Japanese people in internment camps.