The Clown Circus

[Aimless]

Again, and bear with me because I know some people don't like this analogy, but it helps me understand. If this was Dominic getting away with speeding, are we saying that because millions of other people have gotten ticketed for speeding anyone who has sped and not received a ticket is getting special treatment if it later comes out that they had traveled faster than the posted speed limit? If a video came out of Mark Meadows going 75 in a 70, and it was downplayed by the president, ("fake news," I'm sure) and he said he accepted his stated explanation of having to go faster because he needed to go to the restroom, and Bill Barr shrugged and said, "Guess he got away with it," are we really saying that is special treatment? I know social mores and norms regarding social distancing are in flux, but it seems within the purview of Johnson not to require resignation for an offense that isn't even a misdemeanor - likely a civil infraction (I'm not sure either term is valid in Britain). That doesn't make him any less of an entitled jerk, and some level of public backlash seems reasonable if he was an architect of the rules, but politics are full of entitled jerks.

A more appropriate analogy is that the most senior govt. advisor decided to go off and have a barbecue after he and his govt. enacted a ban on barbecues—violations of which has landed 17,000 people with hefty fines—because of devastating wildfires all across the nation that have seen tens of thousands of people dead, and many more severely injured.

If he offered to pay the fine would that be a good compromise?

No, of course it would not, because this is a matter of credibility. He has expressed no genuine remorse—he's only shown contempt; nor has the govt. acknowledged how grave an error of judgement this was—not merely the acts themselves, but also his subsequent response, when he was busted. Credibility is not something you regain by coughing up some money—which would, in this case, be an insignificant sum for Cummings—when you're caught. There are many perfectly legal and non-corrupt acts that may prompt a resignation, such as a judge being caught using utterly repugnant racial slurs. People who openly show that they believe themselves to be above the laws and norms that bind those they're supposed to represent, are generally not fit for public office.

[Veldan Rath]

ah, for the good ole days of tan suits and fancy mustard

Hey, I like fancy mustard.

[Enoch the Red]

A more appropriate analogy is that the most senior govt. advisor decided to go off and have a barbecue after he and his govt. enacted a ban on barbecues—violations of which has landed 17,000 people with hefty fines—because of devastating wildfires all across the nation that have seen tens of thousands of people dead, and many more severely injured.



No, of course it would not, because this is a matter of credibility. He has expressed no genuine remorse—he's only shown contempt; nor has the govt. acknowledged how grave an error of judgement this was—not merely the acts themselves, but also his subsequent response, when he was busted. Credibility is not something you regain by coughing up some money—which would, in this case, be an insignificant sum for Cummings—when you're caught. There are many perfectly legal and non-corrupt acts that may prompt a resignation, such as a judge being caught using utterly repugnant racial slurs. People who openly show that they believe themselves to be above the laws and norms that bind those they're supposed to represent, are generally not fit for public office.

This whole hefty fine thing confuses me. If the only way Cummings would have received a fine is if he didn't comply with given orders when they asked him to leave, then doesn't that indicate that 17,000 people were fined not just because they were caught, or that Cummings somehow received special treatment, but instead because they did not obey police directives? Or is this a case where enforcement and compliance is up to local jurisdictions, which indicates to me that you should be more critical of how those jurisdictions are enforcing the rules - which would seemingly be outside of Cumming's purview.

[RandBlade]

Well indeed. Many fines were issued due to eg the Police being called out to the same property repeatedly. The national guidance was speak first, fine as a last resort.

[Aimless]

This whole hefty fine thing confuses me. If the only way Cummings would have received a fine is if he didn't comply with given orders when they asked him to leave, then doesn't that indicate that 17,000 people were fined not just because they were caught, or that Cummings somehow received special treatment, but instead because they did not obey police directives?

They were fined under the same rules. Why should they have to comply with a law that others don't even have to care about, that others can simply get away with violating? Why should they be fined for exercising the same freedom Cummings did? Being required to comply with police instructions is a restriction of a person's liberty, and, if it the restriction is applied and enforced arbitrarily, its legitimacy is eroded.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52489943

Cumbria Police issued a fixed penalty notice to a man who went to a friend's house to dye their hair. The man claimed he was unaware of any coronavirus restrictions when police attended the property on 19 April.

Another man from Manchester was fined after he drove around 100 miles to Keswick in the Lake District for a planned 20-minute walk, according to the force.

Meanwhile, Greater Manchester Police said they had stopped four young men who had travelled from Yorkshire to get a burger.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...rules-british/

In Southend-on-Sea, Essex Police issued three community protections warnings after finding a group of people drinking in the sunshine in a car park in the town centre. Meanwhile, in Watford, Hertfordshire, police were forced to disperse a group of around 10 to 15 people who had been playing cricket and also had to warn a group who were queuing in close proximity to one another at an ice-cream van. South Yorkshire Police stopped a group of young boys who were playing football on a playing field.

Simon Bailey, Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary, said his force was prepared to disperse groups of more than two people and issue fines to those who refuse.

Or is this a case where enforcement and compliance is up to local jurisdictions, which indicates to me that you should be more critical of how those jurisdictions are enforcing the rules - which would seemingly be outside of Cumming's purview.

What is within Cummings's purview is his own actions, specifically his decision to abide by or violate his own govt's rules. The rules in question are broken when a person decides to behave in a manner that violates the rules—not if/when they meet a police officer who sees them engaging in said rule-breaking. This isn't Schrödinger's miscreant. To paraphrase a classic response to that thought experiment, "The scoundrel knows."

[Enoch the Red]

They were fined under the same rules. Why should they have to comply with a law that others don't even have to care about, that others can simply get away with violating? Why should they be fined for exercising the same freedom Cummings did? Being required to comply with police instructions is a restriction of a person's liberty, and, if it the restriction is applied and enforced arbitrarily, its legitimacy is eroded.

The same reason we have to pay a ticket when we are caught speeding by the police? I mean, driving on a highway here it is pretty clear that people can get away with violating speed limits, and many don't seem to care much for them - but I don't think being pulled over by a police officer, complying with their lawful instructions, and being ticketed erodes police legitimacy. Now, if you are arguing that this is being enforced arbitrarily that would definitely be problematic, however there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that in this specific case.

What is within Cummings's purview is his own actions, specifically his decision to abide by or violate his own govt's rules. The rules in question are broken when a person decides to behave in a manner that violates the rules—not if/when they meet a police officer who sees them engaging in said rule-breaking. This isn't Schrödinger's miscreant. To paraphrase a classic response to that thought experiment, "The scoundrel knows."

Look - I don't disagree that he in all likelihood knew the rules, knew that he was breaking them, and made a knowing decision to violate them. That is obviously not a good thing. However, this rule seems to be something that is violated with regularity, does not seem to be a particularly onerous penalty, (£30 for a first infraction does not strike me as a particularly hefty fine), seems to require a warning prior to the fixed penalty, and the fact that its enforcement is of questionable utility given the very nature of the rule, means this does not seem like the end of the world to me. Bad form, poor judgment, especially the lies and attempts to cover it up, sure. A principled politician might even ask for their resignation, or a principled public servant offer it. International news? Hardly.

[Khendraja'aro]

See, Aimless, and that's why I pulled out of that particular debate. He simply does not get it. He's so accustomed to Trumps idiocy that he simply cannot fathom that we might want to hold our politicians to a higher standard.

[Enoch the Red]

See, Aimless, and that's why I pulled out of that particular debate. He simply does not get it. He's so accustomed to Trumps idiocy that he simply cannot fathom that we might want to hold our politicians to a higher standard.

As you may recall I actually prefaced this entire conversation with almost those words exactly. I wish we held our politicians to a higher standard - however I don't see that happening any time soon. At one point I was also unsure about the utility of holding Cummings feet the fire for this, but as it seems he had a hand in creating the rule I am definitely far more understanding of those who are upset about it.

[Lewkowski]

Saw video of UK protesters violating social distancing, are y'all still going on about one person but not all the others? :0

[Enoch the Red]

So I think this is part of the reason I am confused...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/u...ronavirus.html
May 14th 2020
It was a stunning rebuke by a governor.
As resistance to lockdown orders flares around the country, often with a partisan overtone, Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, reached for a military metaphor to accuse Republican officials of desertion in the battle against the pandemic.
“To those politicians who decide to cave in to this coronavirus,” Mr. Wolf said on Monday, addressing county lawmakers who have defied his stay-at-home directives, “they need to understand the consequences of their cowardly act.”
The normally mild-mannered governor’s comments turned up the temperature of a national debate over the health emergency, one fanned by President Trump as he eggs on protesters at state capitols, including in Harrisburg, and by lawmakers in Congress, where the government’s top health officials warned this week of dire consequences if the economy reopens too soon.
On Thursday, the president visited Pennsylvania, one of several battleground states crucial to his re-election, where the political combat over limiting the virus’s death toll or easing its economic devastation could have weighty consequences in November. While 26 percent of the state’s work force has filed for unemployment, the governor is relying on metrics about the virus’s spread to keep many people in their homes and all but “life-sustaining” businesses in populous regions closed.


“We have to get your governor of Pennsylvania to start opening up a little bit,” Mr. Trump said after a tour of a distribution center for masks and other medical supplies. “You have areas of Pennsylvania that are barely affected and they want to keep them closed. Can’t do that.”
Republicans, sensing a gut-level anger in exurban and rural areas after nearly two months of restrictions, see an issue with the potential to drive turnout by voters in a state where Mr. Trump, as elsewhere in the industrial and Midwest region, needs a surge of support to repeat his narrow victory of 2016. In Wisconsin, also a swing state, the State Supreme Court sided with Republicans on Wednesday and threw out the stay-at-home order of Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. In Texas, armed men have shown up to support businesses defying government orders to stay closed, an extreme sign of the politicizing of social distancing rules.
At the same time, polls show that Mr. Wolf, like other governors moving cautiously and heeding scientific benchmarks to reopen, is enjoying record support, including among many Republicans.
The governor’s accusation of cowardice was directed at officials in half a dozen Republican-led counties that have said they would defy his timeline for reopening businesses. Mr. Wolf has partly lifted restrictions on 37 counties, mainly in rural regions where community spread of the virus is more easily contained...

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pe...-20200603.html
June 6th 2020
HARRISBURG — Gov. Tom Wolf on Wednesday joined hundreds of demonstrators as they marched through Harrisburg to protest the police killing of George Floyd, a black man from Minnesota.

Wolf spoke briefly to the crowd, saying, “We have got to stop the divide in this country that separates white and black” and “We need to stop racism now.”

“I’m proud to be here to show my support,” he said. “You’re doing the right thing...”

The county that Harrisburg is in (Dauphin county) is currently in the "Yellow" phase of reopening, which means large gatherings of more than 25 are prohibited.

So you have a governor who instituted these rules, who just a few short weeks ago was very aggressive in how he pushed back against those who violated or disagreed with his rules, now doing so himself - without even giving lip service to or even attempting to give the appearance of social distancing. This certainly wasn't a properly socially distanced trip out with the family by a man who isn't in a elevated risk population. This is a shoulder to shoulder march with hundreds by a septuagenarian. He spoke in front of the crowd - he wanted to be seen. Rules for thee and not me indeed.

However, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of outrage, international attention, or focus. Plaudits from the press. A great photo op. Not a mention of his previous rhetoric, or apparent hypocrisy, about the dangers posed by the pandemic, and earlier protests to it. Should Wolf resign? Does the virus that only weeks ago did not care about party affiliation suddenly make exemptions for these massed protests?

[Lewkowski]

Almost like there was some other motivation to keep things locked down than public safety... or the governor is OK with many more dead just to virtue signal. Any liberals on the board want to explain which is it?

[Veldan Rath]

I'll just go with: Politicians of any stripe will use any excuse to get some camera love, hypocrites included.

Or just dumb...Trump going to church via tear gas comes to mind...

[Lewkowski]

I'll just go with: Politicians of any stripe will use any excuse to get some camera love, hypocrites included.

Or just dumb...Trump going to church via tear gas comes to mind...

Trump's not the one calling on business to stay shut down due to Corona.

[Veldan Rath]

Trump's not the one calling on business to stay shut down due to Corona.

No, but using tear gas to get a photo op is fucking dumb and CONVINCED NO ONE.

[Lewkowski]

No one died from tear gas and the purpose was to demonstrate he is not under siege trapped in the white house.

Meanwhile - we have a very important discussion to be had. Do the Democrats think that Covid was over hyped and that stay at home orders were politically motivated OR are they fine with people dying so they can virtue signal.

[Hazir]

No one died from tear gas and the purpose was to demonstrate he is not under siege trapped in the white house.

Meanwhile - we have a very important discussion to be had. Do the Democrats think that Covid was over hyped and that stay at home orders were politically motivated OR are they fine with people dying so they can virtue signal.

He should be locked up.

[Ominous Gamer]

No one died from tear gas and the purpose was to demonstrate he is not under siege trapped in the white house.

Are you seriously ok with this excuse? Attacking US citizens exercising their rights so he wouldn't look weak for a few minutes? Attacking a church so he could get a photo op?

And how's that shitty ass excuse balancing against the babygate that's being built around the Whitehouse?

[Lewkowski]

Are you seriously ok with this excuse? Attacking us citizens exercising their rights so he wouldn't look weak for a few minutes? Attacking a church so he could get a photo op?

And how's that shitty ass excuse balancing against the babygate that's being built around the Whitehouse?

Where the president walks the crowds get moved. No one says they can't assemble, or protest, or speak but they don't get to bar the leader of the free world. This has applied to every modern president. They come to town, the police move people or restrict travel to areas to create a perimeter.

The use of tear gas is a humane compromise to more violent action. The idea of temporary pain (typically) to induce behavior as opposed to shattered bones from police batons. If you have another solution to forcibly moving a crowd that won't go on its own, please share your policing tactics.

[Ominous Gamer]

How very bootlicking unAmerican of you.

[Lewkowski]

How very bootlicking unAmerican of you.

Thoughts on Covid restrictions vs. protests? Or is confronting your own cognitive dissonance too painful?

[Ominous Gamer]

Your insistence that the two events somehow carry the same amount of weight shows your ability to understand a discussion of the events to be DOA. Go be a troll elsewhere.

[Lewkowski]

Your insistence that the two events somehow carry the same amount of weight shows your ability to understand a discussion of the events to be DOA. Go be a troll elsewhere.

I'm not even asking you to say they carry the same weight. I'm asking you to tell me which fact set you believe in.

1. Corona is a dangerous virus that requires continued lock-down. The governor knows the danger and is willing to let (predominately minorities) die via Covid in order to virtue signal.

2. Corona isn't dangerous to most able bodied people, the economy can open up. Protesters should be able to protest but don't go if you're immune system is compromised or you are old.

Which one is your belief?

[Ominous Gamer]

I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall. A racist retarded brick wall.

[Lewkowski]

This is honestly hilarious how you can't confront the issue. You literally can't bring yourself to say you are OK with opening up the economy but you also can't bring yourself to say you are OK with minorities dying in droves via Corona. Sad.

[RandBlade]

No one died from tear gas and the purpose was to demonstrate he is not under siege trapped in the white house.

Meanwhile - we have a very important discussion to be had. Do the Democrats think that Covid was over hyped and that stay at home orders were politically motivated OR are they fine with people dying so they can virtue signal.

That you think protesting people being killed is "virtue signalling" says it all.

Then again you're unwilling to even say that innocent people getting killed is wrong let alone evil so why am I surprised you'd scrape the barrel here too.

[RandBlade]

Where the president walks the crowds get moved. No one says they can't assemble, or protest, or speak but they don't get to bar the leader of the free world. This has applied to every modern president. They come to town, the police move people or restrict travel to areas to create a perimeter.

The use of tear gas is a humane compromise to more violent action. The idea of temporary pain (typically) to induce behavior as opposed to shattered bones from police batons. If you have another solution to forcibly moving a crowd that won't go on its own, please share your policing tactics.

I don't recall tear gas being used to clear the streets ever before, perhaps you can give an example of when its happened if it has applied to every modern president?

Where's the tear gas here?

[Ominous Gamer]

This is honestly hilarious how you can't confront the issue. You literally can't bring yourself to say you are OK with opening up the economy but you also can't bring yourself to say you are OK with minorities dying in droves via Corona. Sad.

Whats hilarious, or depressing, is that you continue to conflate the two issues into what you think is some sort of gotcha conversation in such an ignorant manner that you fail to see how your framing is nonsense. Like I said, you're incapable of participating in a conversation around issues that aren't black and white, no matter how much you think you've forced them into ones.

[Aimless]

The same reason we have to pay a ticket when we are caught speeding by the police? I mean, driving on a highway here it is pretty clear that people can get away with violating speed limits, and many don't seem to care much for them - but I don't think being pulled over by a police officer, complying with their lawful instructions, and being ticketed erodes police legitimacy. Now, if you are arguing that this is being enforced arbitrarily that would definitely be problematic, however there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that in this specific case.

We now know he broke the rules, and he will face no sanctions for his violations; not only that, but he has instead received the govt's support, and the AG has interceded on his behalf with a false assertion of innocence. All because of who he is and who he happens to know—arbitrary advantages not enjoyed by most people in the UK. Whether or not you, personally, consider this to be a problem isn't all that relevant. The question is whether a significant proportion of the British public considers it to be a problem. You might personally think that a cop who tickets you for speeding is exercising legitimate authority, but a person belonging to a non-white minority, who keeps getting stopped and hassled—and perhaps even searched—over and over again, for similar conduct—or for no good reason at all—may have a different view of police legitimacy.

Look - I don't disagree that he in all likelihood knew the rules, knew that he was breaking them, and made a knowing decision to violate them. That is obviously not a good thing. However, this rule seems to be something that is violated with regularity

People in positions of authority are—and should be—held to higher standards.

does not seem to be a particularly onerous penalty, (£30 for a first infraction does not strike me as a particularly hefty fine)

Something like 40% of working age adults in the UK have £100 or less in savings. For much of my childhood, adolescence and youth, a £30 fine would have been a heavy financial blow to both me and to my mother. I know you try to be a good dude, so, instead of saying something mean, I'd like to encourage you to be less egocentric in your analysis of the world.

seems to require a warning prior to the fixed penalty, and the fact that its enforcement is of questionable utility given the very nature of the rule, means this does not seem like the end of the world to me. Bad form, poor judgment, especially the lies and attempts to cover it up, sure. A principled politician might even ask for their resignation, or a principled public servant offer it. International news? Hardly.

The extremely negative public reaction to the scandal fully justifies the international coverage.

So I think this is part of the reason I am confused...

The county that Harrisburg is in (Dauphin county) is currently in the "Yellow" phase of reopening, which means large gatherings of more than 25 are prohibited.

So you have a governor who instituted these rules, who just a few short weeks ago was very aggressive in how he pushed back against those who violated or disagreed with his rules, now doing so himself - without even giving lip service to or even attempting to give the appearance of social distancing. This certainly wasn't a properly socially distanced trip out with the family by a man who isn't in a elevated risk population. This is a shoulder to shoulder march with hundreds by a septuagenarian. He spoke in front of the crowd - he wanted to be seen. Rules for thee and not me indeed.

However, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of outrage, international attention, or focus. Plaudits from the press. A great photo op. Not a mention of his previous rhetoric, or apparent hypocrisy, about the dangers posed by the pandemic, and earlier protests to it. Should Wolf resign? Does the virus that only weeks ago did not care about party affiliation suddenly make exemptions for these massed protests?

Why should Wolf resign? His participation in the protest has probably only served to bolster his credibility as a leader, by showing that he considers this to be an issue worth risking your life over. Moreover, 3 weeks is a very long time in the context of an epidemic, and pretty much every single person at that protest—Wolf included—wore a mask. The anti-lockdown protesters were permitted to protest, despite the stay-at-home order.

Where the president walks the crowds get moved. No one says they can't assemble, or protest, or speak but they don't get to bar the leader of the free world. This has applied to every modern president. They come to town, the police move people or restrict travel to areas to create a perimeter.

The use of tear gas is a humane compromise to more violent action. The idea of temporary pain (typically) to induce behavior as opposed to shattered bones from police batons. If you have another solution to forcibly moving a crowd that won't go on its own, please share your policing tactics.

I have a solution, you boot-licking dullard: don't go to the church for a photo-op if it requires you to subject peaceful protesters to violence.

Meanwhile - we have a very important discussion to be had. Do the Democrats think that Covid was over hyped and that stay at home orders were politically motivated OR are they fine with people dying so they can virtue signal.

I'm not even asking you to say they carry the same weight. I'm asking you to tell me which fact set you believe in.

1. Corona is a dangerous virus that requires continued lock-down. The governor knows the danger and is willing to let (predominately minorities) die via Covid in order to virtue signal.

2. Corona isn't dangerous to most able bodied people, the economy can open up. Protesters should be able to protest but don't go if you're immune system is compromised or you are old.

Which one is your belief?

Like I've said before, you're a stupid and spineless little man, and the only thing more cringeworthy than your stupidity and your cowardice is your apparent belief that you're some sort of rhetorical genius bravely fighting for justice.

[Aimless]

What hilarious, or depressing, is that you continue to conflate the two issues into what you think is some sort of gotcha conversation in such an ignorant manner that you fail to see how your framing is nonsense. Like I said, you're incapable of participating in a conversation around issues that aren't black and white, no matter how much you think you've forced them into ones.

Some people are simply very stupid, and the only way they can cope with their mental deficiency is to portray the compulsion to over-simplify as some sort of virtue. This is their worldview, in its purest form:

Twitter Link

[Lewkowski]

Absolutely entertainment gold y'all. I love the situation. If a bunch of people died to Covid I'll get bash liberals for killing people off for their political protests, if a bunch of people don't die from Covid we'll know that its time to open back up everything.