Trump's not the one calling on business to stay shut down due to Corona.Originally Posted by 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.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
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.
Congratulations America
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?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
How very bootlicking unAmerican of you.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Thoughts on Covid restrictions vs. protests? Or is confronting your own cognitive dissonance too painful?
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.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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?
I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall. A racist retarded brick wall.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 06-06-2020 at 02:03 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
People in positions of authority are—and should be—held to higher standards.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
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.does not seem to be a particularly onerous penalty, (£30 for a first infraction does not strike me as a particularly hefty fine)
The extremely negative public reaction to the scandal fully justifies the international coverage.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.
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.
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.
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Both would be incorrect, and nobody would take you any more seriously than they do now. Like I said—you're a very stupid man.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So if and when a bunch of people die to Covid you're going to insist it's because thousands protested rather than million resuming their normal face-to-face routinesDespite the data showing the numbers climbing as state reopened well before the protests started.
You mean like your demand to abolish all unions?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
1. State re-opening still have restrictions in place.So if and when a bunch of people die to Covid you're going to insist it's because thousands protested rather than million resuming their normal face-to-face routines
You mean like your demand to abolish all unions?
2. Even in places where most restrictions are gone, individuals and businesses are taking common sense precautions like asking customers to wear masks, cleaning surfaces more regularly, avoiding high repeat touch interfaces.
3. LF given what you've seen on the news, the crowds that aren't social distancing and in a lot of cases no masks or clear improper use of masks. Do you think people will die from the protests? And if so how many minorities are you OK with dying during these protests?
To your other comment...
I have *never* suggested all unions be abolished. I have particular ire for government unions and have no problem with voluntary grouping of people. Of course as always I'm not a hypocrite, voluntary grouping of people be they business owners or people in the labor market to set price for the good or service they are providing for should be free from government intrusion.
It is my understanding that anyone who violated this rule and was not first warned by the police, and then ticketed has received the same advantages enjoyed by Cummings - which is to say no penalty at all. I am not aware of people receiving these fixed penalty citations after-the-fact for having been found out, nor am I aware of after-the-fact investigations into those that have violated these rules.
They certainly might, and perhaps with good reason. That doesn't mean that enforcing the law erodes police legitimacy.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.
I don't disagree with this. What I'm not sure of is if this warrants resignation. That seems like it is something to be decided between Boris Johnson and Cummings, and to some degree the British people.People in positions of authority are—and should be—held to higher standards.
The purpose of the fine is ostensibly to drive behavior change and act in some way as a deterrent. So, from a public policy standpoint, what would be a penalty that would not be too onerous a burden for a working class individual, still affect behavior change, and be enforceable by the police? Is it £10? £20? I don't claim to know what that number is - do you?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.
And this is disregarding entirely the directive to first warn and then fine. If £30 would be a heavy financial blow, I would certainly do my best not to violate the rule. And if I was warned I would do my best to comply.
Because I was under the impression that part of the furor, at least in posts I read from Tim, Steely, Flixy, and to some extent you, revolved around the impact this has on credibility. If the government is creating rules and expecting citizens to follow them, then in turn disregarding them entirely in the highest offices, both the rules and those that make them lose credibility. Rules that as you rightly noted imposed considerable psychological pressure and pain, never mind an extreme financial burden on the average citizen. It creates, if nothing else, the perception of bias in how enforcement will be handled. Do you not see how it is problematic for the governor to vilify his political opponents for placing public health at risk, and indeed threatening to withhold important federal coronavirus relief money from them, while turning around and flaunting the same restrictions himself? Not just acknowledging that protesters have the right to protest, regardless of their political bent, but instead saying that it is on the one hand good for one group, (that happen to likely be his supporters) to do so in violation of the rules he himself imposed, but on the other hand bad and dangerous for his opposition to be afforded those same rights? The fact that these protesters also happen to make up his political base, and not his political opposition doesn't bolster his credibility as a leader - it destroys it. Going out of your way to appeal to your base doesn't show courage, and decrying the rights of your political opposition isn't a measure of leadership as I understand it. He is apparently willing to threaten and vilify his rivals and cheer on his base - regardless of the devastating impact it might have on the most vulnerable communities.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.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion about the numbers of people at that protest who wore a mask. In the headline picture posted with the article there are at least 3 people who have a mask but are not wearing them properly, and at least one person who has nothing at all. In a subsequent picture many people either don't have a mask, might *have* masks, but are either not wearing them correctly or not having them cover their face in any meaningful way. Regardless, you and I both know that wearing a cloth mask during a protest of this size and density of the crowds does not offer adequate protection, count as sufficient social distancing, or is safe according to our best knowledge of how this virus spreads, but people seeing this might believe it to be. What signal do you think it sends to the public if they see a septuagenarian governor walking shoulder to shoulder with huge crowds with nothing more than a mask on his face? Does that speak truth to the very real risks and dangers of the pandemic, especially to the most at risk populations? Do you think that makes them take his social distancing recommendations more or less seriously?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-07-2020 at 01:01 AM.
Exactly. And it sounds like Brits want to hold their elected leaders to a higher standard, where hypocrisy and lying aren't tolerated, especially during a global pandemic. What's confusing to me is why you don't think that's worthy of international news, yet here you are.
I snipped the rest of your post (pertaining to PA Gov. Wolf) because you're conflating some things between pandemic policy and politics. The red/yellow/green phases are clearly outlined at pa.gov, and the limits on gathering sizes were for indoor businesses (which the state and municipality legally licenses and regulates). Also, Universal Masking is recommended but voluntary.
The localities he was criticizing wanted to ignore the whole plan and move to green on their own (Lancaster County). And a re-open campaign was started by an NRA off-shoot group https://action.pennsylvaniafirearmsa...olfs-shutdown/ that just doesn't like teh gummint telling people what to do under normal circumstances, let alone a health crisis. Wolf didn't block the Reopen PA protests and marches at the capitol, or order anyone to be arrested for violating rules.
Even restaurants that started dine-in service (under yellow) just got citations from the Health Dept, with a warning that could lead to fines and/or revoking their license to operate, but no one was arrested. You may not like how PA handled things, but Wolf has a fairly high rating from Pennsylvanians who think his county-by-county phased strategy (with plenty of waivers and exclusions) was smart and consistent, and moving to less restrictions was based on health data.
Since he's the Governor for the whole state, he was almost obligated (as a political leader) to march against racial discrimination and police brutality. At least it was outside, and he wore a mask.
Erm, I am certainly not a Pennsylvania resident, so it is entirely possible I am mistaken, but the guidelines nowhere state that the restrictions on the size of gatherings is limited to indoor businesses. Quite to the contrary - there are rules specific to businesses and separate rules for social gatherings. The prohibition is in the latter category of social gatherings, not the former of work/congregate rules.
I have news for you - localities unilaterally moving to green on their own would still have had harsher restrictions and better protections in place than any protest that I have seen. The impact of COVID-19 in those areas was already negligible. On the other hand, endorsing protests made up primarily by your supporters as doing the, "right thing," during a pandemic, while threatening to stop federal funds from going to your political opposition isn't enforcing the rules evenly, and it certainly isn't looking after black lives.The localities he was criticizing wanted to ignore the whole plan and move to green on their own (Lancaster County). And a re-open campaign was started by an NRA off-shoot group https://action.pennsylvaniafirearmsa...olfs-shutdown/ that just doesn't like teh gummint telling people what to do under normal circumstances, let alone a health crisis. Wolf didn't block the Reopen PA protests and marches at the capitol, or order anyone to be arrested for violating rules.
I'm lost here - he was obligated to break the rules he put in place for everyone else to stop a dangerous pandemic, tell the protesters they are doing the right thing, and give the wrong health message to the most vulnerable populations, because doing so somehow makes a substantive impact on police brutality? Here's the sad fact - COVID-19 has killed, in just a few short months, orders of magnitude more people in this country than the police in all of 2019 - many of those likely justifiable to one degree or another. COVID-19 disproportionately impacts minority communities. Supporting public health rules, if in no other way than leading by example, that would save minority lives seems like a no brainer if you care about black and minority lives.Even restaurants that started dine-in service (under yellow) just got citations from the Health Dept, with a warning that could lead to fines and/or revoking their license to operate, but no one was arrested. You may not like how PA handled things, but Wolf has a fairly high rating from Pennsylvanians who think his county-by-county phased strategy (with plenty of waivers and exclusions) was smart and consistent, and moving to less restrictions was based on health data.
Since he's the Governor for the whole state, he was almost obligated (as a political leader) to march against racial discrimination and police brutality. At least it was outside, and he wore a mask.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-08-2020 at 07:04 PM.
Maybe you're really complaining about PA's definition of "essential vs non-essential" that forced businesses to shut down, or what a social gathering means? (There's a nice pdf that changed with waivers and exemptions, if you're interested). People found ways to have social gatherings outdoors, including weddings without the wedding planner or florist (who were closed). Even churches managed to hold services outdoors, or in parking lots with the sermon piped thru their car radio, even tho technically they were "closed".
I can understand the logic behind closing certain business as a way to discourage the virus from spreading. And using a local/county/regional approach that recognizes the differences b/w city-suburb-rural areas....while understanding that people will move across county or state lines (if they have less restrictions), which defeats the purpose. If you've got better ideas I'd love to hear them.
Some places that wanted to move to green didn't want ANY restrictions. Some yahoos even posted signs saying "NO MASKS ALLOWED"I have news for you - localities unilaterally moving to green on their own would still have had harsher restrictions and better protections in place than any protest that I have seen. The impact of COVID-19 in those areas was already negligible. On the other hand, endorsing protests made up primarily by your supporters as doing the, "right thing," during a pandemic, while threatening to stop federal funds from going to your political opposition isn't enforcing the rules evenly, and it certainly isn't looking after black lives.
Everyone has to do what they think is right, weighing the risks and benefits, and that includes elected officials. Wolf would have gotten flak no matter what he did. But the truth is he's been working on inequities in healthcare, especially for minority groups, since he got elected.I'm lost here - he was obligated to break the rules he put in place for everyone else to stop a dangerous pandemic, tell the protesters they are doing the right thing, and give the wrong health message to the most vulnerable populations, because doing so somehow makes a substantive impact on police brutality? Here's the sad fact - COVID-19 has killed, in just a few short months, orders of magnitude more people in this country than the police in all of 2019 - many of those likely justifiable to one degree or another. COVID-19 disproportionately impacts minority communities. Supporting public health rules, if in no other way than leading by example, that would save minority lives seems like a no brainer if you care about black and minority lives.
What bothers me more is that Public Health has been politicized and weaponized, just like the Police. When we have an epidemic within a pandemic, you suddenly want to point out the inconsistencies in policy? The fact that it's a "bad time" to protest doesn't mean they can or should wait. It's reached a tipping point, and delaying justice even longer is almost like saying just shut up and dribble.
Now, if you really want to criticize political leaders who don't follow their own rules or policies, and send the wrong message to the public.....Trump should be at the top of your list.
Like you use Christianity to justify your racism? What does your selective media consumption have to do with this? Thats the only way I see you being dumb to think fringe groups piggybacking on BLM somehow diminishes the stance against police brutality.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Get over it Aimless there's far more important things going on than "man went for drive" in the world.
Nice, too bad that according to the police any action or lack of action has been and will be intetpreted as resistance.
Congratulations America
Oh and end civil forfeiture. That is Grade A Bull shit.
Making the rounds again, for obvious reasons:
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/artic...the-guilt-trip
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I don't see how it is physically possible to not hate a man who writes like that. What a prick.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
This is true.
The sooner he's gone the better. My gut is that he'll step down at the beginning of next year, blaming health issues. That way he'll be able to say he delivered the great Brexit victory, but leave just in time to deal with all the shite that comes with it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
