Michigan Governor Faces Protests

[Kathianne]

This woman is an idiot. Biden may well pick her for VP, lol!


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/drivers-swarm-michigan-capital-to-protest-coronavirus-lockdown-measures

Drivers swarm Michigan capital to protest coronavirus lockdown measures




By Andrew O'Reilly (https://www.foxnews.com/person/o/andrew-oreilly)


Hundreds of cars, trucks and SUVs descended on Michigan’s state capital Wednesday afternoon as part of a noisy protest against Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s social-distancing restrictions that critics say have gone too far.


Dubbed “Operation Gridlock” and organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, the protest did just that – creating bumper-to-bumper traffic throughout downtown Lansing as demonstrators blasted their horns, waved Americans flags and hoisted placards deriding Whitmer’s orders and demanding that she reopen the state’s economy.


The lockdown measures are meant to curb the spread of the coronavirus outbreak, but Whitmer has gone further than some other governors -- and the backlash in Michigan is among the most heated in the country.

...

[Black Diamond]

This woman is an idiot. Biden may well pick her for VP, lol!

Yes yes yes. I've been wanting to post about her for days and things keep coming up interrupting me. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

Yes yes yes. I've been wanting to post about her for days and things keep coming up interrupting me. :laugh:

Well shoot, I've been busy stopping a British attempt to overthrow the Constitution, while gathering reasons to isolate China. Just do it! LOL!

Going to work, AKA silence in a bit.

[Kathianne]

and No. Carolina:


https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/raleigh-pd-calls-protesting-non-essential-activity/19057352/

LOCAL NEWS
Raleigh PD calls protesting "non-essential activity"
Tags: Raleigh police, coronavirus, coronavirus government, protest
Posted April 15, 2020 2:37 p.m. EDT

The Raleigh Police Department says "protesting is a non-essential activity" during this pandemic.


What that means in practice remains to be seen. The department says it has arrested just one person to enforce stay-at-home orders in the city, and it was someone who threw a party in violation of mass gathering prohibitions, which among other things limit gatherings of more than 10 people.


But at least in theory, Raleigh Police say they can arrest people for protesting in public, regardless of whether those people are gathered in groups of more than 10, and regardless of whether they social distance by staying 6 feet away from everyone else.



Here's the backstory: On Tuesday, Raleigh police assisted State Capitol Police as officers watched over a protest outside the N.C. General Assembly.


A group called Reopen NC was protesting stay-at-home orders, and what was initially billed as a stay-in-your-car-and-honk event quickly turned into a more traditional protest: People outside with signs.


...

It's easier to give a governor or mayor your thoughts, in person. :)

[Kathianne]

and Kentucky:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-legislature/2020/04/15/protesters-gather-outside-kentucky-capitol-over-coronavirus-closures/5141330002/

[Black Diamond]

My dream is that Biden picks Whitmer for his running mate and trump STILL wins michigan.

[Black Diamond]

From a friend of mine:

PRAY FOR THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is crushing their spirit with unnecessary, draconian regulations that no other state has to abide by. Her attitude is sadistic & cruel as she mocks bi-partisan demonstrators, accusing them of political motives.

I believe people will suffer more psychological devastation because of HER, than the pandemic itself. She's merciless. She's a monster.
Pray for those people!

[Kathianne]

The protests are breaking out in quite a few states. NBC shows their contempt by invoking the 'tea parties' of years gone bye.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/tea-party-style-protests-break-out-across-country-against-stay-n1185611


Tea party-style protests break out across the country against stay-at-home orders
The gatherings to oppose what critics say is government overreach have been promoted by conservative commentators.

This week, about 100 protesters gathered outside the Ohio statehouse in Columbus to push for Republican Gov. Mike DeWine to reopen the state. In Raleigh, more than 100 demonstrators gathered to protest Democratic North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper's stay-at-home order, where at least one protester was charged with violating the order. In New York, a few dozen people gathered Thursday outside the state Capitol in Albany to rally for returning to normal. Kentucky, Utah and Wyoming also saw similar protests.


More events are scheduled for Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Oregon, Idaho and Washington state.

The largest took place in Michigan on Thursday, where police said 3,000 to 4,000 people showed up at the state Capitol in Lansing to protest Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's extended and expanded stay-at-home order, which was signed into law last week.


Asked about the protests at his press conference Thursday, one in which he unveiled his administration's guidelines for reopening, President Donald Trump said he believed the demonstrators would listen to him and added there is no daylight between his views and the governors when it comes to reopening.


"I think they're listening. I think they listen to me," Trump said of the protestors. "They seem to be protesters that like me and respect this opinion, and my opinion is the same as just about all of the governors. They all want to open. Nobody wants to stay shut but they want to open safely. So do I."


The protests have had a tea party flavor to them, with demonstrators carrying "Don't Tread on Me" flags and wearing "Make America Great Again" gear. Some have even waved Confederate flags.


"I'm only surprised they can tear themselves away from Rush Limbaugh long enough to go protest," Philippe Reines, a former top adviser to 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, told NBC News.


Critics say they're angry with the shutdowns, which have curtailed business and leisure activity in the name of a deadly virus they say hasn't hit their neck of the woods. But health experts have warned it won't take much for a relatively unaffected place to become a hot spot, as just one infected person is able to spread the virus to dozens of others.

Push back to the orders is generating plenty of buzz online, where hundreds of thousands have joined groups, such as "Michiganders Against Excessive Quarantine," "ReOpen NC" and "Pennsylvanians Against Excessive Quarantine."


The stay-at-home measures have reignited — amidst a global pandemic — an age-old U.S. debate over government regulation vs. personal liberty. Across the country, states have implemented restrictive measures with the aim of saving lives.


"It made sense to prioritize public health for the past six weeks, but the accompanying economic devastation is bringing urgency to reopening the economy," said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist. "In states across the country, including Michigan, North Carolina and Kentucky, citizens are rising up to protest executive overreach by local and state officials."


"Public guidelines are always best when they are made voluntary," he added. "Government officials have a responsibility to persuade the public to respond to their requests. There is no question that in some cases, we are seeing egregious executive overreach, and I expect protests to expand and increase in the coming days and weeks."


The rallies themselves could help spread the disease if demonstrators are not practicing safe social distancing measures. In Michigan, scores of protesters ignored organizers' requests and left their cars to demonstrate on foot and gather tightly near the Capitol building.

[Drummond]

Well shoot, I've been busy stopping a British attempt to overthrow the Constitution, while gathering reasons to isolate China. Just do it! LOL!

Going to work, AKA silence in a bit.

Just for the hell of it .... :salute::salute:

Fret not ! I have a nearly foolproof answer to my insurrectionist tendencies. It consists of a bucket of water with the American flag draped over it. Should I feel the need, again, to point out that the Constitution is not proof against the ills of 21st century virology, I'll chuck the contents over myself.

[The downpour missed my keyboard ... so there .....]

I've looked at the link. Points:

1. In terms of the sheer stupidity of how the backlash evolved ... you couldn't make that stuff up !! It doesn't get any more counterproductive than that !

2. From my particular point of view ... and UNLESS there's more detail I'm unaware of ... from what I can see, this Michigan Governor has basically copied what is true of the UK ! What I've read of the restrictions applied, copies what's in force over here.

No comparable protest happened, or was even contemplated here, so far as I'm aware.

If I can find it, I'm tempted to re-post the video of a Dalek patrolling a Derbyshire street (... they, of 'flying drones over lone country walkers' fame ..) ordering confinement to dwellings ....

[Drummond]

Just for the hell of it .... :salute::salute:

Fret not ! I have a nearly foolproof answer to my insurrectionist tendencies. It consists of a bucket of water with the American flag draped over it. Should I feel the need, again, to point out that the Constitution is not proof against the ills of 21st century virology, I'll chuck the contents over myself.

[The downpour missed my keyboard ... so there .....]

I've looked at the link. Points:

1. In terms of the sheer stupidity of how the backlash evolved ... you couldn't make that stuff up !! It doesn't get any more counterproductive than that !

2. From my particular point of view ... and UNLESS there's more detail I'm unaware of ... from what I can see, this Michigan Governor has basically copied what is true of the UK ! What I've read of the restrictions applied, copies what's in force over here.

No comparable protest happened, or was even contemplated here, so far as I'm aware.

If I can find it, I'm tempted to re-post the video of a Dalek patrolling a Derbyshire street (... they, of 'flying drones over lone country walkers' fame ..) ordering confinement to dwellings ....

Proof that Britain's cultural impact on the world has been invaluable: Daleks (and not forgetting, Winnie the Pooh).

Here y'go ...


https://youtu.be/WiqplRCgfHU

In case it's of any interest at all (?) ... a 'sympathy' piece, typical of the BBC's domestic output (this one from the late night show 'Newsnight') .. examining the 'totalitarian' / 'necessary' nature of new rules ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sp9IDUGwfg

[Kathianne]

Just for the hell of it .... :salute::salute:

Fret not ! I have a nearly foolproof answer to my insurrectionist tendencies. It consists of a bucket of water with the American flag draped over it. Should I feel the need, again, to point out that the Constitution is not proof against the ills of 21st century virology, I'll chuck the contents over myself.

[The downpour missed my keyboard ... so there .....]

I've looked at the link. Points:

1. In terms of the sheer stupidity of how the backlash evolved ... you couldn't make that stuff up !! It doesn't get any more counterproductive than that !

2. From my particular point of view ... and UNLESS there's more detail I'm unaware of ... from what I can see, this Michigan Governor has basically copied what is true of the UK ! What I've read of the restrictions applied, copies what's in force over here.

No comparable protest happened, or was even contemplated here, so far as I'm aware.

If I can find it, I'm tempted to re-post the video of a Dalek patrolling a Derbyshire street (... they, of 'flying drones over lone country walkers' fame ..) ordering confinement to dwellings ....

Like I said, there's differences between here and there. We definitely fear tyranny, it's our nature. Not keen on taking directions, which I know most employers would like we'd be better at. We question everything-none of these things are reserved to the right or left, we nearly all do it to some extent.

I'm guessing it developed during the period of 'benign neglect' from your king and the installation of King George brought it all to fruition, been gaining steam ever since during periods of trouble.

[Drummond]

The protests are breaking out in quite a few states. NBC shows their contempt by invoking the 'tea parties' of years gone bye.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/tea-party-style-protests-break-out-across-country-against-stay-n1185611

There's nothing quite like a good tea party.

Boston would concur.

Perhaps comparisons between the US and UK are useless, and maybe even a tad tiresome to keep reading about. But if what I'm reading, here, now, is typical of the 'American mood' ... your people and mine are very markedly different.

The UK has had three weeks of lockdown, under rules apparently a match for this Michigan Governors' own. By and large (with a handful of notable exceptions, true !) they've been respected. Yesterday, we were told it was much too early to relax the lockdown, and so, it will continue for ANOTHER three weeks, then be reviewed. Meaning, it may well continue even after then.

No protests against that have yet emerged. I doubt they will.

Nobody likes the 'totalitarian' nature of current rules (& the BBC, as I've shown, is trying to whip up some propagandist resistance to it, as is typical of their unstated, forever un-admitted, anti-Government biases). But, we do see the need for them (the rules, not the biases !).

Here ... pragmatism, not doctrine, is the order of the day.

But, then ... maybe that's 'just us'.

[Kathianne]

There's nothing quite like a good tea party.

Boston would concur.

Perhaps comparisons between the US and UK are useless, and maybe even a tad tiresome to keep reading about. But if what I'm reading, here, now, is typical of the 'American mood' ... your people and mine are very markedly different.

The UK has had three weeks of lockdown, under rules apparently a match for this Michigan Governors' own. By and large (with a handful of notable exceptions, true !) they've been respected. Yesterday, we were told it was much too early to relax the lockdown, and so, it will continue for ANOTHER three weeks, then be reviewed. Meaning, it may well continue even after then.

No protests against that have yet emerged. I doubt they will.

Nobody likes the 'totalitarian' nature of current rules (& the BBC, as I've shown, is trying to whip up some propagandist resistance to it, as is typical of their unstated, forever un-admitted, anti-Government biases). But, we do see the need for them.

Here ... pragmatism, not doctrine, is the order of the day.

But, then ... maybe that's 'just us'.

I think we are 'riskier' and willing to see what happens. Some of it is just not liking top down orders. Some of it is just the individualist thing. We went quickly into compliance UP TO THE POINT when things started to improve. Now we want out! The economy needs it and don't want to waste the time. Now when it comes to pragmatic, we'll go right back if/when there's a spike. Then chaff at the bit asap.

It's also why we can go from 'unprepared' to 'more than we need' PDQ. We innovate and improve and do it ourselves, whether it's making hand sanitizers or face masks. Sure it would be easier if they were on the shelf, which now they are, but no longer need to spend the $$. ;) That's pragmatic.

[Drummond]

Like I said, there's differences between here and there. We definitely fear tyranny, it's our nature. Not keen on taking directions, which I know most employers would like we'd be better at. We question everything-none of these things are reserved to the right or left, we nearly all do it to some extent.

I'm guessing it developed during the period of 'benign neglect' from your king and the installation of King George brought it all to fruition, been gaining steam ever since during periods of trouble.

Your analysis may well be spot on. If it is .. it grieves me.

The 'American spirit' is something I'd normally view as admirable ... that irrepressible spirit of forever striving towards a state of guaranteed and assured freedom of the individual, for example (if it exists here, it does in a very muted form). That it stems from centuries-old rebellion against my own people ... not something I view with the smallest satisfaction !

But the past, IS the past. Events, the entire world, moved on, long ago. In today's complex world, it seems to me that sheer logic and practicality need to hold sway.

So it is with today's virus-ridden world. Covid-19 has inflicted certain realities which just cannot be ignored; not without lethal consequences arising. Emerging from (a) lockdown, and (b) a rigidly-held to, necessarily rigid lockdown regime, at that ! ... has to be something that happens with the very best of commonsense applied to it.

I hope that Trump's obvious enthusiasm for getting America back to work is practical, and not premature. If UK thinking is a useful guide, we see continued lockdown as unavoidable for possibly several more weeks.

You have one 'saving grace' ... a far bigger landmass !! MAYBE, taking that into account, Trump is assessing this correctly. I fervently hope so.

Because lives, maybe many lives, are at stake here !!

[Kathianne]

Your analysis may well be spot on. If it is .. it grieves me.

The 'American spirit' is something I'd normally view as admirable ... that irrepressible spirit of forever striving towards a state of guaranteed and assured freedom of the individual, for example (if it exists here, it does in a very muted form). That it stems from centuries-old rebellion against ny own people ... not something I view with the smallest satisfaction !

But the past, IS the past. Events, the entire world, moved on, long ago. In today's complex world, it seems to me that sheer logic and practicality need to hold sway.

So it is with today's virus-ridden world. Covid-19 has inflicted certain realities which just cannot be ignored; not without lethal consequences arising. Emerging from (a) lockdown, and (b) a rigidly-held to, necessarily rigid lockdown regime, at that ! ... has to be something that happens with the very best of commonsense applied to it.

I hope that Trump's obvious enthusiasm for getting America back to work is practical, and not premature. If UK thinking is a useful guide, we see continued lockdown as unavoidable for possibly several more weeks.

You have one 'saving grace' ... a far bigger landmass !! MAYBE, taking that into account, Trump is assessing this correctly. I fervently hope so.

Because lives, maybe many lives, are at stake here !!

In a way, I think you've described the differences between the people that stayed put, stayed safe, hundreds of years ago. The system worked for them, they were content with what they had and knew.

Then there were the others, some because of opportunities-they were poor; some because of primogeniture, they weren't happy to be dependent. they were striking out on their own. Some came with the idea of gaining wealth and returning, few returned.

I'm not saying staying or going was better or worse, people did what they did and their progeny developed the way they did. There are things to admire and things to wonder at 'why?!'

When 'herd immunity' was the idea there, you were very in favor. When the facts came out that it could be too costly, you adapted. So far, regardless of the many reports on masks, you stay with government stance. That's fine, but doesn't mean we're wrong. Personally I'm all for 6' minimum and still wear mask and gloves out of the home. I change my gloves at least every 20 minutes.

We'll assume what we assess to be reasonable risk, but are wary of a leader that insinuates 'wholesale opening of the country,' when that risk is too large, considering parts of the country. Likewise, when a governor is saying that the attendance at church-in cars-with windows rolled up is illegal, the people will respond, forcefully.

[Drummond]

In a way, I think you've described the differences between the people that stayed put, stayed safe, hundreds of years ago. The system worked for them, they were content with what they had and knew.

Then there were the others, some because of opportunities-they were poor; some because of primogeniture, they weren't happy to be dependent. they were striking out on their own. Some came with the idea of gaining wealth and returning, few returned.

I'm not saying staying or going was better or worse, people did what they did and their progeny developed the way they did. There are things to admire and things to wonder at 'why?!'

When 'herd immunity' was the idea there, you were very in favor. When the facts came out that it could be too costly, you adapted. So far, regardless of the many reports on masks, you stay with government stance. That's fine, but doesn't mean we're wrong. Personally I'm all for 6' minimum and still wear mask and gloves out of the home. I change my gloves at least every 20 minutes.

We'll assume what we assess to be reasonable risk, but are wary of a leader that insinuates 'wholesale opening of the country,' when that risk is too large, considering parts of the country. Likewise, when a governor is saying that the attendance at church-in cars-with windows rolled up is illegal, the people will respond, forcefully.

Points very well made, and I'm inclined not to offer an argument against them.

I'm still in favour of the herd immunity principle, because it remains scientifically sound. As you say ... following through on that most probably would've been too costly. Boris was right in saying that the first order of business had to be to avoid illness in the population becoming so very prevalent that our NHS would never have been able to cope.

Our divergence from the original path has been about minimising casualties, partly because it was the right human thing to do, but also because practicality of healthcare availability insisted on it.

Only time will tell what precisely happens, and the consequences it'll earn. I have a fear or 2 out of it ... one is that we might emerge from lockdown prematurely, even after nearly two months of it .. and Covid enjoys the 'pickings' made available to it.

The other is that this might mimic the Spanish Flu pandemic, which saw three distinct waves of it. No useful lockdown can guard against such waves. The second such wave was far deadlier than the first.

Given that outcome as the path this will all follow, notions of freedom may have to become subordinate to the needs of widespread survival. With a death toll great enough, even essential services may fail. Imagine an America where power supplies were intermittent, where water supply and sewerage processing wasn't a guaranteed process. With wholesale unemployment mixed with a large death toll .. emergency retraining may become the norm. There'd be no 'freedom' to choose your own career ... people would need to work wherever the maximum survival odds were favoured for the very viability of national life.

My simple, overall point is just this: PRACTICALITY may prove to be ALL in this emergency. Sentiment, national characteristics, may need to be subordinate to sheer practical need.

One must recognise that adaptability to different social circumstances is mandated. You move, you evolve, or you perish.

Time will tell as to what sheer reality gives us, and how we must adapt to it.

[Drummond]

I think we are 'riskier' and willing to see what happens. Some of it is just not liking top down orders. Some of it is just the individualist thing. We went quickly into compliance UP TO THE POINT when things started to improve. Now we want out! The economy needs it and don't want to waste the time. Now when it comes to pragmatic, we'll go right back if/when there's a spike. Then chaff at the bit asap.

It's also why we can go from 'unprepared' to 'more than we need' PDQ. We innovate and improve and do it ourselves, whether it's making hand sanitizers or face masks. Sure it would be easier if they were on the shelf, which now they are, but no longer need to spend the $$. ;) That's pragmatic.

The flaw in your 1st paragraph is surely exceedingly obvious ?

Comply, until things start to improve. Get a whiff of improvement, you rattle chains, cry 'Let Us Out' ... and once free to spread the virus, that's just what you do. One spike (and several days of employment) later, and it all translates into a very avoidable extra death toll.

I'm not sure that 'riskier' really covers it ... not if hundreds or even thousands die, who'd otherwise have lived. If you want to be an individual, a prime requirement of same is that you survive to remain one !

Brits would be very different. Our media is already beginning to see ahead, to the problem we think we'll face ... how, exactly, can you be SURE of when's a safe time to emerge from lockdown, to AVOID any such spike ?? For us, avoiding it is all-important.

I think that whenever our Health Secetary chooses as our 'emergence' date, even if it's months from now, he'll get flak for it. Someone, somewhere, will fret that whatever the lockdown cessation date is, IS it too EARLY ?

[Kathianne]

The flaw in your 1st paragraph is surely exceedingly obvious ?

Comply, until things start to improve. Get a whiff of improvement, you rattle chains, cry 'Let Us Out' ... and once free to spread the virus, that's just what you do. One spike (and several days of employment) later, and it all translates into a very avoidable extra death toll.

I'm not sure that 'riskier' really covers it ... not if hundreds or even thousands die, who'd otherwise have lived. If you want to be an individual, a prime requirement of same is that you survive to remain one !

Brits would be very different. Our media is already beginning to see ahead, to the problem we think we'll face ... how, exactly, can you be SURE of when's a safe time to emerge from lockdown, to AVOID any such spike ?? For us, avoiding it is all-important.

I think that whenever our Health Secetary chooses as our 'emergence' date, even if it's months from now, he'll get flak for it. Someone, somewhere, will fret that whatever the lockdown cessation date is, IS it too EARLY ?

What you see as 'insane,' we see as inevitable. There are the true risk takers, like Trump, whom you so admire. If up to him, we'd have been back at it, wholesale, awhile ago. Nope, the people, not too mention the local governors would not have gone along.

What you've watched is our system in motion, lots of moving parts: the people; the president; state/county/city political-even religous leaders. 1 federal constitution; 50 state constitution. 350M people.

[Drummond]

What you see as 'insane,' we see as inevitable. There are the true risk takers, like Trump, whom you so admire. If up to him, we'd have been back at it, wholesale, awhile ago. Nope, the people, not too mention the local governors would not have gone along.

What you've watched is our system in motion, lots of moving parts: the people; the president; state/county/city political-even religous leaders. 1 federal constitution; 50 state constitution. 350M people.

From what I've seen, certainly on this issue, though Trump might be moved to be a 'risk taker', he's not reckless. He has advisors, and they are obviously listened to and even heeded. Trump wanted the US, in total, to end its lockdown right now (according to the British media, anyway). But he's come to understand that his wish was premature.

You can't tilt at windmills and expect to come out of it unscathed.

Your system has lots of moving parts, but a lack of unity. One part can act against another, from what I've seen.

Here's something I'd like an answer to: a scenario I posted elsewhere. What happens if a State of yours ends its lockdown, people go back to work, people move around freely once more ... but, they're still virus carriers ? A family of virus carriers goes for a drive, crosses a State line .. into a State that hasn't ended its lockdown nearly as completely.

The lockdown State gets a further outbreak of virus, more deaths, more casualties generally, all because a neighbouring State wanted to end its lockdown prematurely ... and was NOT stopped by Government. What does the 'victim' State do ? Do they send troops across the border and wage war ??

With national Government coordination, with Government directing everything, no conflict - physical or ideological - would come about. Maybe, no premature infections and deaths !!

Would those deaths have been worth it ?

Or to put it another way, do you think that the insanity was inevitable ?

[Kathianne]

From what I've seen, certainly on this issue, though Trump might be moved to be a 'risk taker', he's not reckless. He has advisors, and they are obviously listened to and even heeded. Trump wanted the US, in total, to end its lockdown right now (according to the British media, anyway). But he's come to understand that his wish was premature.

You can't tilt at windmills and expect to come out of it unscathed.

Your system has lots of moving parts, but a lack of unity. One part can act against another, from what I've seen.

Here's something I'd like an answer to: a scenario I posted elsewhere. What happens if a State of yours ends its lockdown, people go back to work, people move around freely once more ... but, they're still virus carriers ? A family of virus carriers goes for a drive, crosses a State line .. into a State that hasn't ended its lockdown nearly as completely.

The lockdown State gets a further outbreak of virus, more deaths, more casualties generally, all because a neighbouring State wanted to end its lockdown prematurely ... and was NOT stopped by Government. What does the 'victim' State do ? Do they send troops across the border and wage war ??

With national Government coordination, with Government directing everything, no conflict - physical or ideological - would come about. Maybe, no premature infections and deaths !!

Would those deaths have been worth it ?

Or to put it another way, do you think that the insanity was inevitable ?

Lots of moving parts. Did you not notice at the beginning of the NY/NJ areas numbers on the rise, many of their wealthy flew to FL? Drive to CT? Both states started to take actions to keep New Yorkers out. Well that was unconstitutional. Indeed. So they had to work with the Federal and state governors on how to address. Pretty quickly they came up with what worked for those involved. We are 1 country-yours learned even in our weakest form we'd fight like hell together and a couple world wars and many more undeclared showed the same. Then there were the wars where the country wasn't in agreement-mostly when the country isn't really under attack in a literal or even theoretical sense. When we fracture in resolve, we don't win. We may go to a draw.

It's why our system is so very complicated by design, to reach some sort of agreement at best; compromise more often at least.

[Drummond]

How aren't you making my case a valid one ?


Lots of moving parts. Did you not notice at the beginning of the NY/NJ areas numbers on the rise, many of their wealthy flew to FL? Drive to CT? Both states started to take actions to keep New Yorkers out. Well that was unconstitutional. Indeed.

I thought your Founders knew about diseases such as smallpox ? How is it that your Constitution made precisely no provision for action to be taken if an infectious agent crossed State borders ?

Regardless, your example shows that your Constitution is not suited to addressing the right of an American to live, in the face of any epidemic ... not if people from Florida or Connecticut had no right of protection against disease, in the face of it ?? You're actually telling me that self-defence against a dangerous virus is classifiable as an unConstitutional act ??

I'm astonished.

Little wonder that something had to be cobbled together (presumably very hastily), between Federal and State Governors. No Constitutional protection, and no Government law overseeing what was to be done in such circumstances.


We are 1 country-yours learned even in our weakest form we'd fight like hell together and a couple world wars and many more undeclared showed the same. Then there were the wars where the country wasn't in agreement-mostly when the country isn't really under attack in a literal or even theoretical sense. When we fracture in resolve, we don't win. We may go to a draw.

So is it fair to conclude that your best chance of winning out, is when your Government intervenes with an overriding policy direction ? Because, without it, there IS the danger of fracturing. Excellent if it can be avoided, of course ... but ... the chance exists.


It's why our system is so very complicated by design, to reach some sort of agreement at best; compromise more often at least.

I translate that as meaning that you've had to learn to be very good at cobbling solutions together, because you've had nothing better in place to make such a hit-and-miss approach unnecessary.

Your system, as it stands, comes with no guarantee of reaching good solutions. Which makes my point for me, surely ?

[Kathianne]

How aren't you making my case a valid one ?



I thought your Founders knew about diseases such as smallpox ? How is it that your Constitution made precisely no provision for action to be taken if an infectious agent crossed State borders ?

Regardless, your example shows that your Constitution is not suited to addressing the right of an American to live, in the face of any epidemic ... not if people from Florida or Connecticut had no right of protection against disease, in the face of it ?? You're actually telling me that self-defence against a dangerous virus is classifiable as an unConstitutional act ??

I'm astonished.

Little wonder that something had to be cobbled together (presumably very hastily), between Federal and State Governors. No Constitutional protection, and no Government law overseeing what was to be done in such circumstances.



So is it fair to conclude that your best chance of winning out, is when your Government intervenes with an overriding policy direction ? Because, without it, there IS the danger of fracturing. Excellent if it can be avoided, of course ... but ... the chance exists.



I translate that as meaning that you've had to learn to be very good at cobbling solutions together, because you've had nothing better in place to make such a hit-and-miss approach unnecessary.

Your system, as it stands, comes with no guarantee of reaching good solutions. Which makes my point for me, surely ?


We'll see what happens, but the Constitution isn't specific in things like: 1. Under illness from smallpox, do a,b,c. Typhus? c, x, and y.

It's concise. It's more flexible than you can imagine. Luckily there's no need for you too.

Remember your tone when you accuse myself or anyone else here for acting 'superior' regarding their country. You are quite insulting to us, though I'd not do the same in return. It's your tone choice.