All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[JimEverett]

I know of many religious assemblies that moved to outdoor spaced events to comply with requirements. It's not the religion, it's the indoors and lots of contact. Bars fall under the same thing.

Protests and demonstrations have a lot of contact, but are mitigated by outdoors. It seems to not cause big spikes, or any. Also, most folks are masked. There are exceptions, of course. Honestly, there might be some political advantage, but I think it was more fear of being unable to have any control if you tried to suppress it, or you'll really have problems down the road. It's like telling your wife to relax, especially when something real actually happened.

I think you were better off just staying focused on the mayor of Nashville, because I'd assume you know more about the specifics there, since you're in Tennessee.

You might be better off just discussing your local area as well. There are instances of restrictions on outdoor gatherings - outdoor religious gatherings included, in places that did not have such restrictions on protests. New York City is one example. In Seattle, outdoor services were restricted, then were allowed to be held with less than 100 people, no such restrictions on protests.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You might be better off just discussing your local area as well. There are instances of restrictions on outdoor gatherings - outdoor religious gatherings included, in places that did not have such restrictions on protests. New York City is one example. In Seattle, outdoor services were restricted, then were allowed to be held with less than 100 people, no such restrictions on protests.

The concern about religious freedom and the right to work are valid concerns. However, they don't justify or necessitate the inaccurate and exaggerated claims about how mayors responded to protests.

One can discuss their concerns about religious freedom and the right to work without tying it to exaggerated and inaccurate claims that mischaracterize how mayors responded to protests.

 

[superchuck500]

You might be better off just discussing your local area as well. There are instances of restrictions on outdoor gatherings - outdoor religious gatherings included, in places that did not have such restrictions on protests. New York City is one example. In Seattle, outdoor services were restricted, then were allowed to be held with less than 100 people, no such restrictions on protests.

Is it that there were "no such restrictions on protests" or the generic restrictions on gatherings just weren't enforced?

I suspect that in some places the mayors or law enforcement may have expressly stated that the limits on gatherings would be suspended for protests, but I'm not sure. But unless there was some specific allowance for protests, I think it stands to reason that the protests were in violation of the gathering limitations - it's just that no enforcement action was taken.

Express allowance and non-enforcement are two different things. I'm certain that some churches held services despite Covid restrictions. Enforcement is tricky for any of these Covid rules. And the higher the number of people in disobedience, the harder it is to enforce. Some of these protests had thousands upon thousands of people.

 

[Ayo]

Is it that there were "no such restrictions on protests" or the generic restrictions on gatherings just weren't enforced?

I suspect that in some places the mayors or law enforcement may have expressly stated that the limits on gatherings would be suspended for protests, but I'm not sure. But unless there was some specific allowance for protests, I think it stands to reason that the protests were in violation of the gathering limitations - it's just that no enforcement action was taken.

Express allowance and non-enforcement are two different things. I'm certain that some churches held services despite Covid restrictions. Enforcement is tricky for any of these Covid rules. And the higher the number of people in disobedience, the harder it is to enforce. Some of these protests had thousands upon thousands of people.

this is *exactly* what happened here.

In Toronto, the Mayor cannot direct the police to do anything. It's written into the laws here - the police are not an arm of the mayor's office and he cannot tell them to do anything in terms of enforcement.

So, he can only offer his own opinion - and it was this: The police have given people too much leeway, too many warnings. They know a *lot* of gatherings happened and didn't want to be overly punitive - also aware of how the community can perceive them negatively - so they have been soft on enforcement.

The result was gatherings in violation of the order, but not enforced.

The mayor and premier want it changed. They've increased the fines for hosts and participants but that means nothing if they are not enforced. And they want them enforced.

Toronto's mayor was livid, relative to how he normally is (kind of a boring dude), saying that all second chances have been exhausted. People are being stupid and selfish. The police don't owe anyone any more time nor patience. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If he had the power to direct the police, I'm sure he'd tell them crack down harder, but he can't - it's clear, though, that more enforcement is needed.

 

[JimEverett]

Is it that there were "no such restrictions on protests" or the generic restrictions on gatherings just weren't enforced?

I suspect that in some places the mayors or law enforcement may have expressly stated that the limits on gatherings would be suspended for protests, but I'm not sure. But unless there was some specific allowance for protests, I think it stands to reason that the protests were in violation of the gathering limitations - it's just that no enforcement action was taken.

Express allowance and non-enforcement are two different things. I'm certain that some churches held services despite Covid restrictions. Enforcement is tricky for any of these Covid rules. And the higher the number of people in disobedience, the harder it is to enforce. Some of these protests had thousands upon thousands of people.

The problem with that line, though, imo is that it ignores the messages of support city, county, and state executives have made for the protests while enforcing bans in other areas. It is as straightforward a content-based bias as you can get.
No doubt state/county/city covid restrictions are broken everyday and most of those violations do not result in some state action - but a very significant line is crossed when executives express support for protests (not the message of the protests along with a stated desire that people not violate covid restrictions) while maintaining restrictions on gatherings with similar numbers that lack or are different from the expressive content supported by the executives.

 

[superchuck500]

The problem with that line, though, imo is that it ignores the messages of support city, county, and state executives have made for the protests while enforcing bans in other areas. It is as straightforward a content-based bias as you can get.
No doubt state/county/city covid restrictions are broken everyday and most of those violations do not result in some state action - but a very significant line is crossed when executives express support for protests (not the message of the protests along with a stated desire that people not violate covid restrictions) while maintaining restrictions on gatherings with similar numbers that lack or are different from the expressive content supported by the executives.

Yeah, that's fair. I certainly agree that both activities are protected by the First Amendment and, thus, get the same scrutiny as a matter of law. But, of course, that analysis takes into account the full range of interests.

I'm not suggesting that the result would or should be divergent, but just practically speaking, it's not difficult to see how the racial-justice protests (talking about the peaceful ones, and with masks) could be seen by leaders as an ephemeral matter with some immediacy . . . a moment in time that could not be reasonably deferred or practiced in alternative ways. Whereas church-going is an activity that is part of normal life, a permanency, that could be reasonably tailored to accommodate a limitation on gathering in ways that still allowed for meaningful practice.

But I get why this comparison is drawn, I'm not trying to advance a conclusion.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The problem with that line, though, imo is that it ignores the messages of support city, county, and state executives have made for the protests while enforcing bans in other areas. It is as straightforward a content-based bias as you can get.
No doubt state/county/city covid restrictions are broken everyday and most of those violations do not result in some state action - but a very significant line is crossed when executives express support for protests (not the message of the protests along with a stated desire that people not violate covid restrictions) while maintaining restrictions on gatherings with similar numbers that lack or are different from the expressive content supported by the executives.

The support expressed was in fact specific to the message of police reform and an end to systemic racism. They didn't just support protests in general, they specifically endorsed the message of the protests.

They also did in fact remind and encourage people to wear masks and physically distance while protesting outdoors per regulations.

At the same time protests were occurring, so where religious gatherings that were not broken up by police.

It was not a situation were protestors were allowed to do whatever they wanted, while people gathering for religious purposes were disrupted and arrested. The flip side is that protests were disrupted and protestors were arrested.

The situation was less than ideal all the way around, but the situation was not like how it is being portrayed.

 

[JimEverett]

Yeah, that's fair. I certainly agree that both activities are protected by the First Amendment and, thus, get the same scrutiny as a matter of law. But, of course, that analysis takes into account the full range of interests.

I'm not suggesting that the result would or should be divergent, but just practically speaking, it's not difficult to see how the racial-justice protests (talking about the peaceful ones, and with masks) could be seen by leaders as an ephemeral matter with some immediacy . . . a moment in time that could not be reasonably deferred or practiced in alternative ways. Whereas church-going is an activity that is part of normal life, a permanency, that could be reasonably tailored to accommodate a limitation on gathering in ways that still allowed for meaningful practice.

But I get why this comparison is drawn, I'm not trying to advance a conclusion.

And to be clear - the idea that the message of protestors has immediacy vs. the message of other groups, say religious ones, does not is the exact sort of thing the Constitution forbids. There is no difference between that and a situation where a public health emergency calls for shutting down all religious services while mayors and governors express support for specifically Christian services (maybe they believe the end times are near and there is an immediacy to the Christian message) that are happening and enforcing bans on other religious services.

 

[MT15]

Jim, in my state no churches had any consequences for ignoring the ban on large gatherings. Were police summoned to churches around you, or did they voluntarily observe the mandates? I know around me almost every church voluntarily observed.

I think all of our states epidemic mitigations are voluntary. The governor was explicit in that he didn’t expect the police to enforce his mask mandate, for example.

 

[SaintForLife]

Clyburn's response
===================


In an interview on CNN's "New Day," Clyburn was asked about Barr's comments Wednesday to the conservative Hillsdale College, in Michigan, where he said, "putting a national lockdown, stay-at-home orders, is like house arrest," adding, "other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

"You know, I think that that statement by Mr. Barr was the most ridiculous, tone-deaf, God-awful thing I've ever heard," Clyburn said, calling it "incredible" that the "chief law enforcement officer in this country would equate human bondage to expert advice to save lives."

"Slavery was not about saving lives, it was about devaluing lives," Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of the House, continued.............

Clyburn blasts Barr for comparing shutdowns to slavery: Most 'tone-deaf, God-awful thing I've ever heard'

Barr said other than slavery so he was clearly not comparing the lockdowns to slavery.

 

[Ayo]

So still behind women’s suffrage and Jim Crow laws and mass incarceration and Japanese internment camps and....

It’s an absolutely stupid, gaslighting comment

 

[Optimus Prime]

Barr said other than slavery so he was clearly not comparing the lockdowns to slavery.

He most definitely was

"other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

Barr was making two points:

1 - Slavery was the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

2 - National Lockdowns, Stay at Home orders were the second greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

Whenever you use "Other than X" you are absolutely making comparisions

Other than Adolf Hitler, who was on a different kind of level, Donald Trump is the greatest threat to world peace in history

Other than a brick wall, trying to debate (Banned MAP member) is the biggest waste of your time possible

See how that works?

 

[SaintForLife]

He most definitely was

"other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

Barr was making two points:

1 - Slavery was the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

2 - National Lockdowns, Stay at Home orders were the second greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

Whenever you use "Other than X" you are absolutely making comparisions

Other than Adolf Hitler, who was on a different kind of level, Donald Trump is the greatest threat to world peace in history

Other than a brick wall, trying to debate (Banned MAP member) is the biggest waste of your time possible

See how that works?

Not quite
Definition:
Other than: apart from; except

 

[LA - L.A.]

Not quite
Definition:
Other than: apart from; except

Other than 9, 8 is the greatest single digit number. 8 is almost 9 and as close a whole number as you can get to 9 without being 9.

Sure, he said the response to the pandemic wasn't as bad as slavery, but by comparing it to slavery he's implying it's been nearly as bad as slavery, which is asinine.

But let's forget about it almost being as bad as slavery, he is definitely saying it's worse than all of these:

So still behind women’s suffrage and Jim Crow laws and mass incarceration and Japanese internment camps and....

It’s an absolutely stupid, gaslighting comment

@SaintForLife are you in agreement with Barr that our response to COVID has been a greater infringement on civil liberties than all of the following? I ask, because he didn't exclude any of these.

• women not having full citizenship
• the Jim Crow era laws
• mass incarceration
• Japanese internment camps
• the treatment of Native Americans during Manifest Destiny

 

[efil4]

He most definitely was

"other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

Barr was making two points:

1 - Slavery was the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

2 - National Lockdowns, Stay at Home orders were the second greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

Whenever you use "Other than X" you are absolutely making comparisions

Other than Adolf Hitler, who was on a different kind of level, Donald Trump is the greatest threat to world peace in history

Other than a brick wall, trying to debate (Banned MAP member) is the biggest waste of your time possible

See how that works?

He has a poor grasp of the English language and grammar.

He posted a definition, but what he failed to do is define "Other than" within context of the sentence.

In this case, other than = besides.

But its not surprising.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Not quite
Definition:
Other than: apart from; except

Other than oranges, apples are my favorite fruit

Am I comparing apples and oranges? Yes

The comparison is they are fruit, They are both fruit I love to eat but I love oranges more

Barr is saying both are intrusions on civil liberties, and the stay at home orders are the worst in American history with the only exception being slavery

But you know that

 

[superchuck500]

This guy

 

[not2rich]

Not quite
Definition:
Other than: apart from; except

Your definition supports his point.