dubs

could this whole thing have been the result of Bernie Sanders threatening the coronation of Hillary? DNC insider leaks emails to Wikileaks to reveal Bernie getting screwed and the rest is history?

Wow. This has been the most widely “accepted” part of the narrative as well.

you mean, Marie Barf, amirite?

thank you for putting that here and thank you DR for the summary. I’m looking forward to reading the review on Monday. question: if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound. In other words, can the media run enough cover to make sure this never gets any airtime and spin it to make the lemmings think this is just “fascism” from a Russian asset dictator? I honestly don’t have a lot of hope that people will be able to see past their efforts. I hope I’m wrong.

It’s heartening to know we can all come together over BBQ and the nonsense that is Bagger Vance! Good work TBD!

?

This thread is making me hungry!!

This is a pretty awesome schedule. Wow. Big time!!

Haha. The Jets. Hahaha!

I would guess it’s a euphemism for “greater indoctrination” but that’s just me.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-05-05/new-york-to-work-with-gates-foundation-to-reimagine-education-governor what could go wrong??

I would say this, and I sincerely appreciate your perspective, the longer this has gone on and the more we are learning, the more confident I am in the fact that we have to, as a people, be extraordinarily vigilant in protecting our rights as citizens. No government entity should be able to just suspend rights, even in an outbreak situation.

When you ban all gatherings of more than 50, are you not violating Article III of the Bill of Rights? Article III: "...make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ..... or the right of people peaceably to assemble..." I am not even religious, just saying that a Governor (IMO) doesn't have the right to just ban things that are guaranteed in the Constitution, no matter what the situation.

imagine the (pardon the pun) god complex that a governor must suffer from to think that he/she can ban religious gatherings in the United States. I’d love to see the major religions simultaneously gather in Millennium Park and have a huge mass at the same time.

Roads are managed and maintained by the local municipalities, driving bans are usually a day or two at most, and I've never seen anyone arrested and put in jail because they drove during a ban. So I wouldn't really say that's an accurate comparison. But it does go to show how far you need to stretch to try and find any example of the government having the type of authority they've all tried to exert during the last two MONTHS!!

It really is just that simple. Also, where is the role of the legislatures in this? I must have missed all the new laws being passed, but I guess at some point some law was passed giving governors and mayors broad discretion and authority to declare states of emergencies and do what they want.

I would argue that it makes the virus very infectious, but actually less dangerous. If the estimates this person used are accurate and 1 in 5 people in NYC have been already infected, that's about 1,700,000 cases.

Totally understand. The only think I think we need to be careful about is the idea that anything less than 100% compliance with safety measures is failure and reason for draconian measure to stay in place. My belief is that the vast vast majority of people will do the things they need to, wear masks, social distance, wash hands, etc... But there will certainly be a small group that refuses to do that. Certainly frustrating to see, but not indicative of how most people will conduct themselves.

I honestly do understand the concern and how scary it can be. We are all going through that in some way, shape or form. But I don't agree that it means the appropriate response is to shut it all down. The only way that would make sense is if the country was shut down until there was a vaccine and that vaccine was able to be produced in such mass quantities to administer to 330 million people. If we did that, the country would collapse and anarchy would follow. Rather, I think the appropriate response is to open and put measures in place to protect as best as possible the most at risk population. For the rest of the population, individuals need to make choices on their own as to how they best want to approach this.

it’s just to put things into the proper context. if we know that the vast majority of deaths are with a specific group, does it make sense to enact such draconian measures rather than more targeted measures to combat the virus? That’s all. Especially when we also know that the number of cases is extremely underreported, especially with the younger, less succeptible groups, so the death rates are much lower and even more skewed toward the vulnerable group that we should be able to target with less constrict mitigation efforts.

Huh? What are you talking about? Some more context: For the entire population, 75% had a known underlying health issue. 2% did not. The rest were unknown. So basically, and I thank you for sharing the data, what we know is that the vast majority of deaths are people over age 65 with a serious underlying health issue as a co-factor. Thanks Tibs!

or, 72.3% of deaths were from people over 65. also, 4.54% of deaths were people 44 or younger. Just to provide some more context.

Good for this woman. Happy to see people taking a stand and taking direction from themselves rather than no nothing judges and bureaucrats.

So shocking yet so predictable. leftists: do as I say, not as I do.

I really don't understand the logic of the people behind the "smear the 'reopen America' protesters" as fascist" at ALL. It's illogical. If you think about a spectrum of complete liberty on one end and complete government control on the other end, fascism and all forms of communism/socialism are at the far end of one side. The "reopen America" protesters are advocating for the exact opposite of that, which is to say they want their life back, they want their freedoms back and they want their liberty. The people who are fighting to remain closed are much closer to fascist, advocating for the government to keep business closed, keep people in their homes, and essentially tell us what we can and cannot do. Now, I am not saying that everyone that wants society to remain on lockdown are in fact fascist, I don't believe that is the case at all. I think the vast majority of those people are well-intentioned folks who are simply scared. I get that. But calling the other side "fascist" makes absolutely no sense at all. They are the exact opposite of fascist, which is what makes those claims ludicrous.