Posts by nimbleharbor10

Melissa Collins3 said:Forget all this talk about cell phones and tracking apps. It’s honestly overkill. If you want to actually manage things, everyone just needs to have a landline installed if they don't already have one. That way, when an epidemiologist calls, you actually pick up. Simple as that. If you dodge the call, you're basically telling them you don't exist, and then you can expect the police to show up at your door and haul you straight into quarantine.

And what happens if you're sleeping, showering, or stuck in the bathroom? What then?

Matthew Jackson2 said:I suppose I should tread carefully here, but you seem to be under the impression that I’m looking for an alternative—as if my only grievance is that I haven't provided a better way of doing things while simultaneously acknowledging they actually do a decent job. Honestly, I find myself at a complete loss for words; I truly have nothing to add to that particular line of reasoning.

Look, I consider myself a reasonable man—a level-headed individual who understands the need for order—but there comes a point where patience isn't just tested, it’s systematically dismantled. If I spend the first week being cooperative, then the second week trying to play by the rules, and by the third week I see the situation spiraling further into chaos while the restrictions only get more draconian and suffocating, what exactly am I supposed to do? At what precise moment am I expected to simply snap? I mean, I can sit here and be the only one following every single arbitrary mandate, but eventually, I’m going to reach a breaking point where I just want to yell, "To hell with all of you, I refuse to be the only sane person left in this circus." Maybe I won't be the one to lose my cool, but let’s be realistic: when things get this out of hand, at least ten percent of the population is going to hit that wall and finally push back. This whole thing has completely spun out of control.

The only other way this plays out is if people finally decide to stop waiting for permission and start taking matters into their own hands by carving out their own version of justice—and honestly, if that happens, this whole damn pandemic situation starts looking like a much smaller problem than what we're actually facing.

If the Secretary of Homeland Security can't guarantee that officers on the ground are actually following protocol, or if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can't ensure that an ER isn't turning away someone in desperate need of life-saving care, then we have reached a point where they’ve completely lost their grip on the very systems they claim to oversee. It’s a fundamental breakdown of leadership. In any other professional setting—and I mean really high-stakes environments like a major hospital administration or even a large corporate firm here in the States—you don't just sit by when things go sideways; you resign. You step down because the responsibility rests at the top. During a crisis, that internal accountability shouldn't just be a suggestion; it should be the absolute bedrock of how we function. When a failure occurs, the immediate supervisor has to act instantly. If they fail to act, their superior is obligated to step in and course-correct immediately. But if that entire chain of command remains paralyzed, if this systemic refusal to respond trickles all the way up to the Cabinet level, then the conversation is effectively over. At that stage, there is no longer a functioning government to debate with, because the leadership has essentially abdicated its duty.

I mean, sure, if you're talking about the islands, there's a certain logic to it—especially those spots that get completely cut off from the mainland when a massive storm rolls in off the coast—but honestly, everyone else in the region is just going to gravitate toward the four major medical hubs anyway.

That’s true, but as is typically the case, the political establishment is too terrified of clashing with religious institutions, so they permit all sorts of negligence, which directly endangers American citizens. In a functional country, following an incident like this in a city like Chicago, the President would demand an explanation from the local Police Chief, and if the answer was that they weren't aware of the situation, that chief would be fired immediately; either way, someone at the top would have to take the fall. If the President failed to act, then the Prime Minister—or rather, the President himself—would have to fire the Cabinet Secretary. The same logic applies to the heads of the emergency services and the health department.

Jerry Robinson56 said:It isn't quite that black and white. You've bypassed the lengthy phase of education... we aren't machines or automated systems; progress takes time, though it eventually yields a definitive result. Do you truly believe (!) it is acceptable for someone to jeopardize their family or someone else's just because they claim to feel perfectly fine? To my mind, it's akin to handing a machine gun to an intoxicated or drugged individual and saying, "whatever happens, happens." They aren't to blame; it's just the alcohol doing its work. These permits are a necessary evil; they could have implemented a curfew instead... Do you actually possess a constructive idea beyond mere criticism? I agree that this choice was unfortunate, but I see no viable alternative. Tell me, have you ever managed a massive undertaking? The objective is recovery, yet most people barely understand what they are "fighting" against, and isolation remains the only proven effective measure through the centuries.

I am writing from a philosophical standpoint. Let us proceed methodically (please... you may pose your questions one by one alongside your own answers, which needn't strictly follow the flow of conversation) because it is the only way to navigate this dialogue given the sheer number of "loose ends." We will inevitably descend into selfishness and greed very soon.

1. Do you concede that movement must be restricted due to the current circumstances?

- Not merely those who are symptomatic, but also those who appear "healthy"... there is enough virus to go around, and it is undoubtedly among us. The question is simply whether enough of it will latch onto us to become the primary concern. Detection is neither fast enough nor reliable enough.

The goal is to explain to the public how they ought to behave, because even without symptoms, they can act as carriers. The aim is to localize potential hotspots. Think of it as a chain reaction—moderation through absorption and deceleration. Not everyone possesses the level of awareness or conscientiousness that we, and certain others on this forum, exhibit.

That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

It is truly pathetic to witness how Americans react with such intense hostility toward anyone perceived as a potential threat to their safety or their way of life, showing zero foresight regarding the fact that they could easily find themselves in that exact same position. There is this irrational mindset where if someone is deemed "infected," they must be crushed, eliminated, or completely destroyed, yet when the tide turns and they fall ill themselves, they will be the ones whimpering for help.

They would go as far as trying to shut down borders—not just national ones, but state lines and county lines too. They’d try to prevent fellow citizens from even returning home. People would spend all their energy spinning conspiracy theories about who infected whom, using those lies to justify violence against the very people they’ve branded as the source of the contagion. All while, quite ironically, they let their children out to play in the local parks with other kids.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Can the Headquarters just swoop in and decide to appoint a lifetime president, pick a new Prime Minister, change presidential powers, or just dissolve Congress entirely?

The straight answer is "no, because that would clash directly with other laws and the Constitution." But let’s be real—that same logic applies to absolutely any other decision they try to make that runs headfirst into existing laws and the Constitution.

Precisely. The Civil Protection Headquarters is supposed to handle operational matters within the bounds of the Constitution and the Laws of the United States, not act in opposition to them. If the panic surrounding Corona ends up killing our democracy, then I'd honestly rather we all just catch the virus.

Gerald Kern77 said:Here you go, the legal amendments.

The legal foundation itself is airtight—the real question is whether the decision and its execution should have been more logical, perhaps accounting for a broader range of real-world scenarios.

What kind of messy, nonsensical formulation is this?

Adam Collins4 said:Look, if there isn’t anything available in your local municipality, they’re basically obligated to issue you a pass—so, if you need to go grab some medication, you actually have a valid reason to get a pass issued by your doctor through Civil Defense...

The sheer stupidity lies in creating this artificial necessity to hunt down permits. If we were being logical here in the States, perhaps limiting movement within county lines would make sense. But with this whole permit circus, hundreds of thousands of people already hold them because they’re part of the Headquarters, issued them to themselves, or actually have a valid excuse. This means restricting movement is both mindless and useless; ultimately, the people with genuine needs get penalized while scammers just forge an ID, all while police checkpoints create unnecessary friction with citizens.

Furthermore, the gentlemen at the Headquarters really ought to realize they lack any actual legal standing for these prohibitions. If Congress were to declare a State of Emergency, that would provide the Civil Defense Headquarters with the necessary legal foundation; as it stands, they are simply violating the Constitution. The fact that the police are assisting them in these violations, and the media is just blaring about how citizens aren't allowed to leave their residences, only highlights how prone we are as a society to authoritarianism—how we'd rather spit on the law than actually fix it.

Chaos, public resentment, flawed solutions, and far too many pointless local agencies:

It is frankly idiotic that anyone would think to use a person’s primary residence as the basis for determining movement restrictions. It is inherently unfair, completely impractical, and serves as nothing more than a staggering display of arrogance from a bunch of cronies who have decided to strike at our fundamental freedom of movement without any sense of proportion or a deep understanding of the actual consequences.

hollowmason64 said:What does that even have to do with anything? Why does the mileage of moving locations matter, and what role does distance play in whether someone gets infected?
And how on earth could the police know that everyone in the place she's coming from is uninfected? Are they supposed to go door-to-door checking every single person in every town people travel from?
There's a good chance the police won't even pull her over when she enters the City of Chicago, but if they do, she'll end up being handed an order for mandatory isolation.

Is this the logic Johnson is using? It's funny how people with that mindset, once they actually get sick, don't try to build immunity at home—they immediately start whining for a doctor.

She should just register through the e-visitor system and there won't be any trouble.
Honestly, it's pretty funny how people don't follow laws like this one, which requires reporting a change of residence, thinking, "Who cares, nobody actually does this, why does it matter?" and then when their own negligence and failure to respect the law comes back to bite them, suddenly everyone else is to blame.

Your comment would actually hold water if we weren't dealing with the fact that all these Civil Protection Headquarters are systematically overstepping their legal authority. If we lived in a country where the law actually meant something, those who strip citizens of rights guaranteed by the Constitution would be facing criminal prosecution.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Maybe we need the Democrats... but they’re out here pushing ideas about year-long mortgage moratoriums instead of actually doing anything useful...

They probably think they can score some easy political points by doing that, while simultaneously painting themselves as the opposition to the "heroes of Corona."

Americans couldn't care less about "paperwork"; there's an obsession with overreacting, and a general feeling that laws are just things meant to be broken. It’s no wonder that American business doesn't function properly and likely never will, because there is absolutely no legal certainty here. It’s like trying to raise cattle in a swamp full of crocodiles.

Jacob Alvarez said:A Supreme Court Justice isn't the Supreme Court.

Exactly. Someone really ought to file a petition with the Supreme Court to force them to rule on this pattern where local emergency management directors are issuing regulations that carry the weight of law while simultaneously violating the Constitution.

This is absolutely appalling. You have some FEMA entity issuing mandates that carry the weight of law, yet if those orders lack actual legal standing, they ought to be considered completely void. The Supreme Court has already made it crystal clear that this kind of overreach is unacceptable.

From a purely legal and procedural standpoint, this is a total disaster.

On a practical level, it’s just mind-numbingly stupid. We’re seeing a situation where some people are granted total freedom to roam all over Washington, D.C., while others are essentially trapped in a tiny town of maybe 80 people. If someone living in one of those rural spots needs to head into a larger city just to grab basic necessities, what are they supposed to do? Pick a fight with the Department of Homeland Security? Ignore directives that are legally invalid? Just pray they don't run into a patrol car? This measure is completely detached from reality and shows a blatant disregard for the actual needs of citizens. If they were serious about this, they could have at least limited movement restrictions to the county level.

USA Today is reporting on some serious inconsistencies being pointed out by members of Congress: "CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES HIGHLIGHT ILLOGICALITY There is absolutely no sense in restricting movement in small towns with only 80 residents, while in a massive metro area like Washington, D.C. with 800,000 people, you can just move about normally "

Down in Miami, the police are picking up people just for walking around; some individuals are being reckless and excessive, which spreads the disease, but even so, these movement restrictions feel imprecise and far too restrictive. What else should we expect when you implement such extreme measures? People simply won't respect them.

Jose Scott3 said:Oh sure, you'll just guarantee everyone else behaves—like someone heading out to their ranch or a cabin won't stop by the ExxonMobil station, then hit the grocery store, then swing by cousin number one's place, then maybe cousin number two's...

The whole point is to kill off any kind of social contact, not just restrict walking around. There’s zero guarantee that someone actually out and about isn't going to grab an opportunity to hang out.

And being a "responsible individual" doesn't mean squat. The last two weeks have already proven there are way too many people who couldn't care less.

Of course I’m not guaranteeing anything, but let’s be honest: with this clumsy set of rules, nobody is guaranteeing a damn thing right now either. You think this is any more effective? Business owners are essentially issuing their own passes; it’s a complete joke. We have regulations that are questionable at best, massive loopholes everywhere, and penalties that seem entirely arbitrary depending on who's looking. It’s pure chaos.

Jose Scott3 said:Oh sure, you'll just guarantee everyone else behaves—like someone heading out to their ranch or a cabin won't stop by the ExxonMobil station, then hit the grocery store, then swing by cousin number one's place, then maybe cousin number two's...

The whole point is to kill off any kind of social contact, not just restrict walking around. There’s zero guarantee that someone actually out and about isn't going to grab an opportunity to hang out.

And being a "responsible individual" doesn't mean squat. The last two weeks have already proven there are way too many people who couldn't care less.

True, but your logic relies on the assumption that people will actually follow what is being asked of them. You can't force compliance if a large enough segment of the population refuses to cooperate. When you demand nonsense, you lose all credibility, and eventually, people just stop listening because they no longer trust what you say.

Jose Scott3 said:Oh sure, you'll just guarantee everyone else behaves—like someone heading out to their ranch or a cabin won't stop by the ExxonMobil station, then hit the grocery store, then swing by cousin number one's place, then maybe cousin number two's...

The whole point is to kill off any kind of social contact, not just restrict walking around. There’s zero guarantee that someone actually out and about isn't going to grab an opportunity to hang out.

And being a "responsible individual" doesn't mean squat. The last two weeks have already proven there are way too many people who couldn't care less.

Yes, but the approach should be to penalize those who violate the self-isolation guidelines, rather than punishing everyone indiscriminately. As Putin said, such people are bioterrorists. As usual in this disorganized mess, the rule-breakers thrive while the law-abiding majority suffers. The authorities treat the majority like cattle and leave the troublemakers alone because they view them as too dangerous to touch.

Joseph Taylor11 said:And honestly, what's stopping him? If he's living alone and isn't bothering anyone, why not?
At least he'll have something to eat come fall.
Unlike the rest of us who don't own any land.
(Or at least don't have a patch of dirt suitable for growing potatoes).

Exactly. What kind of threat does a man pose just by digging in his own dirt out in a rural area? It is sheer idiocy to prevent him from doing that.
My take is this: someone drafted this in an incredibly poor and imprecise manner. They are banning far too much, and the language is vague and lacks any legitimate justification. You should regulate gatherings, not basic movement.

It’s sliding straight into an oligarchy.

Larry Walker24 said:On Monday, Marjan Šarec made it clear: Canada isn't going to be some convenient little "pocket" where everyone dumps their migrant crisis. He’s basically pushing back against the opposition's panic over tighter border controls along the lines with Austria and Italy.

His take? If we actually want to stop illegal entries into Canada, you have to put Frontex on the outer edges of the European Union—specifically on the borders between America and its neighbors in the North America.

"To actually fix the illegal migration issue here, you need to get Frontex boots on the ground at the American-Mexican and American-Canadian borders," Marjan Šarec told reporters.

Local leaders have been breathing down his neck about how these illegal crossings and all the new wire fences are wrecking local businesses and tourism. They sat down with Šarec to hash it out, and he promised the government would step up to fix the damaged infrastructure. Still, he claims the general security situation near the Kupa River is perfectly fine.

He also met with Metlika Mayor Andrej Kavšek. While the mayor says things are going okay with the police and the Canadian Department of Homeland Security regarding migration management, he did warn that the migrants passing through are trashing the place and leaving a massive mess behind. That's what the Canadian media was reporting earlier this afternoon.

He’s absolutely right. It would be far more efficient and logical to pool resources and defend a single unified border rather than engaging in mutual sabotage and simply passing our problems off to the next neighbor. If we actually stood together, we might even see support from the Austrians and others.

Frankly, I don't understand why Canada consistently takes such a hostile stance toward America. There is this absurd dispute over the border, but in reality, it's a trivial matter being dragged out by extremists who manufacture outrage because they lack any meaningful topics to debate. For the most part, Canada and America share a very similar history, a comparable mindset, and aligned interests. It would be much better if there were more cooperation instead of all this petty bickering and shallow nationalism over a few meters of land or sea while the actual country and its people struggle.

We experienced hyperinflation back in the days of America. What happened during that era isn't an inevitability that we have to face again. Back then, price hikes were politically mandated to ensure citizens could still afford basic necessities—which stands in stark contrast to what happened in Venezuela, where they faced total shortages of everything, including food. In America, the strategy for turning a profit was simple: grab whatever you could immediately and settle the bill later using currency that had been eroded by inflation. Loans were effectively gifts because interest rates were kept so low. It’s hard to imagine any major US commercial bank issuing loans today at rates below the inflation level, let alone without strict currency clauses.
If we ever hit massive inflation, commerce essentially boils down to a game of musical chairs, because anyone who takes cash and doesn't spend it instantly loses value. I can't recall a single instance of hyperinflation outside of places like Venezuela; generally, everyone learns the hard way that the government loses big in these scenarios, and eventually, everyone starts using a stable foreign currency as their standard. Even today, some old legal frameworks in certain US jurisdictions still reference penalties denominated in Deutsche Mark.

I assume the winners are the debtors who took out loans right before the hyperinflation hit (and without those protective currency clauses)—basically the scammers who break the spirit of the law by delaying payments until the amount owed becomes a joke.

rowdytiger13 said:He doesn't have to. Leaving NATO would basically be political suicide for him, and let's be honest, it's not like NATO is synonymous with the USA.
Just as Trump knows that Europeans make plenty of empty threats, Europeans know that when it comes to NATO... Trump is mostly bluffing. There is zero chance they'll actually hike up their contributions, especially since they've already told him—and others—exactly where they stand.
Let him try it...

Why on earth would the USA dismantle a coalition that essentially dictates its policy and provides a layer of quasi-legitimacy whenever it decides to take action? They aren't that delusional.

Regarding the EU and the 2% NATO target, I believe most EU nations have agreed to it, but not by spiking their spending overnight; rather, they are doing it incrementally. There are no specific mandates on how that money must be spent, and the EU isn't foolish enough to dump most of it back into American weaponry. European defense systems work perfectly fine, and if they truly need to ramp up spending, they will prioritize their own domestic manufacturers or invest heavily in their own personnel costs.

nimblepuma69 said:You’re just swallowing whatever the media feeds you in the short term.
The only way they stay afloat is if the far-right takes over, but then we aren't talking about the EU anymore—it becomes a Fourth Reich (and we all know how that ends). Plus, that whole globalist, multi-cultural path was basically a fast track to civil war. Flip it around and Trump actually looks like the best option—with him, there's no shady business or long-term schemes for a massive heist; he just openly tries to demand his protection money.

I honestly don't see how Trump is considered "good" when his whole strategy is basically an open demand for extortion. The man is primitive, and he's driving a wedge right through alliances that were perfectly intact until yesterday. If he keeps acting this way, we're going to end up seeing sanctions and retaliatory tariffs flying back and forth between the EU and the USA, creating a vicious cycle where both sides just keep hitting each other with more and more duties.