Posts by hollowmason64

rustywalker42 said:Proving your innocence through the legal system.

Which law?

That’s just not true. There have to be specific grounds for ending a marriage; the court isn't just going to decide that on its own whim. There has to be a legitimate legal interest for the people involved in the proceedings.

So, what, you actually think there’s some kind of marriage inspector out there checking up on all that?

My favorite people are the ones who refuse to pay that 18% withholding tax—honestly, I feel the same way, but hey, duty calls. Now you've all left yourselves logged in somewhere, who knows where... is this going to be an issue?
I mean, why on earth did you even drag yourself all the way out of Washington, D.C., if you’re just going to live and work here anyway?

That’s not entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (registered residence), but you still have to pay taxes based on where you are officially domiciled.

Got a specific example for that claim?

John Doe:

All I see online is people whining about how "unbearable" this is because they want to see their partner, go for a walk, hit up a lake house, or visit family for Easter... Just pure entitlement and acting spoiled—thinking everything should happen exactly when and how they want it.

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is this much against the Constitution.

That’s a solid strategy right there.
Honestly though, the government is going to need all the revenue they can get, including from people like you who decide to "prove their innocence" only to end up paying the full fine plus costs instead of just settling for two-thirds.

That isn't entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (as your registered residence), but you still pay local taxes based on where you actually reside.

You pay those taxes based on where you work.

Do you have a specific example for that?

Well, do you have an example showing that isn't the case?

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is so blatantly against the Constitution.

That’s probably because you think you know the law just because—how did you put it?—you’ve "read a lot about it." You really don't.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Based on everything I’ve seen from people over the years, when you finally make that trek back to your hometown, nobody actually asks you any questions—you just show up, and that's that. You simply arrive home.

Where we see those absolute hotspots—the areas where things have truly spiraled out of control because either the contact circles among the infected can't be pinpointed or they're just way too massive compared to the general population—there’s absolutely zero movement being made. As it stands right now, we're looking at nothing but total stagnation in places like the Island, Betin, and Kornat Island.

If you’re going to keep digging your heels in on that particular claim, the least you could do is back it up with a concrete example or, better yet, an official statement from someone who actually has the authority to speak on the matter.

Honestly, this says more about you than anyone else. You’ve got an epidemiologist literally telling us that getting some fresh air is healthy and actually helps boost the immune system, yet you’re sitting here acting like you have some divine insight, hysterical over people who are simply following professional guidance. And then, to top it off, you turn around and start lecturing everyone else as if they’re all self-proclaimed experts just because they aren't panicking like you are. If we're being real, you’re far more likely to end up needing a ventilator due to the sheer physical toll of the stress you're inducing in yourself through this constant hysterics, compared to someone who just went for a walk and followed the instructions laid out by the National Headquarters.

If you’re sitting there wondering why they won't just sign some official declaration stating that stepping out for a walk isn't actually a high-risk activity, let me break this down for you. Look, maybe taking a stroll through the park isn't inherently dangerous—hell, maybe a bit of fresh air and movement actually does wonders for your immune system. I’m all for getting outside, really, I am. But that doesn't change the fundamental reality of the situation. It doesn't matter how "safe" the walk itself feels when you consider that tomorrow, you could be standing in the middle of a Walmart aisle and have someone who's carrying a virus sneeze right into your face. That's the part people seem to be glossing over in this whole debate.

Regarding that quoted text, I actually provided the specific source for you—it’s the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to streamline cross-border legal access and ensure the public can actually find information regarding their various initiatives and general European Union policies. It is, quite frankly, a much more relevant and reliable source than that rather bleak interpretation you've pulled from somewhere where the sun never shines.

Exactly, if nobody stops you, you just head home without a hitch. And if you check the American CDC website, they have a perfectly clear explanation of what self-isolation entails and who it applies to.

For the text I quoted, I also provided the source—the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to improve access to cross-border justice and public access to information regarding their initiatives and general European Union policies. It's definitely more relevant than your interpretation pulled from some place where the sun doesn't even shine.

Which one would that be?
The EC covers a lot of ground, but for actual legal practice, there are other institutions for that.
I didn't bother commenting on it earlier because you threw out an answer meant for an inquiry about annulments, yet here we are debating divorce and its legal grounds.
What am I even supposed to say to that? That you have no idea what you're talking about and you're mixing up basic terms? I could use much stronger language, but honestly... goodness forbid I waste my time getting worked up over you. I know the type—thinks they're an expert on everything and understands it all better than the professionals. Why bother with school when they were clearly born smart and finished with nothing more than a high school diploma?
Yeah, just keep thinking whatever you want... seriously.

Edward Fisher86 said:Whether they were negligent or had a valid excuse, the fact remains that the problem needs solving, and as of right now, nobody seems to have a clue how.

If you felt we weren't on the same page, you could have just said so instead of resorting to insults. I have zero interest in your smug little emojis paired with fresh attempts at being offensive. Period. Full stop.

-------
-------------------------------------

Oh, please, they are absolutely gloating, listing off all these examples of how everyone screwed each other over regarding things like tolls, transportation, or even loans... 🙄
Besides renting, there are plenty of ways to suddenly find yourself stuck with the wrong legal residence.

It's easy to throw a fit when you feel justified—fine, give me the fine, but let me fix my paperwork first.
That seems to be the one thing you can't handle right now, especially since you can't even do it online.
Sure, if you listen to that Secretary, he'll tell you it's possible, so why wouldn't you be pissed?

Well, come on, finally enlighten us. After pages and pages of being cryptic, please, let's hear what this perfectly valid reason is for not having your ID sorted out—assuming it’s not just laziness or trying to get ahead somehow.

Joshua Gray75 said:There’s a massive wave of frustration regarding the sheer illogic of the stay-at-home orders—so many citizens are pushing back because they can't even drive to the next town over just to hit a pharmacy (since their own town doesn't have one) or grab gas at a station (because there isn't one in their municipality). They're taking these complaints straight to local officials, who—to be fair—are starting to realize this isn't a sustainable long-term strategy. Of course, you'll notice those local leaders are much more receptive when the Democratic Party or some other opposition group holds the reins...

As far as I can tell, these logical inconsistencies are only really being flagged by two members on this forum.
Maybe a few others too—though they aren't nearly as loud about it—or perhaps they've finally grasped what the vast majority of people here (and elsewhere) are actually talking about.

For some, a massive ego simply won't allow them to admit that they might be wrong—even occasionally.
For others, this forum serves as little more than an outlet for personal frustrations...
Some people just don't want to think.
And then there are those for whom it all simply doesn't matter.

☕

Because if you need fuel for a car you don't actually need to drive—since, as you put it, you can't really go anywhere from that small town—then why is it absolutely essential?
If people are giving ridiculous excuses like that to justify getting a pass, I honestly can't blame the authorities for brushing you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

vividranger8 said:Look, I’m not exactly a huge fan of the crew sitting on the Supreme Court right now—not by a long shot—but clearly, you've got a better handle on this than they do! I mean, seriously, which law is actually in effect here that lets them just shut down the entire country? Especially when we're talking about a situation where the infectious disease is already everywhere... it's not like some tiny little corner of the country is under quarantine to stop it from spreading out, right? It's everywhere!

Not them, but him. Just one. Not a group, just one individual.
The law is called the Infectious Disease Protection Act, and this version has been around for ages. Under Article 47 regarding Security Measures, it lays out very clearly everything the Secretary has the authority to do.
I've explained this before to these self-proclaimed legal experts who basically learned the law on Google, but every once in a while, someone like you pops up, and they're still spinning the same nonsense, so we just end up going in circles again.

Matthew Jackson2 said:You claimed we could count on being forced into isolation, rather than saying one *might* receive an isolation order due to arriving from a high-transmission area. You also completely ignored the question of how anyone is supposed to prove where they started their journey if they are just heading toward their primary residence and don't actually need a permit. You didn't address any of that.

Oh really? And what about those people who are harassing folks who just went for a stroll in accordance with the National Headquarters guidelines, denying them access to a ventilator if they get sick, or hurling insults at them... Is that not hysteria?

Source

Under the American legal framework regarding domestic relations, there isn't a specific concept called "legal separation." An Analogue to "legal separation," based on current statutes, would be the term "termination of the marital community." The Family Law doesn't explicitly list conditions for the "termination of the marital community" because the marital union is considered a legal standard representing the essential substance of a marriage. This termination occurs when spouses sever all mutual ties that characterize a shared life—essentially, if they no longer have the will to live as spouses or share the contents of such a union (for example, by ceasing all communication). In practice, the termination of a marital community most often manifests when one spouse moves out of the shared home and leaves the other behind.

Look, here’s the thing: if a husband and wife are living at different addresses but they’re still communicating regularly, visiting whenever life allows, sharing their extra income—usually because one of them had to move for work—and making all those big, crucial decisions together, then the marriage hasn't actually ended. It's still intact. On the flip side, you have these couples who are fighting tooth and nail but stay under the same roof, acting more like bitter roommates than partners; in that scenario, the marital union has effectively ceased, even if it’s a nightmare to prove in a courtroom. In cases like that, it’s much easier to just argue that the relationship has suffered an irreparable breakdown.

In plain English, your interpretation of the law just doesn't hold water.

What's the difference there? What did I say differently the second time? And where exactly in our country hasn't local transmission been recorded?
How are they going to figure out where you're coming from? Maybe by asking you?

Yeah, but what about the people who were harassing folks for just taking a walk in accordance with the instructions from the National Headquarters, denying them the right to a ventilator if they get sick, or calling them names... Isn't that hysteria?

Nope. In my book, those are just consequences being applied.

In other words, your interpretation of the law doesn't hold water.

Well, at least you think you've interpreted it correctly. Honestly, everyone thinks they're some kind of expert, and then when they hit a wall and mess up big time, they act shocked that things turned out differently because they chose to interpret 😁
differently.

Edward Fisher86 said:… with children.

🤦

The Family Law also dictates that spouses are obligated to be faithful to one another (Article 31).

It’s honestly sad that you’re exhausting the very concept of a "community" just by focusing on a single shared residence, regardless of how long someone is away.

Damn, I’m just now realizing what a ridiculous piece of legislation we have here in the US.

Nobody ever suggested the state would start nullifying anything, nor that they’re monitoring who lives with whom; rather, once you started insisting so stubbornly on "where does it say that," I simply answered your question by pointing out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

If you claim something isn't allowed, then it follows logically that I should ask where exactly that prohibition is written.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; it's just unbelievable to me that people are so angry at those who were simply careless regarding how they handle their registered addresses....

Fine, tax evasion, sloppiness... maybe by the end of this madness, you'll finally hit the mark.

Yeah, you guys are moralizing and enjoying yourselves.

Look, for private individuals, anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed. On the flip side, there's another law that requires you to report a new residence if you've moved.

Honestly, nobody is actually profiting here, but unless someone is a tenant whose landlord refused to register them—making it impossible—there's no excuse for not updating an address other than laziness or looking out for one's own interests.
Anyway, people like that shouldn't be taking their frustrations out on others just because they're in a bind themselves.
And the local government is what it is; I didn't write the rules. 😁

Matthew Jackson2 said:On what grounds are we even debating this? Božinović himself explicitly stated that returning to your primary residence isn't up for debate and won't be subject to restrictions. The only real catch is if you happen to be stuck in an area currently under quarantine—which, at this moment, only applies to Murter and Betin. If you're there, you're effectively grounded. Other than that, returning home is permitted, except in the specific case of... Family reunions... man, where do you even begin with that? It’s one of those things people talk about like it’s this beautiful, Hallmark-movie moment of pure connection, but if you actually live it, it can be an absolute minefield of old grievances and awkward silences. You spend all this time thinking you’ve moved past the drama of your youth, only to find yourself sitting across a dinner table from an uncle who still treats you like you’re ten years old, or a cousin who hasn't stopped talking about their crypto portfolio since the Obama administration. It’s funny, really. We spend our whole lives trying to carve out our own identities, trying to distance ourselves from the chaos we grew up in, and then suddenly, some holiday or milestone rolls around and you’re right back in the thick of it. It’s like being pulled back into a gravity well you thought you’d escaped. I remember once, back when I was living in Chicago, my entire extended family decided to descend upon my tiny apartment for what was supposed to be a "simple" gathering. I had three different aunts trying to give me life advice I didn't ask for, while my brother was busy arguing with my father about politics—which, let's be honest, is a recipe for disaster in this country. There's a certain weight to it, isn't there? This obligation to bridge the gaps that time and distance have created. You want to connect, you truly do, but you also realize that some bridges were burned for a very good reason. It’s a delicate balancing act between honoring where you came from and protecting who you’ve become. Sometimes it works, and you feel that warmth, that genuine sense of belonging. Other times, you’re just counting the minutes until you can retreat to your own space and breathe again. It’s complicated, messy, and entirely human. So, look, here’s the deal regarding the current situation: if you happen to find yourself stuck outside the quarantine zone, even though your actual residence is inside that perimeter and your family is waiting for you back home, you actually have the legal right to return. It’s pretty straightforward when you break it down, really.

Quote : dark Fat

It seems to me that a vast number of people possess an inherent predisposition toward either heightened or diminished mental health struggles. Under normal circumstances—without some sort of massive, external catastrophe forcing our hand—these tendencies would likely remain entirely undetected; there simply wouldn't be any real opportunity or necessity for such predispositions to ever be clinically diagnosed.

When you implement these kinds of restrictions—where basic human interaction is stripped down to almost nothing—you aren't just isolating people; you're essentially creating a perfect storm for mental health crises. It’s a vicious cycle. These measures act as a constant trigger for psychological distress, yet at the exact same moment, they make it nearly impossible to catch those issues before they spiral out of control. Because we've lost that regular, day-to-day contact with one another, those subtle, early warning signs that someone is struggling simply go unnoticed. We're losing the ability to perform timely diagnoses because the very social fabric needed to spot the symptoms has been torn apart by the isolation itself.

Of course, we aren't just talking about depression or the risk of suicide here. That’s only one part of the equation. There are so many other issues surfacing that are becoming increasingly frequent. You really only have to take a quick look at the comment sections on Facebook or dive into some of the online forums to see the sheer amount of hysteria and those various symptoms of psychological instability popping up everywhere. It’s constant. Honestly, the only real distinction is that people dealing with these other types of disorders aren't necessarily facing an immediate threat to their lives, unlike the more acute cases.

🙏

Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

Gerald Kern77 said:Could you please cite the specific regulation stating that a community ceases to exist after a year of separation?

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

Edward Fisher86 said:hollowmason64, what exactly are you talking about here, the definition of marriage?

Are you suggesting the government should be auditing residency applications just to annul marriages😁?

There is absolutely no prohibition on people in that sense, and you can't drag this out like some endless debate; the state can't just file a request to terminate a marriage, so writing what you're writing is completely pointless.

Just cool off and stop seeing enemies of the state lurking around every corner. Honestly... it is completely beneath my dignity to sit here and explain why I am in my current situation when idiots clearly can't grasp very simple rules in this context.
Go ahead and imagine how much I've clashed with the government; think whatever you want, because you aren't seeing any reason beyond tax hikes and other nonsense.

It’s great to see how much you all enjoy relishing in other people's problems while simultaneously not caring at all about, say, the neighbor next door who spends his days socializing with everyone under the sun; as long as you're busy worrying about who got hit by an unpaid tax bill, that's apparently your top priority.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

nimblescout50 said:So, it looks like the pass effectively dictates who's contagious, and then the contagion dictates the pass,
it’s a bit of a loop—if you don't have it, you're considered a risk.
Instead of actually looking at whether someone is physically capable of self-isolating in their own space.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

Nicholas King said:I have no idea what it even means to be unstable "by default," but this theory that only those who were already completely broken decide to end it themselves is—well, it's total bullshit.

Ultimately, what is the actual difference between your attitude of "let them die, they're screwed anyway" and Pernarov's stance of "let them die from the coronavirus, they're old anyway"?

Your current perspective is like that old joke: "When Joe suffers, everyone suffers; when Joe drinks, everyone drinks; when Joe pays, everyone pays." At the very core of your vision lies fear. A frightened person loses all sense of objectivity.

Nah, it’s not really about fear. I wouldn't call myself a fearful person by nature—though, obviously, I’m definitely not indifferent to what's going on.
It all comes down to how much harder everything has become lately. Honestly, just trying to live and work under these conditions is exhausting. I find myself constantly wishing this whole thing would just wrap up already. Your entire existence starts feeling like a repetitive cycle of washing and disinfecting yourself and everything you touch, which is just draining when you're actually trying to get things done. You end up spending half your energy just managing that, or just standing around outside the store waiting for a break, or trying to make sense of your day off. It’s a lot.
If we actually want this whole thing to wrap up sooner, there's one simple thing a certain number of people could do: just stay home. That’s it. No need to head out to the front lines, no need to pick up a rifle, and definitely no need to go out there risking your neck. Honestly, nothing dramatic is required—just staying put at home would make all the difference.
Look, I get it. In actual war zones, when things are falling apart and people are under fire, split-second decisions happen—people shoot because they have to survive. But if someone starts opening fire just because they want to go for a stroll, hang out with their buddies at a pub, or grab some food? Honestly, that’s a different story. As far as I'm concerned, you're either completely mentally unstable or just a spoiled brat.
I really need to be home right now... honestly, life just keeps throwing these little dramas my way.

Chris Kim13 said:Around here, we just call it "making it work."

That’s pretty much how it goes. Everyone who managed to "scrape by" or pull some fast one just points the finger at someone else when things inevitably blow up in their faces. It’s the same old story. It reminds me of that department head back in the day—she was constantly cutting corners with housing paperwork and address filings, playing fast and loose with the rules, but the second she got caught in the mess, she acted like it was everyone else's fault but hers. People just love to dodge accountability.
That's just the mindset for you.

Edward Fisher86 said:No. Give me the link regarding the ban on spouses maintaining separate residences.

What kind of bank cards would you actually need to change just because you moved addresses?

Look, there isn’t an actual ban on anything here, but there is a legal definition for what constitutes a marriage. Under the law, marriage is— community.
Strictly speaking, if you have two people living at two different addresses, they aren't considered a household or a single unit.
Actually, if you look at how most people see it, once partners stop living under the same roof for more than a year, that’s usually the line where the relationship is considered over. It's like the community itself has effectively dissolved at that point.

Elizabeth Barrett6 said:Anyone else out there living this exact same way—living outside of Washington, D.C., but working and basically doing life in the city? I’ve got my work pass to get in, but I don't have an active residency registration in D.C. right now. I used to have it for tax purposes, but that expired.

Right now I'm hanging out at my permanent residence, but there's a good chance I'll have to head into the office next week. Am I gonna run into trouble since I don't have an active D.C. address on file?

Honestly, my favorite type of people are the ones who try to dodge that 18% withholding tax—believe me, I’d love to skip it too, but duty calls—and then they just stay registered somewhere else entirely and wonder, "Wait, is this going to be an issue?"
I mean, what on earth possessed you to move your registration out of Washington, D.C. if you actually live and work right here?

Nicholas King said:It isn’t just about "some" people—it's much broader than that. Honestly, if they push these excessive measures and act with this kind of misplaced intensity, it’s going to screw over way more than just a few individuals. I mean, we're talking about systemic fallout here, not just isolated incidents.

Aside from everything else, people are just going to be staying home and drinking themselves into oblivion—and honestly, that’s inevitably going to drive up the death toll. But, since those folks won't exactly show up in the official COVID-19 statistics, I guess it doesn't really matter to the bureaucrats.

Look, let’s be clear about this—these measures were implemented with the sole intention of preventing the spread of the infection as much as humanly possible; they weren't put in place just to mess with anyone or play games.

The Chinese are welding people's front doors shut under the guise of "maximum infection prevention." And you're actually standing behind that? Seriously?

When exactly is this all going to wrap up? I mean, honestly—when are we actually going to see those numbers for new cases drop for several days in a row?

Are you kidding me? Seriously?

Let's say, hypothetically, we see twenty new infections over the course of a week. What then—really? What’s the actual move at that point? Do you just flip a switch and allow people to start moving around and socializing again? Do you greenlight the return to classrooms? Or maybe you get the football league back on the schedule? I mean, I guess there has to be some kind of logic here, but I'm honestly not seeing the roadmap.

Seriously, stop giving me this drama about mental health just because people have to stay home for a couple of weeks. It’s not like they can’t go to the grocery store, the pharmacy, or wherever else they need to go—they just shouldn't be out wandering around unnecessarily.
Honestly, some people are just too sensitive.
Look, if we follow that logic—if it’s okay for people to lose it and ignore the rules because their "mental pressure is too high"—then is it okay for me to snap because I have to work wrapped in PPE and disinfect myself constantly? Is it okay if I smack someone over the head if they walk up to me at my job?
I’m reaching my limit here, I really am. Or should I expect a cashier to tell me to get lost whenever I ask a question?
Because actions have consequences.
If you guys are struggling on the inside, it isn't any easier for us out here, and we might just "snap" too.

Chinese people welded shut apartment building doors in order to "maximally prevent infection." Are you actually supporting that?

If things in this country get to the point where people are literally dropping dead in the streets, and idiots are still wandering around ignoring the mandates, then yeah. Honestly, sometimes you have to protect the fools from themselves.

Say there are twenty new cases in a week. Then what? Do you allow movement and social contact again? Do you bring schools back online? Reopen the professional sports leagues?

No, you’d first lift these movement restrictions, and then we'll see... whatever happens in the following days.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Quote : dark Fat

Do you actually have the right to forcibly rip someone's kidney out just because it might save somebody else's life? No, you don't. It’s that simple. We need to stop acting like certain lives carry more weight than others when it comes to basic autonomy. Mental health is just as vital as physical health, plain and simple, and you don't have the right to jeopardize anyone's psychological well-being in the name of some perceived greater good. Everyone deserves to feel secure in their own skin without the fear of being violated for someone else's benefit.

The measures being implemented aren't actually designed to stop the spread of the virus at any cost; instead, it feels like they're just hunting for some sort of precarious balance—trying to keep the number of new infections under control while minimizing the fallout on the rest of us. If the real goal were truly to prevent the infection from spreading as much as possible, then nobody would be allowed to even peek their nose out of the front door. We’d all be stuck inside, and the only people moving around would be the essential workers in full hazmat gear delivering groceries or rushing patients to the hospital, along with the medical staff themselves. That’s how you actually stop a virus, but that isn't what's happening here.

Since everyone is constantly obsessing over finding that perfect balance with these restrictions, I really think we need to start talking about mental health as a serious factor in the equation. It’s being completely sidelined. In America, we see anywhere from 600 to 800 suicides every single year—and honestly, those numbers tend to climb even higher whenever we hit these crisis years. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Are their lives somehow less valuable than the people who will succumb to the coronavirus? It feels like we're ignoring a massive tragedy in the name of addressing another one.

Quote : dark Fat

There is absolutely no penalty for that specific violation. According to the Constitution:

Even if we were facing an immediate threat to the very survival of this nation, there is absolutely no scenario where we could just suspend the protections laid out in the Constitution regarding the right to life, or the absolute prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The concept of legal certainty regarding punishable offenses and their corresponding penalties—it’s one of those foundational pillars that sounds simple on paper but becomes an absolute labyrinth once you actually start digging into the mechanics of the American justice system. We talk about "due process" like it’s this sacred, untoucheling thing, but when you look at how laws are drafted and how punishments are handed down, there's a massive, gaping chasm between the theory of the law and the messy reality of how it hits a regular person on the street. In a perfect world, governed by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, you should be able to look at a statute and know exactly where the line is drawn. You shouldn't have to guess if your actions fall under a specific criminal code or what kind of sentence you might face if things go south. There ought to be a direct, unbreakable link between the act and the penalty. But we don't live in that world, do we? Instead, we live in a landscape of vague language, shifting judicial interpretations, and legislative overreach that feels more like moving goalposts than actual rule of law. I remember sitting in a small coffee shop back in Indianapolis, listening to a local attorney explain how certain federal guidelines could be stretched to cover almost anything if the prosecutor was feeling particularly aggressive that day. It hit me then: legal certainty isn't just a legal doctrine; it's a shield for the citizen against the overwhelming power of the state. When the definition of a crime is fuzzy, or when the punishment doesn't clearly match the offense, that shield starts to crack. If the government can redefine the rules while you're already playing the game, then we aren't really talking about liberty anymore—we're talking about arbitrary power. It’s infuriating, honestly. You see these massive shifts in how crimes are categorized, often driven by political whims rather than any coherent legal philosophy, and suddenly the "certainty" we were promised evaporates. It leaves people vulnerable to inconsistent sentencing and unpredictable enforcement. We need a system where the law is a steady anchor, not a drifting buoy caught in the tide of whoever happens to be holding the gavel this week. Without clear definitions and predictable consequences, the very idea of justice becomes little more than a suggestion....and then there's that whole business regarding the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

Look, here’s the reality of the situation: if a specific act isn't explicitly defined by law, or if the penalty for that act hasn't been clearly established, then you simply cannot be held accountable—not even in a scenario where there is an immediate, existential threat to the survival of the nation. It sounds extreme, I know, and I can already hear the shouting, but that is how the principle works. In plain English, everything must be laid out with absolute precision: you have to know exactly what is prohibited, under what specific circumstances, on what legal grounds, and exactly what the sanctions will be. Without that level of clarity, the entire framework of justice falls apart, regardless of how dire the crisis might be.

Look, you can only actually get slapped with a fine if you outright refuse to follow a direct order from an officer on the scene—like, if a cop tells you to pull over or turn around and you just decide to keep driving like they don't exist, then you're in real trouble. But there's a massive distinction here that people seem to miss. If you happen to cruise right past a checkpoint when nobody is actively monitoring the area, and then later on, someone tries to claim you committed some sort of minor infraction, they can't really touch you with a citation. At most, the best they can do is tell you that you need to head back to your home address. It’s a matter of timing and whether or not you were actively defying authority in the moment.

The same logic applies when we talk about restrictions on loitering in public spaces—even if there’s a fine written into the books, that doesn't mean staying put is outright illegal; it just means it's restricted. If they want to actually slap you with a penalty, the law has to be crystal clear about exactly what those limitations are. You can't exactly break an unwritten rule or some vague, unspoken restriction. At the end of the day, a police officer can tell you to move along, but they can't penalize you for breaking a rule that isn't explicitly defined.

Ugh, what a brilliantly reasoned response. I’m honestly at a loss trying to counter such airtight logic.

If I’m not mistaken, a simple ID card should be more than enough to prove you're heading toward your own home.

What you're talking about regarding suicides—those involve people who are inherently mentally unstable, and those types of individuals should be under supervision regardless of whether it's due to the coronavirus or not.

If I recall correctly, an ID card showing your residence should be enough to prove where you belong.

Not necessarily. If you show up outside of your area without authorization and get caught, you can count on being ordered into self-isolation.

Thomas Hernandez4 said:I have no idea how your comment relates to this thread or what I actually posted.
If you want to talk about massive, global issues, go find a thread that covers them.
I'm well aware of other struggles; this is specifically mine.

I'm just pointing out the sheer lack of logic from those officials at the Department of Justice who claim you can update your residency through the online portal, when clearly, it’s currently impossible to do so at all.

What do you mean "how can there be none"? This person is just trying to let you know you aren't alone in this. Take me, for example—I have a permit and I could easily go visit my family, whom I see every year for Easter, but it hasn't even crossed my mind. There are three elderly people and one younger person with a heart condition living there. It doesn't occur to me to risk putting them in danger just so I can visit. I wouldn't be able to show my face at the local bakery if I had to live with the fact that I might have accidentally brought an infection to them, God forbid.
I just don't think some people truly get it.
And it isn't the system's fault, nor is it yours or anyone else's for not updating addresses sooner—I suppose waiting until the last minute to handle paperwork is a job for fools.

Amanda Richardson7 said:Just dissected your post, sorry...

What fine specifically? For leaving your primary residence? 🤔
How much is the penalty for an infraction like that?

Not trying to be provocative, I'm genuinely asking what the fine formulation would look like and on what grounds it would even be issued.

Well, they don't really fine you for that; they just won't let you back in. What would they even penalize you for? Unless you start making a scene or causing trouble—but then you’ll probably just end up at the police station anyway.
I took the question more broadly—like, what happens when you get hit with a fine related to an infraction involving the safety measures? For instance, I assume when they raided those cafes that were still operating, they likely made a list of the staff and everyone inside drinking, and now they're all going to get fined.

Nicholas King said:Someone who is right on the edge of breaking isn't going to walk away from that state by listening to someone else's even worse experiences or getting lectured about being "spoiled."

I think I mentioned this somewhere earlier today: any measure that seriously wrecks a huge number of people psychologically does more total harm than good. If—or when—people finally lose their minds and end up committing suicide or hurting someone else, then what? What's the solution then?

BTW, how exactly do you envision "ending this evil"? Are you imagining a day (relatively soon, before the economy completely collapses) where there just won't be any new infections anymore?

So, just because some people are struggling mentally, what are we supposed to do? Tailor every single regulation to every individual person?
These measures were put in place to stop the spread of the virus as much as possible, not to mess with anyone for fun.

When will it end? When we see a decrease in new cases for several days in a row.

Bryan Taylor6 said:It's starting...

I expect other cities to follow suit.

Places 31 miles basically revolve around major cities, forming one social and economic unit. Movement shouldn't be restricted, especially since tens of thousands of people have already been commuting with passes anyway... there's no more significant way to stop the spread.

Started what? You might want to check the news—there haven't been any new infections in Istria over the last two days. And keep in mind, that decision isn't even at the local level; it's coming from the national government.

hollowviper said:What would you guys do if they actually hit you with a fine?

I don't see many options besides paying it. You could go to court and try your luck seeing if some judge takes pity on you, but the odds are slim. Most likely, you'll just end up paying the full amount plus legal fees.

driftingfox6 said:Then you have some individual or even the government just cutting you off from your partner indefinitely. And then they act surprised when young people don't want to start families here, especially when so many people lack any sense of financial security. You never know when you might find yourself unemployed.

I’m currently stuck away from my own home—just a ten-minute drive away—because this law won't let me pass through.

I just don't get why all those highly successful expats suddenly decided to move back home. Was it maybe because they got kicked into high gear by all that supposed "financial stability" abroad?

Matthew Jackson2 said:You’re drawing the wrong conclusion here. These measures aren't actually designed to stop the epidemic in its tracks—that's not the goal—but rather to slow the momentum just enough so our healthcare system doesn't buckle under the pressure. See, if everyone starts moving around more, the duration might be shorter, sure, but you run the massive risk of overwhelming our hospitals to the point where the whole system collapses into something with a much higher mortality rate.

That logic is completely flawed.

Nicholas King said:It’s perfectly clear to me that someone working under the conditions you’re describing is going to be pissed off at everything, but that still doesn't give them any right to label everyone who thinks these measures are excessive or unenforceable as "those people who find it so hard and miserable at home."

We are talking about a banal fact—one that isn't exactly obvious if you're looking at it from a Washington, D.C. perspective—that people traveling for completely legitimate business reasons, or even totally valid personal ones, end up crossing through three or more different counties just to cover ten or fifteen miles. So, it’s not because they’re bored, and it’s certainly not because they’re trying to dodge a wife waiting for them at home; it’s due to legitimate life circumstances. There are very few idiots out there who would mess around under these conditions, and those folks can be dealt with separately.

Even if the police were standing on every corner ready to shoot anyone who stepped out of their front door, your specific working conditions wouldn't change. Therefore, I fail to see what connection your (admittedly unenviable) situation has to whether or not movement should be restricted.

Equally, I don't understand what connection someone's survival struggles from the nineties have to the legitimacy of today's restrictions—though a few people have used that exact logic to argue that today's bans are total nonsense.

Because in my mind, I connect the idea that the more people move around, the more they socialize and meet, which naturally extends our ability to tackle this evil.
I agree that this is brutal for people living in tight-knit small towns, and they really ought to find some kind of solution, like a weekly pass to handle necessary errands.

I also don't understand how someone's life or wartime struggles from back in '91 have any bearing on whether today's restrictions are justified—a few people have used that exact logic to claim today's bans are total nonsense.

People were explaining that to those who kept insisting this was unbearable and that people would eventually snap. But it isn't true that it's unbearable; it was just an example of how much people can endure when they absolutely have to. It's all mental. And clearly, we've become quite unreasonable in the process.

Amanda Hughes37 said:That's just your take. My neighbor works at Bipa; she had two grueling weeks of work and can barely wait to get back after her week of vacation. She's miserable sitting at home—and it's not like she's just slacking off at Bipa without any customer contact.

In reality, when she's working, her life is identical to how it was before, except her kid is home—but her dad is there too, so no worries there.
The last thing she wants is to skip work.
And she pities everyone who gets to stay home.🤣

Well, everyone has their own perspective. For what it's worth, I haven't left the house all week and I'm happy about it, though I am dreading having to go to the store next week.

Grace Ramos said:Is anyone actually home alone without someone else to grab groceries or meds for them? (Look, I think most of these people are just irresponsible morons, but take me as an example: if I went to my residence and got slapped with a 14-day isolation, I’d have two choices—pay the fines or starve, because I live alone and wouldn't have food.)

The real culprits are the ones who let skiers, doctors, and everyone else bring the infection in from abroad.

My wife was at home with our little one, who was dealing with a nasty case of appendicitis. He was doubling over in pain, just absolutely miserable. We tried calling emergency services, but they were being incredibly difficult about coming out. She actually had to get creative and find a workaround just to make sure he could get to the hospital without her breaking her own self-isolation protocols. It was a stressful situation, but we managed to get him the care he needed.
If someone really wants an excuse, they’ll always find one.

The real culprits here? It’s the people who let skiers, doctors, and all those other groups just wander in and bring the infection back with them from out of state.

Exactly. It’s just like those same idiots who brought the virus home because they couldn't be bothered to actually follow self-isolation protocols, even though they knew exactly where they had been.

Joshua Gray75 said:Božinović mentioned something later about how they are "monitoring the situation on the ground" and are aware of the issue regarding "multiple municipalities—meaning, finding a way to link several areas together"... he didn't say it word for word, obviously, but that was the gist of it. Perhaps there is still a chance they will show some flexibility so that movement isn't strictly confined to just one municipality at a time...

So, there you have it. Let's try to stay optimistic! 😉👍

And a quick note to the handful of people living in Washington, D.C. who don't see anything wrong with these restrictions—I’d suggest you pack your bags and move to North Korea. It sounds like your kind of paradise.
(And yes, hollowmason64, that goes for you too...)

Yeah, I know—I’ll probably get a warning for this. Or maybe even a ban for a few days... Not that it matters much, I spend far too much time on here anyway... 😁

It’s really not that big of a deal. Honestly, looking at how much everyone is struggling, I’d be happy to send all of you over to work the jobs I have to deal with. You know, those roles where you actually have to interact with people face-to-face, where you're constantly wrapped up in gear, and where you're basically forced to wash your hands in alcohol just to make sure you don't accidentally pass a virus onto a water bottle because you forgot you were wearing gloves. It's definitely an experience.
Just wanted to share this so you guys can see how awesome it actually is.

Bryan Taylor6 said:The government pays your salary, you have passes to walk around, and yet you're lecturing us about how staying home for a few weeks isn't a big deal.😁

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes either.

No, I'm not on the government payroll; my paycheck comes from a private employer. They're international, if you're curious. I actually carry a work permit because of it, too.
I’d honestly give you everything I have, including my salary—and trust me, it’s not a bad paycheck. Think of it like having an all-access pass with zero limits; you could basically travel all across the country, from coast to coast, and just feast your way through every single state.😁Honestly, if it were an option, I’d take that deal in a heartbeat—I'd gladly step in and sit at home for you instead. I’d just live off your income and stick to shopping at the local grocery stores. I'm not being dramatic or trying to sell you some sob story here; I genuinely mean it.
I’m actually home right now because it's finally my turn for vacation. And honestly, believe it or not, I haven't even stepped foot outside the house once since I got back this week. Just the thought of it makes me feel a bit nauseous—knowing that my turn comes up again in just two weeks and I'll have to go right back to wearing masks and gloves.
I posted here about a week ago—honestly, it feels like you guys don't have the slightest clue what it's actually like trying to work under these circumstances, especially when most of your job involves being face-to-face with people. You're constantly stuck wondering if you're going to catch something. But for you all, sitting at home sounds like the real struggle. Poor things.

Nicholas King said:What is the actual purpose behind this measure? What are we even doing here?

The only supposed justification for this ban was to prevent a mass exodus from Washington, D.C., particularly following the earthquake. And honestly, one could argue about that reasoning for quite some time.

But, I think a much better approach would have been—instead of all this massive administrative bloat and wasted manpower trying to regulate things that simply can't be regulated (or will just sort themselves out anyway)—to focus strictly on monitoring those actually in self-isolation.

From the very limited experience I have, this "monitoring" usually consists of nothing more than a single, one-off police check. I’m not saying there aren't outliers, of course, but this kind of superficial "check" shouldn't even be happening, let alone being treated as a standard procedure.

It is a fundamentally excessive measure that does more harm than good. In these kinds of prolonged, psychologically taxing situations, you really have to be careful not to push people too far. This specific policy has succeeded only in driving a huge number of people absolutely crazy.

It’s because we’ve turned into such spoiled, comfortable pieces of crap. We’ve reached this point where we feel entitled to have every single variety of everything right at our fingertips, like everything in life just needs to be instantly available whenever we want it.
Yesterday, a friend of mine from Canada was telling me that things feel even worse right now than they did during the war—back when everything around her was exploding and gunfire was going off, and she honestly couldn't tell who was on her side or if people were still alive or dead.
I ended up just sending her packing, straight to hell.

rustywalker42 said:And what if they just limited things at the county level instead?

Think about it. You end up needing X number of checkpoints for every single municipality—if it’s a major city, you're easily looking at 10. For the smaller towns, you still need at least 2.

Now multiply all that by every municipality in one state and tell me: wouldn't it have been way easier just to lock down the whole state if that was even the goal?

It’s a perfectly reasonable solution for anyone actually thinking straight. But let's be clear—it isn't the sensible people causing the headache, nor are these measures being implemented because of them. It’s all because of those idiots who thought they could just hop over from Split to Solin for a quick coffee or vice versa using fake passes. That kind of behavior is exactly why we're stuck dealing with these new permit requirements in the first place.
Look, here’s the deal regarding that pass for property maintenance. It’s become a matter of survival at this point, honestly. I don't think anyone's going to be able to catch a break or have any peace of mind for at least another month or two.
It always seems like the level-headed people are the ones getting screwed over because of everyone else. Honestly, it’s the exact same story here.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, I'll be blunt, but that whole line of reasoning—where some morons are driving 75 miles mph when the limit is 31 miles mph, so the solution is just to drop the speed limit to 19 miles mph—has never actually worked in the history of logic.

Nah, they actually solved that by putting way more cops on the road. Now, even if you’re cruising at 40 or 45, you have to drop down to 30 just because some idiot is doing 75, otherwise you'll end up getting pulled over too.

Susan Barrett2 said:Then there's me—part of that tiny minority. I'd actually love spending 24/7 with my partner, but instead, we're separated by a 20-minute drive and a county line. With the travel restrictions in place, we're basically stuck in a long-distance relationship now. We can handle a few weeks, maybe a month... but the real question is, how much longer is this going to last? Nobody has a clue.

I was thinking more about people who actually live in the same community.
As for how long this lasts... personally, I wouldn't expect anything to wrap up before late May.

nimbleharbor10 said: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.

Fair enough, but what do you think would be a better solution?

Bryan Taylor6 said:The fact is, he's being funded by union membership fees...

Why exactly did the government hand him that cash? Only the administration knows...

Why isn't there a minimum... $1667 And that's just something only the government knows...

Why are we even funding useless municipalities? It’s all the same... the federal government already knows everything anyway. And honestly, what's the point of them existing at all?

The government says there’s no money... then William turns around and tells us to just go out and take out some loans...

That’s been happening the whole time. What's the issue?...

The government claims they have tons of love in their second column... personally, I can't see a thing...

The government says they won't touch the salaries of media workers, police, firefighters, or the military... So who exactly are they planning to target?

Instead of stepping up to save the workers, the government is busy bailing out the business owners. It’s a shame they couldn't save Todorić... just another example of protecting big business over people for years and years...

As soon as he starts spending government money, he’s essentially being funded by the federal budget.

instead of the state actually helping workers...

The government *is* helping workers through those measures they give to employers. I mean, if those weren't in place, how many people do you think would have ended up on unemployment by now?

Grace Edwards said:From the article:

To ensure greater citizen safety during the coronavirus epidemic, FEMA – the FEMA Regional Office Osijek, has implemented a centralized aerial surveillance system using drones to monitor compliance with National Emergency Management Center measures in the fight against COVID-19.

That’s how every single dictatorship justifies itself.
It’s honestly sad how most people just swallow stories like "it's for their own good."
How far would people actually go with these ridiculous slogans? Like, "neutralizing national security violators with specially equipped drones—all for the greater safety of our citizens"—I guess people would probably buy that too.

I really wonder whose "good" it actually is, considering there were over a thousand idiots who were supposed to be in isolation but decided to go for a little stroll instead. Some of them even headed out to the pharmacy.
I find it hard to believe you guys aren't angry at people like that. They are the ones truly responsible for these kinds of restrictions.
Just like the group from Washington, D.C. who headed down to the coast and brought the virus right to us.

Steven Ramos5 said:Maybe it’s also because the weather is finally turning around—spring is hitting, everything's getting warmer and nicer... and they expect you to just stay cooped up inside? 😵...And if you have little kids, how the hell are you supposed to deal with that? 🤷

Oh, please... people go through so much in life, yet suddenly staying inside for a couple of weeks is too much to ask?
To me, it seems like the biggest issue is that most people can't stand being stuck with their partner 24/7. Everyone always complains about not having enough time for family or kids, but now that everyone is together, all they do is moan about how to escape one another.

rustywalker42 said:The Dunning-Kruger effect is hitting you hard. Honestly, don't even bother, you'll just embarrass yourself again, just like you did with your residency status.

Of course I've read it. Of course I know. Here's a general take on the coronavirus: a few days ago, I was saying exactly what that judge said.

If you had actually read the Communicable Disease Act—which I'm pretty sure you didn't even know existed, much like most people—you'd realize that the security measures allowed by law include restricting movement.

Well, you're being incredibly arrogant by guessing, so let me disappoint you: I know that law inside and out.

So, just because a handful of you know the Constitution exists and have skimmed three articles, it doesn't mean movement restrictions during an epidemic are unconstitutional.

🙏

The arrogance is unreal. You don't know a single thing about me, so keep your comments to yourself.

I know the Constitution and the laws better than you do—that's a guarantee—because I've seen the mountain of nonsense you've posted on this forum. I just never felt like getting into pointless debates because people like you aren't worth the effort.

Everything has its pros and cons. There wasn't an earthquake way out there. So what?

And what about the earthquake? Are you suddenly handicapped now? All I feel sorry for is that little girl who died. As for the rest of you using an earthquake as an excuse for everything, I won't even dignify it with a comment. You're just that loud minority with that typical NYC attitude. Luckily, there aren't many of you.

Of course. 👍

Bryan Taylor6 said:Clearly, you just don't get it.

William gets his funding from union dues, and joining is entirely voluntary.

And he made a good point—should we be using taxpayer money to bail out capitalists?

When things are going great, the capitalists rake it in. But the second they hit a snag, they want a government handout. Why doesn't the state help the workers instead? Why is the minimum wage $1083?

Because that’s exactly what suits the capitalists.

It's simple: divide the working class, and you can rule them...

He gets it, just like you do and just like the rest of us. It’s just that some people find it more convenient to play dumb—kind of like how you're acting right now.
If the private sector and those capitalists—as you like to call them—stopped paying their taxes into the federal treasury, the government wouldn't have a damn clue what to do with itself. Honestly, they’d probably be lucky if they even managed to collect the small membership fees that people pay to William Ribic.

And why is the minimum wage for workers set at $3,250? It’s because those are people working in the private sector. If we were talking about those leeches living off the government teat, there's no way they'd ever see anything like that happen by accident.
It’s not really the capitalists you should be pointing fingers at. In my book, the real issue lies with people like William Ribic and those other union leaders. They seem more interested in protecting the folks wearing government badges than anything else. It feels like their priority is always to look out for the bureaucrats first, while leaving the actual workers in the private sector to fight over whatever scraps are left behind.

Bryan Taylor6 said:Even the church gets a pass, so nobody sees an issue with it, year after year... meanwhile, churches abroad pay taxes while ours don't.

First, you spend that whole previous post acting like you're some kind of genius, condescendingly explaining to another member how they just "don't get" where the union and Ribic actually get their money. You were so sure of yourself, insisting they aren't funded by the taxpayers. But then, the moment someone presents proof that Ribic and those other agitators are indeed drawing from the public treasury—either directly or through those indirect loopholes—you suddenly play dumb. It’s funny how quickly you pivot to that tired old excuse: "Well, everyone else is doing it too."
Man, I tell you... 🤣

And yeah, speaking of the church and people pushing Love Immersion—they’re basically two sides of the same coin when it comes to being pushy. If anyone actually wants to get involved with that stuff, they should just pay for it out of their own pocket.

rustywalker42 said:God, I love arrogant people like you. You were the one who brought up temporary residence, not me.

Just so we're clear, this is what you wrote, just to remind you:

You have up to three months to report a temporary residence.

And now you're accusing *me* of not knowing the difference between a domicile and a temporary residence? Shame on you.

Once again—that's just one judge's opinion, not the official ruling of the Supreme Court.
And once again, your problem is you don't understand the difference between a dissenting opinion and an actual Supreme Court ruling that carries legal weight—or lack thereof.

Did I say it was a Supreme Court ruling? No. But I read up on it, and from what I see, there is absolutely zero legal basis for what's happening here.

You don't even live in Italy, because if you did, you wouldn't be singing the same song. What kind of argument is that?

Brilliant argument. You live in a major city like Chicago and actually have no clue what life is like for people in some tiny rural township out in the middle of nowhere that you couldn't even find on a map.

So, maybe come down to earth for a second.

You're right, that's on me. I slipped up by getting the residency details wrong. The whole conversation really kicked off because of that one girl who hadn't updated her address in five years—she was just waiting until after the wedding to make it official.

Did I say that was a ruling from the Supreme Court? No, I didn't. But I’ve been digging through all the info on this, reading up on everything related to the situation, and honestly, from what I can see, there just isn't any legal basis whatsoever for what's happening right now.

You're claiming that restricting movement is unconstitutional, and you're leaning on Judge Abramović's opinion to back it up. Honestly, that doesn't really prove your point.
It’s just like when you claim you’ve read "everything on the subject." You really haven't. If you had actually sat down and looked through the Communicable Disease Act—which I’m pretty certain you didn't even know existed, much like most people out there—you would have realized that restricting movement is one of the security measures explicitly permitted under the law.
Look, just because a few of you have actually picked up the Constitution and skimmed through a couple of articles doesn't mean that movement restrictions during an epidemic are unconstitutional.

That’s a pretty solid point. You’re living in Washington, D.C., and honestly, you probably don't have a clue what life is actually like for people out in those small towns somewhere in the Midwest—places you couldn't even find on a map if you tried.

So, maybe it's time to bring things back down to earth for a second.

Everything has its pros and cons. Somewhere far away, there wasn't an earthquake either. So, what now?

Casey Palmer5 said:If anyone has actually gone through the process of leaving the US, could you please write down the procedure for American citizens? Whether you were a baker or a healthcare worker—just based on what you've seen. Especially for Americans holding UK documents. We’d just head out automatically...

We have all our paperwork ready for the SIM card licenses, we have our residency permits (those fools actually moved back to the States), and our licenses are still valid. They keep reaching out to us via email...

I heard that some days, people traveling from Canada were actually sending guys back who had already started their trek toward Germany.

Nicholas King said:What part of it isn't clear?

Haven't studies shown that people aren't just leaving solely because of the money—it might not even be the primary driver?

The real issue here, if you ask me, is a government that basically rolls out the red carpet for people to live, work, and pay their taxes abroad while still taking advantage of our domestic healthcare system. That kind of state negligence is something I will simply never understand.

A colleague of mine over in Ireland wrote yesterday, more or less saying, "I won't be coming back because I don't pay taxes in America." I can't say I've ever heard an example of such blatant integrity before. I'm not saying those people don't exist, obviously, but I certainly haven't heard them.

They actually started tidying all that up last year—basically sorting out who lives where and making sure everyone is registered for their health insurance correctly.

Bryan Taylor6 said:So what if they're asking? Even the police are looking for 750 people, so what is that supposed to tell us?
On the other hand, wouldn't it be a good idea for hospitals to ask infected people what kind of jobs they have? Then, if there aren't any infected cashiers, maybe we can actually think about something...

Jesus, how old are you anyway, using such mindless arguments? The police were looking for people way before this whole pandemic even started. Now, in the middle of an epidemic, they’re still hunting people down, which just goes to show they’re short-handed. It means a good chunk of the force is completely out of the loop.
Honestly, I was just thinking about this—when epidemiologists are bringing in people who’ve tested positive, they really ought to be asking them what they actually do for a living. It feels like such a missed opportunity. You can't just look at the medical data; you have to understand how people move through their daily lives, their jobs, and their routines. If we want to get a real handle on how things spread, we need that human element.
Oh boy, good grief... 🤦

Melissa Phillips4 Asks:
Honestly, they should have just targeted the people actually breaking quarantine. It makes zero sense to lock down 4 million people just because of 800 idiots who can't follow basic isolation rules.

They really should have just rounded up that whole crew and put them straight into quarantine. Honestly, if they had slapped them with some massive, heavy-duty fines right out of the gate, you’d see how quickly everyone would have stayed tucked away at home.
Man, it really puts things into perspective. Take people fighting something like leukemia, for example. When they’re going through treatment in the hospital, they have to stay in total isolation. We're talking about these tiny glass cubicles, maybe just a few square feet, where they can't step out for at least four to six weeks. Meanwhile, those of us who are actually healthy are complaining because being stuck at home or having to run a quick errand to the grocery store is such a hassle. It’s honestly a disaster when you think about it.

Ronald Howard3 said:The e-passport is going to be linked up with the Ministry of the Interior, Civil Protection, the IRS, Social Security... just wait until they link everything to phone tracking—we’ll turn into a total fascist wasteland. For instance, what were you actually doing at your cabin last week working the farm? Run a small business? Better write an explanation to the IRS... Or why did you show up at the office on Saturday if your hours are strictly Monday through Friday? Oh, you just stopped by to tidy some paperwork because you couldn't make it during the week? Here, have an e-ticket for illegal overtime work... Have a lovely day...☕

When you hand modern technology over to those North American-communist zombies... there are no limits.☕

Well, I guess you should just go ahead and thank the group that abused those e-Passports in the first place—they were handing them out like candy to anyone who asked.

Bryan Taylor6 said:So when will we hear the Supreme Court's actual stance? It's been 10 days and they're staying silent like nothing happened... and honestly, neither are the top politicians. Turns out Civil Protection is the biggest player in the country.😁

Did you actually file a request for it? I mean, did anyone even officially ask for it based on that specific legal provision?

rustywalker42 said:So you live in NYC?

If his girlfriend registers through the e-Passport, there won't be an issue.
Otherwise, I love how nobody follows laws like this one requiring you to report a change of residence. It's always "whatever, nobody else does it, who cares," but then when their own failure to follow the law comes back to haunt them, suddenly everyone else is to blame.

You're a lawyer, aren't you? It’s not 15 days, it’s 3 months.

I don't know if they're overstepping their authority; I haven't dealt with people like that before.
And who says they're violating rights guaranteed by the Constitution? One judge's opinion isn't the standing of the Supreme Court. The Court could easily rule the exact opposite of that one judge, and his opinion would just be noted as a dissent.

If you don't know, why are you commenting? Here, read this:

I'm just curious—out of all of you claiming to know how things should or shouldn't work, how many actually have a pass and travel daily to know how it really looks in practice?
For instance, I've been traveling out of the city every single day for a week because of work. I have my pass, and not once has a Police officer pulled me over on the way back, whether it was afternoon, evening, or morning. It feels pretty sloppy to me personally.

Like I said, you're probably from NYC. I'd love to see you living somewhere like rural Nebraska; I bet you wouldn't be singing the same tunes. No way.

Fifteen days. https://www.law.com/statutes/residency-act
Your issue is that you aren't distinguishing between residency and domicile.

If you don't know the answer, why are you weighing in? Here, take this and give it a read:

http://www.legalinfo.gov/DailyContent/Article.aspx?id=41073

Once again—that was just one judge's opinion, not the official ruling of the Supreme Court.
And once more, your problem is failing to understand the difference between a single dissenting opinion and an actual Supreme Court ruling that carries legal weight (or lack thereof).

Like I said, you probably grew up in a big city like New York. I’d love to see you living out in rural Wyoming; I bet you wouldn't be singing those same songs. No way.

You don't live in Italy either, because if you did, you certainly wouldn't be singing the same song. What kind of argument is that?

briskjackal5 said:Hmm, I'm not really a fan of this law, I guess.

-Stipe

What's wrong with it? That sounds like a convenient excuse when you just want to get rid of a piece of property.😬

silverwalker27 said:This residency registration law is just plain stupid—if I’m the kind of guy who spends every night at a different girl's place in a different coastal city or staying in hotels, what does the government actually care about? 😁They need an address so they know where to tax me and where to send court summonses—anything beyond that is just meddling. The whole thing is pointless; they can't even get a handle on voter numbers or the quorum needed for a referendum, yet they're so obsessed with making our lives difficult.

Look, the government doesn't care if you're hooking up at a different spot every single night, but if you stay at the same place for more than 15 days, you're supposed to report that change of residence.

nimbleharbor10 said: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.

I honestly don't know if they're overstepping; I haven't run into anyone like that personally.
And who’s saying they’re violating Constitution-guaranteed rights? One judge's opinion isn't the official stance of the Supreme Court. The Court could easily reach a conclusion that's the exact opposite of what that one judge thinks, and his view would just be recorded as a dissenting opinion.

Bryan Taylor6 said:Sure, but we're talking about the state level, and one state like our America...

Well, goodness gracious, apparently people aren't even allowed to leave their houses anymore. Did you miss that video from a few days ago where the mayor was yelling at some guy just for stepping out a little too far? The mayor starts ranting at him like, "Go home or I'll call a police officer!"

copperwolf16 said:There have been measures in place in Canada since yesterday, though from what I've gathered, they aren't handing out fines or demanding formal applications to local town councils; instead, a police officer might just give you a warning and send you on your way if they see you're heading to another municipality for something unnecessary, like a day trip.
In Mexico, the curfew lasts about half a day...

Generally speaking, almost everyone has introduced some sort of restriction on movement, which doesn't bother me personally. However, in our specific situation, one can clearly see the absurdity of these local governments—where I am far more privileged in a major hub like Los Angeles than someone would be in a small rural town, for instance. Furthermore, likely due to limited capacity, they have essentially abdicated the responsibility of issuing permits to local authorities who lack uniform criteria and a standardized approach to their work.
Therefore, if they have decided to limit one of our fundamental freedoms—the freedom of movement—due to an exceptional situation, they could have at least implemented it uniformly for everyone.

I don't want to comment on Germany; I saw a report where a patrol in some industrial town was walking down the street, checking in on people in their yards, asking how they were doing, if they needed anything, or how they were holding up during this period. We, however, possess a different mindset—whether it's a sheriff, a local deputy, or a beat cop, I fear it's all part of the same collective mentality.

North Korea has always had travel bans; you simply cannot leave your city without a permit.

Even here, the cop will just turn you around and won't let you pass. It's not like they're going to beat you with a baton, for crying out loud.🙄
I’m just curious—out of everyone here debating whether this whole thing is working or not, how many of you actually hold an e-Passport and travel daily? I want to know what it’s actually like on the ground.
For instance, I’ve been commuting out of the city every single day for a week now for work. I have my e-Passport, and honestly, not once has a Police officer pulled me over on the way back, even when I was driving through in the afternoon, late at night, or early morning. Personally, I think it's all a bit sloppy.

Bryan Taylor6 said:I've been telling you all along that we probably already have herd immunity here... basically, many people have had Corona without even knowing it because it passed like a common flu or a virus. We had that massive festival in Rijeka with tons of Italians and Chinese tourists, and zero Corona cases. But of course, we'd need to test healthy people for antibodies, but nobody wants to do that... because it costs money. It’s much easier to play dictator and tell people they can't move around... 3.1 miles in some small towns there are only 5,000 people, but in the City of Chicago, 800,000 people are just doing whatever they want...

What about the cashiers? They're all healthy, so how's that possible?
That's because they're always on the front lines of any infection; they were among the first to deal with Corona, and now they're healthy.

If only people would actually think for a second...

People claiming everyone is healthy? How can you possibly know that? Do you visit them regularly or something?
Or do you really believe a major retail chain would ever go public with news like that? If one of our cashiers tested positive, there's a good chance others on the same shift did too.
That would be a PR nightmare for them. Something they'd definitely want to avoid.
Fair point, though—sometimes we really need to use our heads.

On another note, Spar was posting ads looking for new sales associates just two or three days ago. It makes me wonder why and how they need more staff when their operating hours have been slashed by a third. It’s a mystery.
Something to chew on.

James Phillips92 said:Back when the earthquake hit the US, people were out in the streets, and we didn't see a massive spike in infection rates. It just goes to show—these kinds of heavy-handed restrictions weren't really necessary. Now they’re busy building apps just to issue e-Passports. Clearly, they've got plenty of extra time on their hands.

So, if nearly 80 new cases a day is considered a negligible number, I guess they should just let us out to speed things up a bit, right?

electricbadger89 said:My mom and grandma are staying with me outside of Washington, D.C. because their apartment isn't safe to live in after the earthquake. My mom actually asked a police officer what would happen if she moved back to her permanent residence, and the officer told her she’d have to go into a two-week self-isolation

What a possible? That sounds completely insane to me
If she was just staying with family, and none of us are in quarantine, sick, or coming from some high-risk area—meaning she didn't fly in from another country or anything—then why on earth would there be any isolation?

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.

Bryan Taylor6 said:They shouldn't have introduced any measures at all. It would have resulted in the same thing—everyone getting sick and building immunity. But then they wouldn't get to act like big shots, because they'd be suffering too...

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.

James Chavez91 said:I actually had to laugh at my buddy's situation.
His girlfriend has been living with him for five years now, yet her official address is still listed at her parents' place—apparently, they’re waiting until they actually get married to deal with all the paperwork, change of address, and everything else...

So, if she heads out to the grocery store, she can't exactly head "home"—she has to go back to her folks, and if she wants to get home, she needs an e-Passport. It's quite a show 🤣

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.

quietviper22 said:Look, you guys do it because it's your job, not because you're some kind of saintly, altruistic heroes. It's just like how cashiers at Walmart work for a paycheck, not out of some deep sense of solidarity over selling toilet paper.

Exactly. We all work our jobs. Unlike you guys, who aren't working because a decision was made for you—since your roles apparently aren't vital to keeping the country running.
And if I have to go in, I shouldn't have to deal with entitled, self-centered people whining about being stuck at home.
We can swap tomorrow—I'll stay home, even if it's for minimum wage, and you can take my job.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Nobody actually knows what's coming—we'll just have to see if these measures actually work by looking at the fallout.

And honestly, closing the borders when there's a global outbreak is just a standard call.

Except we don't have closed borders.

Melissa Ward said:Speak for yourself, man. Look, any illness carries a risk of complications or even death—that's just reality. But if you're asking me whether I'd rather spend the next year or two stuck in this kind of quarantine nightmare or take a 2% gamble on potentially kicking the bucket? I'll take my chances with the latter. #BetterDeadThanTrapped

Honestly, even if that probability jumped to 20%, I'd probably make the same call. This isn't really living. Sure, being locked down might be a decent novelty for a week or two, but once you realize we could be facing this for months—maybe even years—and things are only getting worse? There isn't much to weigh there.

We’re headed toward a massive wave of suicides driven by the economic collapse and depression anyway; maybe it’ll be a mercy if the virus gets us first...

About 1% of the American population passes away every single year, so when you look at it that way, a 2% figure isn't exactly some earth-shattering anomaly.

Look, nobody is stopping you from finding a job where you actually run the risk of catching something instead of sitting on your couch. There are industries looking for people right now... I saw an ad from Spar the other day—they need staff. Students, workers, whatever. So go for it.
One more thing—if you do catch something, don't go clogging up the hospital and straining the healthcare system. Just be consistent and stay home while you're dying.

I don't know how old you are or if you're just being immature, but the fact that you said this was "okay" at first shows exactly why certain people start crying about how they're going to "snap." You all treated this like an extra vacation—you got to chill for a bit, take some walks in the fresh air, and call it a day.
Honestly, that's on you. Maybe try recalibrating your perspective.

Jesse Hughes6 said:And so what? We have a lifeless clump of protein and RNA—otherwise known as a virus—settling on a surface and staying there. Who knows. Where exactly is it supposed to go or how is it even meant to vanish?
The real question is how infectious that virus actually is and for how long. And we simply don't know.
The WHO claims transmission happens via droplets, not through aerosolized particles floating in the air or jumping from person to person. So, if you've touched a "contaminated" surface, just don't touch your face and wash your hands.

We’re doing just fine entertaining ourselves, reading, and playing. We even have a Facebook group for our local preschool where they post all sorts of educational activities.
But obviously, that's all happening inside the house—though luckily we have a patio so he can get some fresh air and run around—and it doesn't come close to playing with peers all day long. He misses his friends, and a kid can't wrap his head around why he isn't allowed outside. Why he can't ride his bike, play with his buddies, go to the beach to throw rocks in the ocean, or just hike in nature. He doesn't understand any of it, and THAT is what makes it hard. It's not difficult because I'm struggling to be home with him. The sheer amount of energy built up during the day is massive with nowhere to burn it off; the kid is frustrated and his moods are constantly shifting. And I'm talking about a relatively mellow child, so I don't even want to imagine what it would be like if he were one of those high-energy types.

I definitely agree that sticking to a diet is tough—I never assumed it would be easy—but you really have to frame it for him in a way that makes sense for his age. Just tell him it's what needs to happen, plain and simple. It's a phase, and he'll get through it.

wiredotter89 said:Was it not in my best interest? Or maybe because I split my time between multiple addresses?

👍

Even if 30 million people were to die in Italy, that’s only 0.04% of their population. If a similar catastrophe hit the US, we're looking at roughly 1,500 people. A huge chunk of those would likely be critically ill patients who, frankly, wouldn't have survived much longer anyway. It sounds horrific, sure, but we aren't going to lose even 2% of the population.

The sheer level of fear-mongering surrounding this situation is infuriating... and forcing citizens through this ordeal with these permits is pure torture. All of this is just stressing people out, which is arguably worse than the virus itself. People are going to deal with more fallout from the stress of this than from the actual illness.

The priority should be isolating the elderly. Thankfully, my parents understood that; my grandmother already stocked up for Easter so they can spend the next two months staying safe without having to step foot outside.😁

I really wonder if you'd still call it "blown out of proportion" if it was your own ass or someone close to you among those deaths.

Anthony Jackson2 said:If this whole mess drags on until June 1st, then Bozinovic and his crew should just resign now—clear the way for someone actually competent to take over.

The Chinese are releasing people from quarantine after two months on the XY route; if we need any longer than that, something is fundamentally broken in our approach.

Besides, they have the warmer weather coming their way—which shouldn't be helping the virus spread.

Yeah, except the Chinese are just waiting for the second wave now, and they just shut down the borders to foreigners.