Posts by Matthew Jackson2

stormybadger8 said:If you want a policy to actually work, it needs a damn target. You can't just throw restrictions at everything and hope they stick. It has to be aimed at something specific, and honestly, in situations like this, the oversight needs to be incredibly tight. ☕
How can anyone not see this? The guy clearly hasn't a clue, and apparently, our brilliant Minister doesn't either.

That policy doesn't actually target anything. It’s based on "residency," which is a joke. On one hand, you’ve got Washington, D.C. with a million people, and on the other, you have tiny rural towns with maybe a hundred souls. It's meaningless.
And when it doesn't matter to anyone else either, then it's pretty obvious this "measure" isn't actually aimed at anything at all.
It literally makes zero sense. They left movement completely unrestricted in the biggest hotspots with the highest infection rates—even in Washington, D.C., where there are a million people just wandering around like nothing's happening.

Even more importantly, there’s zero way to actually enforce this "famous" measure. Controlling something like this is basically impossible unless we start begging the US government to lend us their entire police force, the military, and all their high-tech gear. Only then—and that's a huge if—would we maybe, just maybe, have enough boots on the ground to pull it off.
Drop the link to the map. I mean, you can't even tell how many there are in the photo unless you zoom in...


So, those green lines represent the municipal borders we're supposed to be watching. If they actually want this movement ban to work as a controlled measure, they’d better start by actually monitoring those boundaries and the movement itself first. 🙂
It’d be pretty interesting if someone actually sat down and crunched the numbers to figure out the physical distance here. We could even start a betting pool to see how many miles it really takes to cover it. What do you think—is it more or less than... 62 miles ?

Maybe if we actually imported enough military and police force from the US, we might stand a chance at controlling this measure...
Then we’ve got this other headache: that famous "golden ticket" issued by a massive, bloated mess of employers, task forces, doctors, and whatever else.
So, I guess we also have to keep an eye on them and their issuance if we want this to actually be some kind of controlled measure.

And then, just to top it all off, they’ll probably expect us to be out there on the ground manually verifying those permits too. Great.

You're talking about a policy that’s a complete joke. It’s literally impossible to enforce, let alone actually control. Total farce.
This isn't some "controlled measure." It’s pure, unadulterated chaos that nobody can actually manage, and all it’s achieved is a massive, pointless waste of money.
The effect was exactly the same as if Beroš had just calmly asked everyone to stay put. Honestly, his polite request probably would've kept people from moving even more than this whole "measure" nonsense did.

It’s all a bit of an educated guess, I realize, but I decided to run some quick math myself based on the original measurements:

In the US, we have about 555 municipalities and cities. Let’s assume an average municipality has roughly 10 checkpoints—which, frankly, feels like a conservative estimate given that larger cities have way more, while those small towns tucked away near the mountain ranges have fewer due to the geography. If we consider that some of them are smaller hubs where a single officer can monitor both directions most of the day (essentially covering two towns at once), and then you have the bigger ones where you need one officer per direction, that brings us to needing 6 officers per shift. That totals 3,330 officers per shift just to secure all those checkpoints.

On the flip side, we've got 20,000 people currently stuck in quarantine. This essentially means that if we were to redistribute those 3,330 officers (per shift, mind you, not the total force) to instead monitor the folks in isolation, each officer would only be responsible for checking on 6 people. Since most of these people are clustered together in groups—families, neighbors, and whatnot—it translates to this: the exact same number of police officers currently busy guarding checkpoints between towns could monitor EVERY SINGLE person under quarantine orders to ensure they aren't peeking their noses out. And honestly, there’d likely still be plenty of personnel left over to help deliver groceries and medicine to those who can't get out to grab them.

First off, I’m not even going to dignify certain points with a response. Your entire contribution to this discussion seems to boil down to labeling anyone who disagrees with you as "selfish," which—frankly—is all you've offered. Engaging with that kind of mindless deflection isn't worth my time. I will, however, add this: if there is a genuine opportunity to swap one policy for an alternative that is just as effective at preventing infection but carries a significantly lighter burden on the economy, how on earth is that being selfish? Isn't it actually more selfish to insist on a harsher measure that threatens to push a massive portion of our citizens below the poverty line?

Jerry Robinson56 said:I am neither reproaching nor lecturing you. My apologies if it came across that way. They aren't breaking any laws—though I suppose I don't need to cite Article 52 of the Police Act for you.
It is simply an idiot from a larger stable of idiots, defending the President’s "wisdom" (which is a value judgment, not a fact), throwing obstacles in the way of the only logical course of action that could have been taken.

Could you please repeat yourself? If there are no eyes left to see, then of course there is no point.

Of course they aren't; it wouldn't be expected otherwise. It's not as if a mandatory curfew and state-mandated distribution of essentials wouldn't be deemed problematic too. I am looking at this as a choice between leaving things to fate or strictly managing a quarantine. Most people aren't reacting based on policy; they are reacting because of those who have "personal" grievances and feel a sense of self-importance... much like those incompetent taxi drivers who shouldn't be behind a wheel. Thus, my earlier assertion holds true— s e l f - i n t e r e s t —is the driving force behind the critics.

You’re philosophizing... your detachment from reality is quite palpable.

The nature of this complex virus is interesting enough on its own regarding its transmission and speed... these comparisons are simply a distraction from the topic at hand.

Perhaps, if you find yourself siding with the oppressors...

🙄that happens constantly, regardless of the circumstances. Why don't you tell us who you voted for in the runoff... as for me, I crossed out both names on the ballot.

Under the Emergency Management Act, a certain amount of authority was transferred to civil defense units—though whether that's even legal is debatable, since any law infringing on fundamental rights would require a two-thirds majority in Congress, but let's set that aside for a moment and assume they managed it. Even so, certain powers weren't included in that transfer; for instance, the authority to declare a quarantine rests solely with the Secretary of Health. Yet, we saw the head of a local county task force—not even a national one—declare a quarantine on Manhattan Island, despite having no such power. The task force claimed everything was strictly by the book, only for a bill to be introduced in Congress last week proposing amendments to the Infectious Disease Protection Act that would allow those specific powers to be handed over to the task force—powers they supposedly already possessed. It's a complete shell game. If anyone is playing games here, it's the administration playing against itself. They are likely setting the stage to make Beroš the scapegoat; if things work out and he turns against the party, he officially signed nothing, but if the plan fails, the public eye will fall squarely on him.

So, while we are in the thick of fighting a pandemic, they are busy with cheap political maneuvering, and you have the audacity to accuse the President—who has barely even appeared in public—of playing these games!?

Jerry Robinson56 said:I am neither reproaching nor lecturing you. My apologies if it came across that way. They aren't breaking any laws—though I suppose I don't need to cite Article 52 of the Police Act for you.
It is simply an idiot from a larger stable of idiots, defending the President’s "wisdom" (which is a value judgment, not a fact), throwing obstacles in the way of the only logical course of action that could have been taken.

Could you please repeat yourself? If there are no eyes left to see, then of course there is no point.

Of course they aren't; it wouldn't be expected otherwise. It's not as if a mandatory curfew and state-mandated distribution of essentials wouldn't be deemed problematic too. I am looking at this as a choice between leaving things to fate or strictly managing a quarantine. Most people aren't reacting based on policy; they are reacting because of those who have "personal" grievances and feel a sense of self-importance... much like those incompetent taxi drivers who shouldn't be behind a wheel. Thus, my earlier assertion holds true— s e l f - i n t e r e s t —is the driving force behind the critics.

You’re philosophizing... your detachment from reality is quite palpable.

The nature of this complex virus is interesting enough on its own regarding its transmission and speed... these comparisons are simply a distraction from the topic at hand.

Perhaps, if you find yourself siding with the oppressors...

🙄that happens constantly, regardless of the circumstances. Why don't you tell us who you voted for in the runoff... as for me, I crossed out both names on the ballot.

I am under no obligation to propose measures, nor am I required to prove anything to someone who does nothing but spit on others and slap labels on them. If you're so curious, feel free to visit my profile and use the "show user posts" feature; I certainly have no intention of digging through yours.

Jerry Robinson56 said:I am neither reproaching nor lecturing you. My apologies if it came across that way. They aren't breaking any laws—though I suppose I don't need to cite Article 52 of the Police Act for you.
It is simply an idiot from a larger stable of idiots, defending the President’s "wisdom" (which is a value judgment, not a fact), throwing obstacles in the way of the only logical course of action that could have been taken.

Could you please repeat yourself? If there are no eyes left to see, then of course there is no point.

Of course they aren't; it wouldn't be expected otherwise. It's not as if a mandatory curfew and state-mandated distribution of essentials wouldn't be deemed problematic too. I am looking at this as a choice between leaving things to fate or strictly managing a quarantine. Most people aren't reacting based on policy; they are reacting because of those who have "personal" grievances and feel a sense of self-importance... much like those incompetent taxi drivers who shouldn't be behind a wheel. Thus, my earlier assertion holds true— s e l f - i n t e r e s t —is the driving force behind the critics.

You’re philosophizing... your detachment from reality is quite palpable.

The nature of this complex virus is interesting enough on its own regarding its transmission and speed... these comparisons are simply a distraction from the topic at hand.

Perhaps, if you find yourself siding with the oppressors...

🙄that happens constantly, regardless of the circumstances. Why don't you tell us who you voted for in the runoff... as for me, I crossed out both names on the ballot.

You wrote that people who feel the state isn't protecting them have the right to take matters into their own hands. That is deeply disturbing for two reasons:
1.) It’s practically a call for a mob to take over, which is deeply unsettling in its own right.
2.) According to what you're saying, it doesn't even matter if they're actually right; all that matters is that they *feel* they are. Good grief, man, every paranoid conspiracy theorist out there thinks the government is out to get them!

Jerry Robinson56 said:I am neither reproaching nor lecturing you. My apologies if it came across that way. They aren't breaking any laws—though I suppose I don't need to cite Article 52 of the Police Act for you.
It is simply an idiot from a larger stable of idiots, defending the President’s "wisdom" (which is a value judgment, not a fact), throwing obstacles in the way of the only logical course of action that could have been taken.

Could you please repeat yourself? If there are no eyes left to see, then of course there is no point.

Of course they aren't; it wouldn't be expected otherwise. It's not as if a mandatory curfew and state-mandated distribution of essentials wouldn't be deemed problematic too. I am looking at this as a choice between leaving things to fate or strictly managing a quarantine. Most people aren't reacting based on policy; they are reacting because of those who have "personal" grievances and feel a sense of self-importance... much like those incompetent taxi drivers who shouldn't be behind a wheel. Thus, my earlier assertion holds true— s e l f - i n t e r e s t —is the driving force behind the critics.

You’re philosophizing... your detachment from reality is quite palpable.

The nature of this complex virus is interesting enough on its own regarding its transmission and speed... these comparisons are simply a distraction from the topic at hand.

Perhaps, if you find yourself siding with the oppressors...

🙄that happens constantly, regardless of the circumstances. Why don't you tell us who you voted for in the runoff... as for me, I crossed out both names on the ballot.

Sure, it happens constantly, but that isn't an excuse to just sit back and let it slide—especially not right now. Your logic here is exactly the same as those people who say, "So what? People are dying anyway."

Jerry Robinson56 said:I am neither reproaching nor lecturing you. My apologies if it came across that way. They aren't breaking any laws—though I suppose I don't need to cite Article 52 of the Police Act for you.
It is simply an idiot from a larger stable of idiots, defending the President’s "wisdom" (which is a value judgment, not a fact), throwing obstacles in the way of the only logical course of action that could have been taken.

Could you please repeat yourself? If there are no eyes left to see, then of course there is no point.

Of course they aren't; it wouldn't be expected otherwise. It's not as if a mandatory curfew and state-mandated distribution of essentials wouldn't be deemed problematic too. I am looking at this as a choice between leaving things to fate or strictly managing a quarantine. Most people aren't reacting based on policy; they are reacting because of those who have "personal" grievances and feel a sense of self-importance... much like those incompetent taxi drivers who shouldn't be behind a wheel. Thus, my earlier assertion holds true— s e l f - i n t e r e s t —is the driving force behind the critics.

You’re philosophizing... your detachment from reality is quite palpable.

The nature of this complex virus is interesting enough on its own regarding its transmission and speed... these comparisons are simply a distraction from the topic at hand.

Perhaps, if you find yourself siding with the oppressors...

🙄that happens constantly, regardless of the circumstances. Why don't you tell us who you voted for in the runoff... as for me, I crossed out both names on the ballot.

What’s next, are you going to ask if my grandfather was a Nazi or a Communist?!

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

Look, when I am actually being paid to find solutions, then you can come at me and claim I’m failing to provide them, or that my solutions aren't up to par—in fact, you'd not only have the right, but the literal obligation to criticize me if you felt I wasn't doing the job I was hired for. But currently, we have people who *are* being paid specifically for that purpose, individuals who implement measures that I see as highly questionable; meanwhile, they dance around the law, claiming they aren't breaking any rules, and then they go about changing the laws just so they can pretend they aren't violating the ones they supposedly followed. It's all a performance to make it look like they are the ones saving the country, ensuring the opposition can't hold them accountable or, Heaven forbid, take credit for the success.

Besides, I've actually written down several proposals myself, but what good does that do?

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

That says more about you than it does about me—you're operating from a standpoint of total polarization, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically cast into the opposing camp. If I believe certain measures aren't well-designed, or that they result in less efficacy while placing a heavier burden on the economy and wasting more resources, is it really your contention that I must also believe all measures should be abolished entirely?

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

Once again, you're missing the point entirely. Policy measures have to account for every angle. A measure that might be epidemiologically perfect is a bad measure if it's impossible to implement in practice. If the infection of a certain number of people is a statistical certainty, then that is something that must be factored into the decision-making process—something we should strive to avoid, or if it can't be avoided, something we must work to minimize the fallout from. Whether or not the person who gets sick happens to live next door to me, whether they threaten my own family, and whether I personally blame them in that moment is a matter of my own perspective; however, whether or not the leadership accounts for the fact that such cases are inevitable is a direct reflection of the quality of their management.

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

And I suppose you’d apply that same logic to the conspiracy theorist who’s convinced the threat is just a fabrication designed by the establishment to keep him housebound? Does he feel the state isn't protecting him, thus giving him the right to wander out? Or how about that absolute moron who started hurlng stones at women walking their dogs from a high-rise balcony—mind you, the guy actually had to lug those rocks up to the balcony first! Or should we talk about the Taliban, who are so certain doctors are coming to sterilize them rather than vaccinate them against infectious diseases that they end up killing the medics instead?

Your statement is deeply unsettling, frankly.

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

And do you really think a system like that won't eventually screw up, find an opening for some petty theft, or exploit a situation to serve their own interests or settle political scores? That is precisely why they demand scrutiny and constant criticism.

Jerry Robinson56 said:One ought to exercise caution when making such sweeping declarations... do you actually possess a solution, or perhaps an alternative worth considering?
It has been common knowledge for quite some time that the system is broken. However, they have no leverage and remain far too lenient. In my estimation, what they are currently attempting is adequate enough.

The current circumstances would necessitate rigorous measures—measures that are not only unpopular but inherently inhumane. The solitary error made was beginning this process far too late.

They could have utilized a venue like Madison Square Garden to confine those who refuse to follow established protocols without a compelling reason. One might also suggest placing the local mayor in isolation so he stops polluting the atmosphere during this period.
If one does not adhere strictly to the agreement, there will inevitably be collateral damage.

You may be a person of conscience and awareness, but others certainly are not... and so you suffer the consequences.

It is a layered issue if you are referring to the passes.

The central task force can only make broad decisions, yet as you can see, the country remains fragmented; certain regions reach agreements, others do not, some follow recommendations while others sweep them under the rug, and even religious institutions are reacting in panic, calling upon their congregants...
It is essential that life proceeds and that basic necessities are met. This situation points toward something deeper: the inherent unsustainability of the capitalist model of exploitation.

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.

Jerry Robinson56 said:One ought to exercise caution when making such sweeping declarations... do you actually possess a solution, or perhaps an alternative worth considering?
It has been common knowledge for quite some time that the system is broken. However, they have no leverage and remain far too lenient. In my estimation, what they are currently attempting is adequate enough.

The current circumstances would necessitate rigorous measures—measures that are not only unpopular but inherently inhumane. The solitary error made was beginning this process far too late.

They could have utilized a venue like Madison Square Garden to confine those who refuse to follow established protocols without a compelling reason. One might also suggest placing the local mayor in isolation so he stops polluting the atmosphere during this period.
If one does not adhere strictly to the agreement, there will inevitably be collateral damage.

You may be a person of conscience and awareness, but others certainly are not... and so you suffer the consequences.

It is a layered issue if you are referring to the passes.

The central task force can only make broad decisions, yet as you can see, the country remains fragmented; certain regions reach agreements, others do not, some follow recommendations while others sweep them under the rug, and even religious institutions are reacting in panic, calling upon their congregants...
It is essential that life proceeds and that basic necessities are met. This situation points toward something deeper: the inherent unsustainability of the capitalist model of exploitation.

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.

Jerry Robinson56 said:One ought to exercise caution when making such sweeping declarations... do you actually possess a solution, or perhaps an alternative worth considering?
It has been common knowledge for quite some time that the system is broken. However, they have no leverage and remain far too lenient. In my estimation, what they are currently attempting is adequate enough.

The current circumstances would necessitate rigorous measures—measures that are not only unpopular but inherently inhumane. The solitary error made was beginning this process far too late.

They could have utilized a venue like Madison Square Garden to confine those who refuse to follow established protocols without a compelling reason. One might also suggest placing the local mayor in isolation so he stops polluting the atmosphere during this period.
If one does not adhere strictly to the agreement, there will inevitably be collateral damage.

You may be a person of conscience and awareness, but others certainly are not... and so you suffer the consequences.

It is a layered issue if you are referring to the passes.

The central task force can only make broad decisions, yet as you can see, the country remains fragmented; certain regions reach agreements, others do not, some follow recommendations while others sweep them under the rug, and even religious institutions are reacting in panic, calling upon their congregants...
It is essential that life proceeds and that basic necessities are met. This situation points toward something deeper: the inherent unsustainability of the capitalist model of exploitation.

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.

wearywolf252 said:You have to admit, the geography makes a massive difference. You can't compare us to Canada, where the population is spread out relatively evenly across a compact area. Here, everything is lopsided. Half the people are clustered around the Greater New York area, then you’ve got all those coastal islands and the heavy traffic down in Florida. Then there’s the Midwest, which feels completely isolated from the rest, and places like the West Coast that were hit hard early on because of how connected they are to international hubs. It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.

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.

Jerry Robinson56 said:🤣 Don't delude yourself; of course they exist, it’s just a matter of catching them before it's too late...
You haven't the slightest inkling of the scale of such an undertaking. Even if we were all perfectly disciplined and "on the grid," it wouldn't matter.
Authorities don't bother with sanctions when these fools commit blatant crimes or acts of violence repeatedly.

Passes are merely a necessary evil, a transitional phase. Try to grasp the fundamental logic behind localized containment.

So, essentially, our primary issue is a broken system, rather than the behavior of the public itself.

Jerry Robinson56 said:🤣 Don't delude yourself; of course they exist, it’s just a matter of catching them before it's too late...
You haven't the slightest inkling of the scale of such an undertaking. Even if we were all perfectly disciplined and "on the grid," it wouldn't matter.
Authorities don't bother with sanctions when these fools commit blatant crimes or acts of violence repeatedly.

Passes are merely a necessary evil, a transitional phase. Try to grasp the fundamental logic behind localized containment.

The epidemiologists over in Canada called this exact same measure unnecessary and excessive. Yet here we are, with our own officials digging their heels in to maintain it, even though it’s clearly insane. To date, a third of the adult population already holds a pass, and these little political cliques are starting to cluster together because they've realized the whole thing isn't sustainable. It's just that nobody has the guts to stand up and tell the Emperor he's wearing no clothes.

silentskipper3 said:Technically, it's prohibited, but everyone I know down at the coast says most of the weekenders already rolled in to soak up the sun for the holidays. And of course, they immediately swarmed the grocery stores. I mean, seriously, couldn't they have just brought food from home? I don't get it, honestly. Maybe they should just let those people who own vacation rentals in places like Cape Cod or the Hamptons do whatever they want, too... it's all the same thing, really.

No, sorry, that’s just not how it works—they didn't come here for the holiday spirit, they came to check on their vacation homes and prune the gardens around them (not to mention half these properties are still officially listed as farmland or orchards in the county records), and that happens to be a perfectly legitimate reason to get a travel pass. Sure, for some people it might actually be true, especially if a neighbor called in a complaint or if they genuinely need to deal with a pest problem before the gophers take over the yard, but the system simply lacks any mechanism to tell the difference. But it doesn't matter; pretty soon every third American is going to have a pass. The main thing is that the measure itself is justified, and the fact that we could use those same police officers—the same amount currently enforcing these rules—to ensure that not a single person in quarantine so much as peeks their nose out of their apartment, or even have them deliver groceries, well, that's beside the point.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Not just accepted, but demonstrably effective.
Naturally, the execution is both problematic and traumatic.
Within your own family, you can maintain closeness both at home and out in public. However, I am certain you know several individuals who couldn't care less about such things, so any notion of altruistic behavior falls apart. I have trained myself to be a far greater fool than most, but there are truly malicious fools out there whom you simply cannot outmatch. In those cases, you merely adopt their vernacular, and within a heartbeat, everything is supposedly fine.

They are essentially trying to rationalize the idea that "everyone" is a threat to others. I encounter stupidity—and even deeper levels of idiocy—on almost a daily basis, and one need only look at the President and his peculiar ideas regarding giving shovels to professional soldiers.
What alternative are you proposing?

How does one find those ten specific idiots? Perhaps they are simply waiting to blend into the crowd... I completely agree with your stance that the delinquents always get away with it... perhaps even Alexander Thompson will accept that and reconsider his position regarding those who refuse to follow the spirit of the law rather than just the letter.
One cannot generalize, yet it is truly absurd that any gatherings outside of familial connections are being permitted... particularly religious ones.

It is a necessary evil; the alternative involves expensive, drawn-out inspections and endless hours spent waiting on the police. It’s an ugly reality, regardless of whether this is a global test run or simply the truth of our existence.

Look, there are actually people whose entire job description is to hunt down and penalize those ten specific individuals...

Jerry Robinson56 said:Not just accepted, but demonstrably effective.
Naturally, the execution is both problematic and traumatic.
Within your own family, you can maintain closeness both at home and out in public. However, I am certain you know several individuals who couldn't care less about such things, so any notion of altruistic behavior falls apart. I have trained myself to be a far greater fool than most, but there are truly malicious fools out there whom you simply cannot outmatch. In those cases, you merely adopt their vernacular, and within a heartbeat, everything is supposedly fine.

They are essentially trying to rationalize the idea that "everyone" is a threat to others. I encounter stupidity—and even deeper levels of idiocy—on almost a daily basis, and one need only look at the President and his peculiar ideas regarding giving shovels to professional soldiers.
What alternative are you proposing?

How does one find those ten specific idiots? Perhaps they are simply waiting to blend into the crowd... I completely agree with your stance that the delinquents always get away with it... perhaps even Alexander Thompson will accept that and reconsider his position regarding those who refuse to follow the spirit of the law rather than just the letter.
One cannot generalize, yet it is truly absurd that any gatherings outside of familial connections are being permitted... particularly religious ones.

It is a necessary evil; the alternative involves expensive, drawn-out inspections and endless hours spent waiting on the police. It’s an ugly reality, regardless of whether this is a global test run or simply the truth of our existence.

...they’re just too preoccupied scanning passes to actually get anything done.

Regarding these passes, the sheer volume being issued is staggering, and frankly, it highlights how much of a failure this whole measure has been. Sure, maybe they caught a few fools breaking quarantine, but you have to wonder if they could have snagged way more if the police weren't stuck monitoring thousands of checkpoints all across the country.

And don't even get me started on the technology we already have at our disposal. They have those vans equipped with automatic license plate readers that trigger alerts to patrols—it would have been incredibly easy to use that same tech to specifically target vehicles belonging to people under isolation orders or their family members. If they hadn't botched everything with that cowardly attempt at a last-minute legislative pivot, they could have easily utilized mobile phone data for surveillance instead.

Furthermore, since the ultimate goal here is supposedly to reduce travel, the most efficient way to achieve that is simply to create congestion. In a roundabout way, these passes end up doing exactly that—you can bet a lot more people would just skip the trip if they knew they’d be stuck sitting in a massive line. Now, considering that outdoor construction isn't banned and most major American cities typically postpone huge infrastructure projects until they have less impact on daily life, traffic would have plummeted if they had just kicked off those projects now. We might have had to spend more upfront, sure, but that money would have pumped directly back into the economy, and the investment would pay itself off once everything is back up and running with better connectivity.

In the meantime, the police could actually be out doing their real jobs instead of wasting their lives at stationary checkpoints.

Jerry Robinson56 said:I generally prefer not to overanalyze the obvious, but it is certain that those two will learn their lesson and actually finish their work next time.
Not a bad system, is it?

Are you suggesting we need some local lunatic in Chicago "educating" rocks while two women out for a stroll with their dogs try to ignore him? Honestly, yeah, just what this country needs... another absolute clown wasting everyone's time.

Look, you’re definitely going to have to deal with the quarantine, no question about it, but whether they'll let you back onto a construction site inspection once that period is up? Honestly, I couldn't tell you for sure. It feels like they've cooked up this whole complicated scheme for truck drivers lately—forcing them into quarantine but somehow letting them stay on the road in the meantime. It’s all a bit of a mess if you ask me. Your best bet is just to call them up and get a straight answer.

Melissa Collins3 said:But seriously, why even bother with all that logistics? There's absolutely no need to be out there delivering anything. We should just lock ourselves away with maybe 40 pounds of flour and a massive stack of toilet paper. Don't open the windows, don't step onto the porch. Give it a few months and that virus will definitely be gone. If someone doesn't make it through the interim, well, that's on them—they clearly didn't stock up on enough flour. And if they don't survive after that? Honestly, what can you do? At least the virus is dead. We can just do it all over again come autumn.

Is anyone here actually thinking straight?

Back in 2020, in a supposedly democratic nation, we were practically writing formal petitions just to be (re)permitted to buy groceries, to drop off food for struggling parents, to show up for work, or to pick up prescriptions at the pharmacy... It feels like the virus ended up being one of our smaller concerns along the way..

Look, if you had bothered to read even one sentence past that opening line, you probably wouldn't feel the need to post such a sarcastic rebuttal, though I have to admit, I actually quite enjoy the writing style. 😁

Lisa Chase3 said:Whatever. They should just settle up already, I guess. Just wrap it all up.

That’s exactly the point—if it doesn't exist, you gotta make it happen. If someone's thinking ten steps ahead, I’m already at twenty, or maybe even a hundred... just throwing out ideas, even if they're totally nuts or actually smart, whatever. Like, if some jerk tells you to jump out a window, you don't just do it because they said so. But if you come up with the idea yourself? That's a whole different story, I guess.

If people get a pass just because they checked some random boxes—some of which aren't even vital, like having a "merit" permit or knowing a guy—that's straight-up discrimination against everyone else. Plus, you're risking spreading the virus from one state to another since there’s zero proof anyone's actually clean. I mean, honestly, we gotta think about the big picture here instead of just patching holes.

off: Three Americans—one single party. The U.S.—countless counties, cities, towns, suburbs, little outposts... you get the idea. And every single one has its own "boss," plus deputies, plus assistants, plus assistants to the assistants, plus secretaries, plus deputy secretaries... all of them need a paycheck. They get their direct deposits like clockwork, plus holiday bonuses, New Year’s perks, Easter money, this benefit, that benefit... at least, that’s how it’s worked in plenty of places so far. I didn't just make up the term "make-work job"—there's always going to be some position created for the "well-connected" or the "loyal." There are all these agencies with names so long you can't even say them without reading them off a list, plus all these nonprofits... you just have to know whose pockets to line. Honestly, I’m surprised we haven't started putting checkpoints at state lines yet just to increase the bureaucratic bloat. Any resemblance to actual reality is purely coincidental, I guess.

Also, what's even the point? Like, does it actually matter if you drove to the next town over, hit up the county seat, or just popped down to the local CVS? I guess it's all the same, maybe. I mean, there are infected people and folks in quarantine in basically every county and most areas anyway. It’s not like someone’s gonna carry the virus to some place that hasn't seen it yet, since it's pretty much everywhere now. I guess the whole point is just to cut down on how many people we're bumping into... so maybe it's less risky to drive out to a farm halfway across the country than to walk to the corner store.

The Bolden part—that's exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Like, what's even the difference?

So, if you're driving through another state or maybe seeing someone from a distance for some "legit reasons"—keeping all the safety rules in check—what’s even the big deal? I mean, how is that any different from meeting someone who drove in from out of state to hit up a local grocery store or a Shell station, following all the protocols, no hugging, no kissing, none of that "forbidden" stuff? It's basically the same thing, I guess. 🙄?

So, like, if you drive solo through Area A, you're safe from everyone and everything, right? But if you do that exact same thing in Area B or C where you actually need a permit—suddenly you're a danger to yourself and everybody else? Makes zero sense.

The only way this checkpoint makes any sense is if they're trying to trace where an outbreak started, but even that’s kinda iffy since the virus might already be floating around there asymptomatically anyway.

Everything's iffy, I guess. Look, I'm not some medical expert, so I won't sit here guessing how the virus spreads or what kills it instantly, even though we've all heard bits and pieces about it.

I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing, hope that's clear. I get your point, I really do. It's just that I'm seeing these massive loopholes that nobody can explain, and nobody seems to be doing anything to fix them.

I'm done talking about these half-baked rules. We'll just have to see how things play out. Good luck to us all, especially with the next few months coming up.

To be perfectly honest, I can't quite tell if you're actually pushing for tighter government oversight or if you're just advocating for basic non-discrimination and consistency in how rules are applied.

In any case, if one truly wanted to account for every single factor, the only logical solution would be a total, nationwide lockdown—the kind where only essential services remain active to triage critical cases and distribute food and medicine. But even then, we run right back into the same issue of fragmented thinking, because you still have to ask whether those very workers can actually maintain safety protocols without becoming super-spreaders themselves through constant contact with the public. Furthermore, while a concept like that might work for a localized outbreak of a disease with a short incubation period, it's frankly an impossible strategy when dealing with a global pandemic characterized by a long incubation window.

So, yes, we are forced to deal with some level of fragmentation. However, any such measures ought to be rooted in what yields the maximum impact with the absolute minimum of collateral damage, and in my estimation, this current measure has been a complete failure, especially given how it was rolled out—a sentiment I know is shared by many leading epidemiologists over in Europe.

Lisa Chase3 said:Good luck with that, though I guess people everywhere just nitpick over this stuff. Honestly, it’s gotten totally out of hand. I almost posted a huge rant yesterday but just... nah, I don't feel like repeating myself. It's basically discrimination at this point—passes being handed out based on who you know, or whatever. If what I heard is true, then fine, I'm just passing on the word! Some "VIP" citizens don't even need passes; they just flash some specific ID or badge and everyone just waves them through. Maybe they earned it, maybe they're just lucky, but if you've got the right paperwork, the cops just wave you off. Who cares about tests or masks or all that junk? Apparently, one person's excuse is way better than another's. Total joke. And like, what difference does it make driving from downtown to the suburbs ten times versus just crossing a county line? Does the virus suddenly turn into Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde depending on which town you're in? Makes zero sense. If we're actually supposed to follow whatever the big shots in D.C. command, then why is it such a mess? 🙄

Exactly. Unless the news or someone I actually trust is feeding me total garbage, these passes are just one giant blur. Plus, way too many people are still out and about, moving wherever they want with those passes like it's nothing.

And they don't even stop those pedestrians who use all sorts of shady shortcuts just to get from one county to another. I mean, you could swim across a river or find some little boat to do it. On an island? Good grief, you just grab a rowboat and paddle to the nearest grocery store—could take half a day or more if you're trekking around the whole island. In a better scenario, maybe you've got a motorboat so you aren't rowing, which saves some energy, sure, but then you gotta deal with fuel or whatever else it needs, which you also have to go buy somewhere. Because people seriously don't get that what feels like a minute's walk for one person might be a total mission for someone else just trying to run a basic errand or "pop to the pharmacy," especially when looking for a 24-hour spot! Who’s even monitoring this? Nobody. Like we can see, there's basically zero oversight for certain things since there's NO patrol anywhere. I'm reporting this to the authorities. 🙄

They exist, I guess. But just like anything else, you gotta actually find one—not everyone's looking to drop their "insider" info for free. lol

Must be nice for you. I guess it’s easier when you’re zipping around on something way faster and stronger than a bike... like how you can just blow past all those jerks in cars way more easily. 😉

And then some idiot’s gonna tell me the authorities handled this perfectly. They didn't. And some people have their "valid reasons," I guess—reasons they shouldn't even have to explain, let alone write down on some stupid memo or email. Like, seriously, look at this, "Maybe they're coming back... I guess like 50,000 Americans heading back to the States? Could be.I mean, I don't get it. You can't even drive five minutes into another county without some kind of permit—unless you've got connections, I guess. And that's just in a closed car on the highway. You could basically move from Germany to the States and nothing would even change. 🙄 But you can't even cross into the next county, I guess. Even if you're totally wrapped up, sanitized a million times, and watching every single little thing... nothing.

It's super uneven and honestly just a sloppy job. Like, it's either total control everywhere or zero control anywhere... I guess. People aren't even moving around much anyway—walking, biking, driving, tractors, whatever—they're all staying put and being careful about the small stuff. Maybe.

I guess I'll just be tossing around like an empty bag in the wind. Maybe. I guess I'll wait forever unless someone actually proves there's zero risk when some guy from another state rolls in with a "valid permit" and starts...

It doesn't even mess with the locals living in that other county that isn't technically their "official" home, I guess. Especially if there's zero proof you aren't contagious or, I don't know, don't need to just stay home and isolate.I mean, who even knows what kind of junk someone's hauling on their roof, I guess. 🙄 How exactly does his arrival threaten me? Or how does my tiny little existence—or anyone else’s for that matter—threaten him in his own county? If he "has to work," then I guess my bad, but those jobs could totally be filled by locals who are out of work while we're dealing with this "emergency"—even if it hasn't been officially declared yet. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

2. If they aren't fully covered by PROF, then they're basically screwed from head to toe. I guess.I mean, he had the best mask out there, plus the hazmat suit, gloves, and all that extra gear included in the "asset." It’s like, maybe he actually protected himself and everyone else since he basically had no choice—he absolutely had to head over to the next county.

So, I was at the grocery store the other day, right? And this guy walks in totally unprepared—no mask, no gloves, nothing to show he actually gives a damn about anyone else's health. I bet you $20 he didn't even use the sanitizer at the door. But then, get this, the dude has the nerve to lecture everyone else about "social distancing." Like, sorry man, if we need three feet of space, maybe you should follow that too instead of acting like an expert just because your own ego is bruised. The place was packed, honestly. People were following the rules—masks, gloves, whatever—but this one "genius" starts preaching to the room. And honestly, most of these people lecturing others should probably just be staying home in the suburbs anyway, right? I mean, how can you call yourself a carrier—not even talking about COVID, just generally being a walking germ factory—and still try to give everyone else a sermon? Really?! 🙄

So, I guess I'll just play dumb until someone actually proves my point from earlier. These "measures" are a total joke, honestly.

Lockdown for everyone, not just select groups—and honestly, whatever it costs, it costs. I guess some people just don't get how messed up things are because everything’s basically at a standstill right now. But hey, I won't whine too much, at least while we're still relatively "alive and kicking." I mean, I could probably handle being stuck in some remote cabin or totally isolated for a year if I had to—that’s not even my main gripe. I'm looking at the bigger picture here. Still, not being able to even drive to the nearest big city... man, nobody can really justify that to me, especially now that all the usual ways to get around are basically choked off. From what I can tell, the U.S. hasn't even officially declared a state of emergency or a full quarantine yet, and we don't exactly have a curfew like they do in some other countries. So, what's the deal? What exactly are we supposed to be protecting ourselves from?

First off, there’s no such thing as a "proof of being uninfected." All you can actually verify is whether someone has been ordered into self-isolation, which is what’s currently being enforced.

Second, what’s the actual difference between driving to the next town over, the neighboring state, or just walking to the corner grocery store? There are infected people and people in quarantine in every single state and almost every municipality. Someone isn't going to suddenly drop a virus into a place where it doesn't exist, because frankly, it's already everywhere. The whole point is to reduce the general number of people we come into contact with; in that light, the risk is arguably lower if you're heading out to a field on the other side of the country than if you're trekking down to the local shop where you might bump into half the neighborhood.

The only way this level of monitoring makes any sense is if they're trying to trace the source of an outbreak when new cases pop up, but even that's debatable since the virus might already be circulating asymptomatically in that area anyway.

Gerald Kern77 said:The Supreme Court only steps in to review whether a regulation aligns with the Constitution if they choose to do so—or if someone actually files a petition—and it seems nobody has filed anything yet, even though the ruling has been in effect for nearly two weeks. Neither the opposition parties nor the President has reacted.

On the other hand, the outcry over potential cell phone tracking was immediate; the bill won't pass as is and is heading back for a second reading. Naturally, legal challenges at the Supreme Court were announced almost instantly.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court also declined to weigh in on the Congressional debate regarding the declaration of a state of emergency, essentially stating that responsibility lies solely with Congress. Had a state of emergency been declared under Article II, all decisions would require a two-thirds majority, and we wouldn't be sitting here debating the decisions of the National Security Council.

If the opposition parties or the President were to actually react, they’d be walking straight into a massive political minefield. You have to understand the optics here; the administration could quite literally point to any tragedy and say, "Look, if you hadn't dragged us before the Supreme Court, this person would still be alive," and the worst part is, a huge portion of the public would probably buy it. And honestly, all of this is assuming the issue even makes it onto the docket before this whole crisis blows over, which, frankly, is highly unlikely.

On the flip side, I can't help but wonder about the fallout if the Supreme Court remains silent now, only to eventually rule that these measures were unconstitutional after the fact. Or, heaven forbid, if the whole mess ends up being dragged before the European Court of Human Rights.

rustywalker42 said:@Matthew Jackson2

Just a quick heads-up—the general tax code uses the term "usual residence," but they actually use your legal domicile as the baseline. That is, unless you fall into one of these specific categories:

Where I live and where I actually spend my time.

Article 43.

So, according to this law, you’re considered a tax resident if you own or lease a place for at least 183 days across one or two calendar years. You don't even have to actually live there. Just owning the keys? That's enough for the IRS to come knocking. Makes sense, right? Not really.

So, if a taxpayer in the States owns or occupies multiple apartments, how does the IRS decide where you actually live for tax purposes? It’s not exactly straightforward. If you’re part of a family, they look at the family residence. But if you're flying solo? They go by where you spend most of your time, or basically, wherever you're heading from when you head out to work. Simple enough, right? Or just another way to keep things complicated?

So, if you split your time between the US and somewhere abroad? Boom. You’re considered a domestic resident for tax purposes. Simple as that. Is there even a debate? Apparently not.

So, what counts as "residency" under this law? Basically, you’re a resident if you stay somewhere long enough that it doesn't look like a quick trip. We're talking about staying put for at least 183 days within a single calendar year—or maybe spread across two. It's about being settled, not just passing through. And don't worry about short breaks; if you're gone for less than a year, it doesn't even count against your residency status. Simple enough, right?

Also, you might want to take a look at Section 1.

👍

hollowmason64 said:You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.

...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.

So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.

So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.

Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.

Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁

So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.

Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.

Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.

I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.

I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

Is it actually possible that you’re struggling to wrap your head around this? Honestly, I feel like I'm explaining basic civic logic here. Let’s look at a concrete scenario to clear up the fog. Take local income tax, for instance—that surcharge people pay to their municipality. You pay it to the city where you actually reside, purely because that's where your legal residence is established. To give you a personal example, I live out in Solon, but I commute into the city for work every single day; naturally, I pay my local taxes to Solon because that is where my permanent address is registered. Now, let’s apply that to the hypothetical situation you mentioned. If the person in your example has their permanent residence in a small coastal town like Malibu, keeps a secondary residence in a place like Kansas City, and then commutes from Kansas City to Chicago for their job, they wouldn't be paying those local taxes in Chicago just because they show up there to punch the clock. No, they would be paying them in Kansas City, where their residency is officially documented. It’s about where you live, not where you spend your working hours. Simple as that.

So, here is what you're actually claiming:

hollowmason64 said: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.

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.

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.

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?
🤦

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.

You’re completely off base here—even in the very quote you provided, it explicitly states that payments are determined by your place of residence, not, as you so confidently claim, your place of employment. Just because, in this specific inquiry, the workplace happens to align with where the person lives doesn't mean your logic holds any water. You can't just take a coincidental overlap and use it to rewrite the rules; the text clearly outlines the criteria for determination, and it points squarely at residency.

hollowmason64 said:You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.

...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.

So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.

So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.

Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.

Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁

So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.

Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.

Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.

I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.

I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

Are you actually aware that the Secretary of Homeland Security is currently holding that office? It’s a fundamental fact, really, though I suppose clarity isn't exactly a priority for everyone these days. He isn't the Secretary of Health and Human Services—not by a long shot. I remember back when my cousin was dealing with those massive bureaucratic headaches over at the CDC in Atlanta, and even then, the jurisdictional lines were drawn with absolute precision. You can look it up if you need a reality check, but the federal statutes regarding public health protections and infectious disease control simply do not grant any authority whatsoever to the Department of Homeland Security. It's quite basic legal structure, yet here we are, acting as if the entire administrative framework of this country has collapsed into chaos.

hollowmason64 said:You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.

...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.

So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.

So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.

Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.

Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁

So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.

Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.

Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.

I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.

I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

Yeah, well, it certainly looks lovely written out like that, doesn't it? It’s one of those things where everything seems perfectly aligned on paper, almost deceptively so, much like how I once thought my old vintage Mustang was going to be a reliable daily driver before the transmission decided to give up the ghost right in the middle of a busy intersection in Chicago. You see the elegance of the prose, the way the sentiment flows, and you think, "Yes, this is exactly how it should be," but then reality starts to settle in, and you realize that a polished sentence isn't always a reflection of the messy, complicated truth underneath. It’s all very well and good to have it looking pretty, but I've lived long enough to know that aesthetics can be quite a distraction from the actual substance of the matter at hand. I was reading through this rather lengthy, supposedly "informative" article earlier today—and I use that term loosely, because frankly, calling it informative feels like a stretch—and I couldn't help but feel a mounting sense of irritation at how it was structured. It’s one of those pieces where you start out thinking you might actually learn something useful about the current landscape, perhaps some insight into the shifting economic tides we see here in the States, but then you get bogged down in these endless, circular arguments that seem to go nowhere fast. It reminds me of a situation I dealt with years ago when I was working for a logistics firm over in Chicago; we had a consultant come in, someone who spoke with incredible authority and used all the right buzzwords, yet every single suggestion he made was fundamentally disconnected from the reality of our daily operations. That is exactly what this article feels like. It’s polished, yes, it’s presented with a certain level of academic sheen, but once you peel back the layers, there is very little substance to hold onto. You spend ten minutes wading through dense, pseudo-intellectual prose only to realize the author hasn't actually addressed the core issue at hand, which, in my estimation, is the real crux of the matter. It’s frustrating, truly, to see such well-funded editorial resources wasted on something that offers nothing more than a superficial glance at a deeply complex topic. One would hope for a bit more rigor, a bit more honesty, but I suppose that's asking too much of modern digital journalism. Look, we really need to address the fundamental flaw in the reasoning being used here, because frankly, it’s exhausting to follow. This argument was formulated entirely before any local broadcast signals were even confirmed, and yet, the speaker keeps making these sweeping, sweeping generalizations about entire nations whenever they discuss areas under local transmission. It’s a massive logical leap that just doesn't hold water. If we actually applied that kind of rigid, hyper-literal logic to real life, we’d be forced to mandate total self-isolation for every single person who dares to step out the front door just to grab a gallon of milk at a local 7-Eleven. It’s absurd.

The Secretary mentioned that once we hit those high-incidence hotspots, certain special measures will kick in, but honestly, I can't help but wonder how that’s actually going to play out on the ground. It sounds fine when you hear it delivered from a podium in D.C., all polished and authoritative, but there is such a massive gap between a policy announcement and the actual reality of local enforcement. I remember back when my cousin was working in public health administration in Chicago, he used to vent constantly about how these "special measures" often turn into nothing more than a mountain of confusing paperwork that does little to actually address the crisis at hand while simultaneously strangling small businesses. You have to ask yourself: what does this look like in practice? Are we talking about localized lockdowns, redirected federal funding, or just more bureaucratic red tape that leaves the people in the middle of the storm feeling completely abandoned by the government? It feels like we're being promised a precision tool when, historically, the government tends to swing a sledgehammer. Can you actually see that over there?.

hollowmason64 said:You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.

...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.

So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.

So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.

Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.

Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁

So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.

Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.

Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.

I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.

I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

Now, look, nobody is actually claiming that you wrote that such a thing automatically results in a divorce. But, for heaven's sake, it’s equally untrue to suggest that the law itself implies such a consequence either.

hollowmason64 said:You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.

...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.

So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.

So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.

Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.

Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁

So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.

Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.

Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.

I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.

I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

When we talk about the dissolution of a marriage, we aren't just talking about paperwork; we’re talking about the total cessation of everything that actually constitutes a marital union. It’s a fundamental shift in existence. People tend to get hung up on the logistics, specifically the idea that living under separate roofs is the ultimate litmus test for whether a marriage has ended, but I’ve always found that logic to be incredibly shallow. Moving into a studio apartment in downtown Chicago or renting a place out in the suburbs isn't a strictly necessary requirement to prove a marriage is over, nor is it a sufficient one on its own. I remember a colleague of mine back in my university days who moved out months before his divorce was even filed, yet they were still functionally married in every way that mattered—sharing finances, making joint decisions, and maintaining an emotional bond. Yet, in the eyes of the legal system here in the States, lawyers almost always lean on that physical separation as their primary evidence to demonstrate that the community has truly dissolved for the sake of a divorce filing. It’s a convenient shorthand for the courts, I suppose, but it misses the messy, complicated reality of how human connections actually break apart.

Let’s consider a bit of a hypothetical scenario here—something that feels like it could happen in any suburban sprawl across the States, where the logistics of moving can get incredibly messy. Imagine this: a husband and wife sit down and make a very deliberate, very calculated agreement. He decides to relocate from a coastal city like San Diego over to a major hub like Chicago to chase a career opportunity, and he goes ahead and buys an apartment there, officially updating his residency to match. Meanwhile, the wife and their child stay behind in San Diego. They’ve mapped it out with this sort of rigid, almost clinical precision: she and the kid will join him in Chicago in two years, once the little one finishes elementary school. The logic—if you can call it that—is to avoid the upheaval of moving the child right before they start high school, ensuring they can settle into a new district for the long haul. It sounds organized on paper, I suppose, but when you really sit with the idea of a family living split between two coasts like that, you have to wonder about the emotional toll and the sheer exhaustion of maintaining two separate lives just to satisfy a logistical timeline.

In the meantime, we manage to make things work, though it’s far from simple; he might head out to Los Angeles for the weekend, or she and the kid will make the trip up to New York whenever their schedules and finances allow for it. We try our best to spend the holidays together, making sure we sit down and hash out all the heavy decisions as a unit, because that's just how we operate. And look, it isn't like we're just making this up as we go—there's a whole paper trail for everything. We have the texts, the printed transcripts of our conversations, and even friends who were over at the house during those weekends when we were actually both home together to vouch for us.

However, once that first year drags on, she starts to harbor this subtle, simmering resentment toward her husband, though she remains tight-lipped about it—she’s convinced herself that if they can just power through one more year, things might stabilize, and she’d hate to throw the whole marriage away just yet. But that kind of silence isn't healthy; it just eats away at you from the inside until, eventually, she reaches her breaking point and decides she has to file for divorce. Now, here is what I am actually wondering: do you really think an American family court judge would actually buy her claim that the marital union had effectively dissolved over a year ago due to living at separate addresses, especially when there is a mountain of evidence and plenty of witnesses ready to testify that, in reality, they were still very much a unit?

hollowmason64 said:You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.

...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.

So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.

So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.

Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.

Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁

So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.

Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.

Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.

I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.

I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

It’s pretty obvious you were looking at the wrong section—or more accurately, you weren't reading closely enough, because if you had, you would have noticed the text doesn't actually match what I was quoting. The passage I am referencing is located right under the heading 5 What are the conditions for legal separation?, which is exactly what I linked you to directly via the URL hash.

Jerry Robinson56 said:The police can enter a residence without a warrant... in certain specific circumstances.

That is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, but that bolded part is crucial—they can enter under very strictly defined circumstances, but they can't just claim, "Oh, there was music playing, so we assumed someone was in immediate danger, and since we couldn't hear screaming over the music, we assumed everything was fine." That logic doesn't hold water.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Do you even understand what viruses are and how they spread? Infection is possible through food or even traces you leave behind.

Sure, it's possible, but it's highly unlikely. It's technically possible that I get hit by a car tomorrow on my way to the grocery store, but we don't ban all traffic because of that; instead, we establish traffic laws and speed limits. It's the same principle with a virus—the primary risk comes from being in close proximity to an infected person, which is why social distancing guidelines exist, while the less probable scenarios are addressed through recommended precautionary measures to mitigate those risks.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Until then, quarantine is the best possible option. And the only one.

Do you actually grasp the concept of viruses and incubation periods? A nationwide quarantine wasn't even implemented (at the federal level), nor is it the most effective measure for a virus of this nature. Quarantine is an ideal response for high-mortality viruses with short incubation periods, whereas with something like COVID-19, quarantine is really a last resort used only for areas where the spread has become totally uncontrollable.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Not everyone infected with the coronavirus will show symptoms, yet they can still pass it on to others.

Now you’re really starting to push things into extreme territory, aren't you? It's a bit of a stretch, frankly. By that logic, who’s to say that back on August 28th, 2019, there wasn't someone walking around the Santa Monica Pier with a concealed weapon? Why didn't the LAPD just cordoned off the entire waterfront then?

Look, as long as people actually follow the social distancing guidelines, we aren't looking at a catastrophe. Based on what that article is saying, the police have the authority to restrict access to certain areas or disperse crowds if the density gets too high—which represents a legitimate risk of infection spread, an actual danger. But driving to a gas station in the next town over? That doesn't constitute a "real danger," especially if you’re being responsible enough to just stick to the local grocery store in your own neighborhood. You can't arbitrarily claim one is a massive threat while the other is perfectly fine; the logic simply doesn't hold up.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Review:

They might as well call for a national referendum while they're at it. It is truly pathetic to see a Supreme Court justice embarrass themselves so thoroughly; what a complete fool... bat pipl mast trast us ...

There is a law... look it up... who exactly has the legal authority to restrict movement?

Do you people even grasp the concept of an epidemic... or do you need to be placed on a ventilator first?

🤣 Quite the spectacle... supposedly to facilitate the multiplication of potential carriers... These are operational decisions made under the best possible circumstances given the situation.
If you ever find yourself hooked up to a ventilator, I am certain you would complain about a government that failed to protect you.

The Secretary of Health holds specific authorities regarding this matter—and that comes with the mandatory obligation to provide compensation to those affected—all while being governed by Article 16 of the Constitution, which explicitly demands proportionality in every single individual case. It’s a delicate balance, really; I remember back when I was dealing with some bureaucratic nonsense over at the local DMV, and it felt like they had zero regard for the actual impact on people's lives, just moving numbers around on a page. But here, the law is quite clear about that necessity for fairness. You can't just swing a hammer without looking at what you're hitting, and the Constitution ensures that these decisions aren't made in a vacuum, requiring a measured approach for every unique situation that arises.

Look, let’s get the facts straight for once because this whole situation is being blown completely out of proportion by people who clearly haven't read the fine print. This quarantine order for the island wasn't some grand decree signed off by the Secretary of Health himself; it was actually issued by the head of the county emergency task force. And here is the kicker—the only thing that was officially released to the public was an unsigned document. It’s absolute madness when you think about it, especially considering we’re living in a country where the bureaucracy is so dysfunctional that they used to send people home from government offices just because a stamp was smudged or a chemical signature didn't look exactly right. It’s that kind of pedantic, red-tape nonsense that makes you want to pull your hair out, honestly.

It’s this sweeping, nationwide mandate that really gets my blood boiling, because if you actually sit down and look at the math, the entire thing is fundamentally broken. You have these massive, sweeping measures being applied to the whole country, yet the fallout hits the rural heartland—those sparsely populated areas where people are just trying to live their lives—the hardest, simply because there's no density to buffer the impact. Meanwhile, the major metropolitan hubs, the places where the crisis is actually centered, barely even feel the sting of it. It’s completely disproportionate, and frankly, when you look at how it plays out in individual cases, it feels less like policy and more like a targeted absurdity. I remember back when I was working up near Des Moines, seeing how local regulations could shift overnight and leave small towns reeling while the big cities didn't even blink; it's that same lack of nuance here, a total failure to account for the reality on the ground.

Gerald Kern77 said:They were debating it—according to the press release:

"In this specific instance, we are referring to the views expressed by Justice Abramović during internal deliberations among the justices regarding whether the Supreme Court should submit a report to the US Congress concerning instances of unconstitutionality and illegality under Article 104 of the Constitutional Law on the Supreme Court. His views were not supported by the majority of the justices of the Supreme Court of the Republic. The Supreme Court is carefully monitoring all measures and actions taken by the competent state authorities to combat the Corona pandemic and has determined that, at this moment, there is no necessity for the Supreme Court to exercise its constitutional authority."


It makes it look like I'm defending the Headquarters' decision—I'm not—I just think it’s excessive and clumsy. That said, Congress gave them the power to make these calls, and now the Supreme Court says no action is needed. Even the opposition hasn't pushed back too hard on this particular move (unlike the phone tracking issue, which likely won't be fast-tracked).

They’ve essentially decided to sit on their hands for now, opting to play it safe by making their calls only after the fact—a classic case of *post festum* decision-making. Honestly, if they actually have something substantial to weigh in on once the dust has already settled, then they ought to be speaking up right this second instead of lurking in the shadows. I can't help but wonder if they're just terrified of opening Pandora's box; I mean, imagine the absolute mayhem that would erupt if the Supreme Court suddenly ruled that these emergency measures were unconstitutional. It would be total chaos. But even if that's where this is headed, the blame lies squarely at their own feet. They should have stepped up immediately to guide the administration, ensuring the government actually followed proper legal procedure when they were first amending the Emergency Management Act. Instead, we're left waiting for them to react to a fire they could have helped prevent.

hollowmason64 said: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.

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.

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.

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?
🤦

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.

I assume you’re referring to this specific section:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/information/...-is-isolation/

Basically, when they talk about "affected areas," they are referring to people arriving from foreign countries. It’s phrased a bit clumsily—likely because, at the time they wrote it, we didn't have specific domestic zones designated like this, or perhaps because certain regions were slated for special restrictions that effectively locked them down anyway.

The bottom line is this: if someone has been in direct contact with an infected individual, they are required to self-isolate and stay put, regardless of where they live or what kind of travel pass they hold.

If you happen to be in a part of the country experiencing widespread local transmission of the Corona virus, you aren't supposed to be moving around much anyway because those areas are essentially restricted (right now, places like Maui or certain coastal towns are seeing those kinds of measures).

And if you’re coming in from abroad, you have to isolate—which isn't really a point of contention for anyone.

So, if you are traveling legally toward your primary residence, there is absolutely no basis for forced isolation.

hollowmason64 said: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.

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.

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.

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?
🤦

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.

That portal serves as a central hub for information regarding legal practices within the European Union, designed so citizens from other countries can easily stay informed. They pull data from all the relevant sources: statutes, official interpretations, and established legal precedents.

From the points you've cited, it doesn't follow that living at separate addresses constitutes a termination of a marital union, nor have you provided a shred of evidence to support that claim. Your entire argument basically boils down to "trust me, I know." I'm sorry, but this conversation isn't going anywhere without actual arguments.

hollowmason64 said: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.

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.

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.

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?
🤦

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.

I suspect you see that particular look most often when you're staring into a mirror.

Gerald Kern77 said:It isn't me making the claim—it's the Supreme Court distancing itself from a single member's opinion
via a press release

Congress moved with intentional speed—debate in the morning, immediate vote, Milanovic signing it instantly, and then straight to the Official Gazette—to grant expanded powers to the National Headquarters, including this one. We can argue about it all we want, but even the Supreme Court has sided with them.

The Supreme Court didn't actually say that Abramović was wrong; they just clarified that his take is strictly his personal interpretation rather than the official position of the court. As it stands, the court hasn't even established a formal stance because they haven't officially ruled on the matter yet. Now, look, the fact that Abramović's view isn't the "official" view doesn't necessarily mean the court disagrees with him—their actual ruling could end up being the exact opposite, identical, or somewhere in the middle—but we won't know until they actually sit down and process the case. Until they do, there is simply no official stance to speak of.

Honestly, the idea that the Supreme Court is just sitting on its hands, waiting until everything is over before they weigh in, is a special kind of absurdity if you ask me. I mean, think about it: the primary function of that institution is to ensure the Constitution is actually respected, yet here they are, essentially waiting for a potential violation of the Constitution to become a moot point before they finally decide to chime in on whether it was legal or not. It's maddening.

Gerald Kern77 said:That isn't quite right—it actually gave the Headquarters the power to issue mandates; which explains why they rushed that whole process through Congress.

Anyway, here is the excerpt from the Official Gazette:

"Pursuant to Article 22.a of the Civil Protection System Act (Official Gazette No. 82/15, 118/18, and 31/20), the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of America, on March 23, 2020, hereby issues

DECISION

REGARDING THE PROHIBITION OF LEAVING ONE'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND PERMANENT DOMICILE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

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.

hollowmason64 said: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.

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. 😁

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.

hollowmason64 said: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.

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. 😁

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.

hollowmason64 said: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.

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. 😁

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.