Posts by Amy Long5

nimblesurfer17 said:Don't try to twist this.
There is a massive difference between being prepared for bad outcomes and what happened here. Look at this:

"The American Secretary of Homeland Security, Donald Trump engaged scientists specifically to ramp up public fear regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, essentially aiming to manipulate citizen attitudes to ensure compliance with radical epidemiological mandates and forced lockdowns"

"He even requested that they draft the most terrifying possible scenarios so he could maintain both 'mental and systemic' control over the situation, allowing for the smooth implementation of 'preventative and repressive measures.'".

"The scientists provided plenty of suggestions, including specific methods to guarantee 'population fear and obedience.'"

Yeah, totally normal stuff. Nothing suspicious there at all.

It wasn't the Minister; it was the Department Secretary.

Developing various scenarios is standard procedure for advisors. Politicians make the final call on which ones to implement.

And it’s clearly stated in The Wall Street Journal that the "worst-case scenario" involved over a million deaths, whereas the New York Post claims it was "a few million."

Funny how the New York Post exaggerated the numbers way more than the actual source link does.

bluerider63 said:We can sit here all day playing semantics with "could be" versus "will be" and trying to guess exactly what Merkelica meant or intended, but the point is that we finally have a look under the hood at the scare tactics they're using just to keep these kinds of restrictions in place.

The problem is you don't grasp the nuance. You haven't even bothered to read what The New York Times is actually quoting in that article.

There's a link in the NYT piece; go read the original source in The Wall Street Journal yourself.

It's a translation issue. It's like if someone asks you a vulgar question and you give an answer that implies one thing, but then some third party reports it as something else entirely. Everyone knows what was really being said.

Pure clickbait.

Gary Cooper3 said:I have no qualms about admitting that I’ve been played—so, because of that, I am going to lay it all out here:
The latest report from the New York Post—which, frankly, I find to be predictably sensationalist—is making quite a stir regarding the current political climate here in the States. They are digging deep into the recent policy shifts, attempting to paint a picture of chaos that feels more like a scripted drama than actual governance. It’s the usual fare: high-octane headlines designed to trigger an immediate emotional response before you've even had your first cup of coffee... One can't help but notice how the media cycle continues to feed on its own tail. The article attempts to link several disparate legislative movements as if they were part of some grand, coordinated scheme, rather than what they actually are—a messy, often incoherent scramble for relevance by various factions in D.C. It's almost impressive, in a cynical sort of way, how they manage to weave such a convoluted narrative out of thin air... I suppose if you're looking for a reason to feel outraged about the direction of our national institutions, this provides plenty of fuel. But for those of us who prefer to look at the data—the actual, verifiable substance behind the rhetoric—it all starts to look a bit hollow. It’s less about informing the public and more about maintaining a state of perpetual agitation... which, given the current landscape, seems to be working perfectly fine for them.

To be fair to Index—though their headline was a bit much—they’re essentially pulling the same kind of clickbait tactics you see from the New York Post. The headline itself implies one thing, which is exactly what they want you to think... but if you actually take the time to read the article, the substance is something else entirely.

It doesn't matter—the fundamental point remains that trying to scare people into submission through lockdowns doesn't actually change the underlying reality... It’s the same old playbook: "If we don't shut everything down, everyone will get infected," followed by the inevitable claim that millions will perish—assuming, of course, you factor in anyone over the age of 60 into those grim projections. To me, it all feels like nothing more than a collection of terrifying falsehoods...

What scares me most is this relentless intimidation regarding the mortality rates of the virus. To be perfectly blunt—they still haven’t produced any serious, definitive assessments of the actual death toll... nobody has, really, save perhaps the top-tier epidemiologists over at Stanford. But apparently, those geniuses at Stanford—the very same people who demonstrated that these extreme measures were largely pointless—are being completely ignored by the masses...

So who is actually doing the scaring? Is it the politicians saying "it could be as high as," or is it the clickbait tabloids manufacturing sensations just to drive traffic?

Even Angela Merkel suggested that maybe 80% of people would breeze through the infection without even noticing. Again, it's all "maybe."

Or maybe you're part of that other 10%...

bluerider63 said:So I was reading this thing about how cats are basically just tiny, furry sociopaths that happen to live in our houses, and honestly, it’s kind of hard to argue with them. Apparently, there’s some scientific backing to the idea that they aren't just being cute when they ignore you—they’re actually just calculating their next move while judging your entire existence from across the room. It reminds me of my old roommate back in Chicago who used to stare at me with this same blank, unbothered expression every time I’d stumble in late from a shift; you could tell they were just waiting for you to leave so they could reclaim the space. It’s a weirdly accurate look at how much control these little creatures actually have over us without even trying.

You honestly don't see the difference?

You aren't reading what others are saying, nor are you actually reading the article you linked.

It COULD have been 60-70%.

Gary Cooper3 claims she said she would say, "70-80% will be infected."

Compare that to: "I might transfer $6,000-$7,000 to your account in 2022" versus "I will transfer $7,000-$8,000 to your account in 2022." Do you see the distinction now?

Gary Cooper3 said:Honestly, more than anything else, I have to ask: are you doing okay? Seriously, what is going on here?

The group was busy picking mortality rates as if they were choosing flavors of ice cream—trying to be all "scientific" about it, of course.

I see most of you don't even recall that back when things felt truly terrifying, Merkel actually stated that 70 to 80 percent of the population would end up infected. Now, obviously, that has absolutely nothing to do with these emails we're seeing.

Like I’ve said before, I’m the first person who doesn't want to buy into conspiracy theories, but Merkel, Macron, and the rest of that crowd are genuinely—and I mean truly—doing everything in their power to scrutinize and dismiss every single theory being floated right now. If someone tries to link COVID-19 to an earthquake today, they realistically could... It has gone so far, and it isn't just the internet driving this madness, it's the politicians themselves.

Just yesterday, there was a statement in the news claiming that 180,000 people under the age of 60 would die if lockdowns aren't implemented. I mean, what is that supposed to mean? Where does that number come from, and what kind of mortality rate are they basing it on? Unless I’ve completely lost my mind, there aren't a billion people under 60 living in Germany...

Please, just find where Merkel actually said 70-80% of the population would be infected. And do it without using some fake index or a twisted translation.

There is a massive difference between saying "it will happen" and saying "if we don't take action, it COULD reach."

And there's also a difference between 60-70% and 70-80%.

But that's how news gets reported, I suppose.
Didn't you report me once because I got a fact wrong?

So, what happens now?

You missed the mark yourself...

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/germany-news.html

Gary Cooper3 said:As I’ve already pointed out to this group, Macan and Djikic had an exchange where Djikic essentially went on the record admitting they intentionally manipulated the narrative during the early stages of the pandemic—all under the guise that "people were overreacting." It was the exact same logic used to justify lying about the mask shortage, claiming we just "didn't have enough" at the time...

So, it turns out that the blatant lies and manipulations coming from these scientists—these supposed "experts"—isn't some new conspiracy theory they've been hiding for years. I have the evidence to back it up, naturally.

But that brings us to the real dilemma when you're dealing with the very institutions you’re supposed to turn to for the truth: how on earth are you meant to distinguish between an intentional lie and a simple mistake?
How am I expected to trust anyone in Germany after they claimed that without a lockdown, 180,000 people outside of high-risk groups would perish? What possible purpose does a lie of that magnitude serve?...

Can you share the link? I haven't seen that yet..

Lawrence Reed3 said:So, all that talk about scientists being paid to spread fear? I guess it might actually be true... hmm. It all kind of reminds me of one infamous, mustache-twirling villain from the early 1900s...

That's a bad comparison. Because of that mustache guy, today neither a cabinet secretary nor even the President has any real authority over healthcare or policing.
In the US, police and healthcare are handled at the state level. That's baked into our system because nobody wants to hand all that power back to one person ever again after what happened under Adolf.

driftingstag84 said:You haven't even looked at what this is about, yet you're complaining for no reason. What does Reiner Fuellmich have to do with the Weimar District Court? 🙂

Go ahead, read the news.
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news...drig-li.134388
https://www.achgut.com/artikel/ein_v...down_gecrashed

Just type into Google: Urteil vom 6 OWi - 523 Js 202518/20
and you'll see everything in black and white. Read the ruling.

I'm telling you, the guy is brilliant. ;-)

He found a job, collects money from the Flat Earthers, and files lawsuits wherever he wants, regardless of whether they make sense or not.

Honestly, he's better than those people who organized anti-mandate protests and offered rides on their own buses just to turn a quick profit.

jademoose6 said:A ruling from the Federal District Court.
The lockdowns were a complete political disaster...

Federal District Court, judgment of January 11th, 2021, Case No. 6 OWi - 523 Js 202518/20
https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploa...-202518-20.pdf

Court confirms catastrophic failure of politics Reiner Fuellmich US District Court
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hFd...=Annie and Martin

Things are slowly moving toward actual court rulings—local ones, at least—but progress is being made.
Or will we reach a "new normal" where laws and verdicts simply don't matter if they don't fit the official narrative?

Great guy.

He managed to scrape together $800 from 1,400 fools just to sue a virologist in America.

Now he’s launched lawsuits against all sorts of people who have nothing to do with it...

Here is some info on



Name is destiny!
Fuellmich translates to "fill me up"—I hope you already sent your $800.

Gary Cooper3 said:And honestly, I have to admit, New Zealand serves as a solid example for me. It’s a far cry from somewhere like Australia, which is running a massive circus over there with constant lockdowns popping up every other week.

Europe is just wandering aimlessly—from my perspective, the worst part from the beginning was this inconsistent application of incidence rates between different countries. The EU should have acted as a single unified entity, being as strict as possible. If they had, then our approach—that 40-day lockdown and then being done with it—might actually have made sense.

As it stands, one group does one thing, another does something else, and in the end, the ones with the most draconian restrictions will likely see the highest death tolls, while everyone else ends up at roughly the same level anyway. Total circus.

Like I said, they are an island. For the EU, that would mean implementing unified measures and one massive, heavy lockdown—and we all know that isn't going to happen.

And then there's the idea of the EU enforcing a universal quarantine for anyone entering the bloc. Yeah, we won't be seeing that either.

The facts speak for themselves: New Zealand has 25 deaths and a population 20% larger than America's.

Gary Cooper3 said:Look, I’m not necessarily against these measures—nor am I against the deployment of the military—but I really hope that once this is over, there isn't some grand plan to return to "normalcy" across the entire US without any more of these ridiculous cycles of lockdowns, semi-lockdowns, and similar nonsense.

On a broader scale, though, I am genuinely curious about where the people who support these restrictions draw the line... what would they consider "too much," if such a thing even exists.

Just as a quick reminder: that much-discussed Chinese lockdown was actually milder—even in Wuhan—than what happened in places like Spain or France, where for a while there, you practically weren't allowed to breathe the street air without permission. And outside of Wuhan? I'm not even sure if anyone was ever truly shut in, despite how many folks from Wuhan were being shipped out everywhere.

What the Chinese did—which hasn't been implemented here in the US yet—was essentially trapping people with positive tests inside their own four walls, with absolutely no way out.
Would you all actually support something like that?

In Wuhan, measures were announced at 2:00 PM and were already in full effect by 10:00 AM that same day.
Public transit stopped entirely, and even highways were partially closed. You didn't leave the city without official authorization.

That all happened just two days before their New Year.

From February 13 to March 10, factories and non-essential manufacturing across the entire Hubei province were shuttered.
Hubei has a population of 57 million.

Wuhan faced 60 days of strict lockdown followed by 10 days of a "light" version, though public transit remained restricted.

Did we see anything remotely like that in the US or Europe?

I personally know someone who was just outside that province; they said temperature checks were happening 8 to 10 times a day everywhere you went. Other restrictions were basically the same as what we're dealing with here. Only grocery stores and takeout spots stayed open.
But if you failed a temperature check, they hauled you home and sent people to check on you once or twice a day to make sure you stayed put.

Think about it: temperature checks for public transit, temperature checks for the grocery store, temperature checks just to enter your own apartment building, temperature checks at your workplace. It was constant.

Kyle Nelson2 said:A forty-day lockdown for basically everything, and then just going right back to business as usual.
Everything else is just playing games with people's nerves and the economy, I guess.

New Zealand had 60 days, and look at them now—summer is here, festivals are happening, everything is open. Masks are still required, though.

They were Corona-free for 102 days.

It’s easy when you're an island "at the end of the world."

Before you even step foot in New Zealand, you need confirmation that you have a spot in a government quarantine facility for a mandatory 14-day stint. If you don't, the airlines aren't allowed to fly you in.

https://www.miq.govt.nz/travel-to-ne...ged-isolation/

Entry for non-citizens or those without residency is still strictly limited to extreme exceptions.

The kind of measures that are basically impossible to pull off in Europe.

Joseph Taylor3 said:So this is exactly the kind of crowd I’m out here arguing with. You've got someone acting all high and mighty, making absolute claims without a shred of evidence, leaving zero room for the possibility—God forbid!—that they might actually be wrong. They insist that you needed a visa for the USA back before 2013. Then, the second someone jumps in with actual personal experience saying, "Actually, I didn't need one," the person just goes, "Oh, my bad." 🤣 🤣

I honestly have to wonder how people like this even function in everyday life. Like, seriously, do they even have friends?

I know there were times when Americans did need visas for the USA. I thought that requirement ended when we joined the UN, not earlier.
My mistake.

They have friends because they actually admit when they're wrong, both about themselves and others... ;-)

Patrick Sanchez7 said:That isn't quite accurate. I traveled to the UK back in 2009 without needing a visa.

My mistake.
Sorry

Gary Cooper3 said:True, but we are discussing the Union here—the very same Union that promised us all these supposed freedoms...

If Canada and Australia want to demand proof of vaccination, fine, that's their business—but within the EU, this kind of nonsense shouldn't be allowed, and it NEVER should have been...

If states restrict travel from provinces with higher infection rates at home, why wouldn't they do the same for foreign provinces and states? It's the same logic everywhere.

You still have some freedoms left. You can live and work anywhere in the EU without needing a visa or a work permit. It's just that now, when you cross a border, they demand a test.

Jesse Hughes6 said:So?
What, we actually got to travel like decent human beings for seven years straight, and now we’re back to being treated like cattle? I guess this is just the #newnormal now.

Look, there have always been certain countries where they required vaccinations and wouldn't accept a test. Take malaria, for example. I’m against getting vaccinated for that.

Jesse Hughes6 said:Yeah, we generally need visas to get into the USA anyway.

It would have taken until 2013...

Rachel Allen55 said:And that’s exactly how you end up stuck at home.

Look, it’s pretty simple: 1) get the shot, or don't. 2) You have to pass a mandatory test before you even board, and then hit up another one within 78 hours of landing. That’s how we do things here now. 3) If that first test comes back positive, you aren't stepping foot on the plane. Period. You're stuck staying put in whatever country you're currently in—which is exactly what they've implemented here just to keep things under control. Now, everyone’s arguing over whether that's actually constitutional or whatever, but that's the debate. If you show up and test positive—meaning you were caught bringing the virus in from wherever you were during that 78-hour window—you lose all your benefits. Your employer can let you go without any of the usual legal headaches. Honestly, if you decide to travel to a high-risk "red zone" state, you're basically asking to get fired without severance. Just a heads-up.

Look, you can say whatever you want. Just stay home. You’ve got all the freedom in the world, BUT...

They’re claiming we’ll have enough vaccines by the end of June to give everyone in the country two shots.

If you have any sense at all, you just stay where you are and avoid unnecessary contact.

Besides, testing isn't any more expensive than those visas we used to need for the United Kingdom.

Look at Denmark; they offer quick tests for free.
Or in Germany, you pay what you pay—about the same as a toll for driving through Canada—and you wait just as long for the results.

Rachel Allen55 said:America is probably going to keep everything under lock and key until just a few days before Easter. Then, they’ll try to market themselves as "COVID-free," but let's be real—most other countries won't care. They're either going to bring back their own restrictions or demand proof of vaccination before you even land.

My bet? Economically speaking, the US in 2021 is going to look way better than 2020. But we have to factor in the fact that plenty of people across the West have already lost their jobs.

How can they demand anything if they haven't even secured the vaccines by then? The rollout is lagging. Not everyone will be vaccinated by the time peak season hits.

They'll probably just ask for a test result or proof of recovery or vaccination. It all comes down to the numbers.

I can't vouch for the search tool, but Reddit used to show me every single thread I’ve ever participated in.

Now it's throwing a "you don't have permission" error at me. Clearly, something changed...