Another Attemted Coup by Democrats This Time in TN

[Biff_Poindexter]

It would be interesting to know why, after so many other states have issued various orders in the name of public safety, the Governor of Tennessee hasn't followed suit...

Maybe because he doesn't feel it's necessary. Tennessee is doing better than most states right now as far as the spread of infection.

the gov of Georgia thought that too......

And in the not too distant past, so did Trump....

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Didn't they learn a lesson from the first attempt? And they think that whining about the governor's reaction to Coronavirus will get this done?

---In response to the lack of preventative action that has been made across the state, we have no choice but to start making real palpable action to remove Bill Lee from office.---

Sign the Petition

Emergency Recall of Tennessee Governor Bill Lee

www.change.org

The perils of residing in red states, especially ones with higher elected officials that are beholden to Trump or just resistant to science in general. Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi.....Tennessee.

 

[lennypartiv]

The Governor of Missouri said (paraphrasing)...
I can make all the proclamations and orders in the world...but it would still be up to you to follow them. Missourians believe in freedom...they also believe in personal responsibility. I'm not going to use the power of the government to curtail you're rights. You know what needs to be done and as your Governor I am asking you to do it.

Some people get it and some people don't.

 

[Pogo]

It would be interesting to know why, after so many other states have issued various orders in the name of public safety, the Governor of Tennessee hasn't followed suit...

Maybe because he doesn't feel it's necessary. Tennessee is doing better than most states right now as far as the spread of infection.

Bad logic. Unfortunately it ain't about what the status is in the present, but what control you can exercise on the future.

How exactly is it possible to not-know this at this point?

It's not necessarily bad logic. You're right, we really can't know exactly what will happen, but most of the states that have done these quasi shut downs like New York, California, Florida etc. are way worse off than Tennessee is and some of them have been shut down for about three weeks now.

Yeah. That's because they got started too late and in many cases didn't do enough. To the degree that we were having it swept under the rug and/or neglected on testing --- we all got started late. Now it's no longer a question of can-you-contain but of HOW MUCH can you contain.

Tennessee hasn't done most of that and they aren't seeing the massive spikes like those states did.

Again, the question isn't what spikes Tennessee "isn't seeing" but what spikes Tennessee "WILL see". That future depends on what's done in the present. And the massive spikes have everything to do with population density. The denser the population, the easier the virus finds it to spread. Hence, "social distancing" restrictions by definition DECREASE population density. Anywhere.

The main reason the president has resisted recommending a national shut down is because he said one size doesn't fit all. Stay home orders might be necessary in heavily populated areas like NYC, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for Pierre, South Dakota.

Actually it does. Viruses don't care where they are or who the governor is. They're going to work the same way, including, as we've known for some time, spreading as a result of silent carriers who never got tested because they're not showing symptoms. As long as that isn't done, how far those silent carriers can spread is limited only by whatever movement restrictions they, or an outside entity, adhere to. Regardless whether it's NYC or South Dakota. It's again only a matter of degree.

Restricting people's civil liberties shouldn't be taken lately and people living in places like the plains states where they've only experienced mild outbreaks shouldn't be "punished" just because NYC is a mess right now.

What the 'civil liberties' crowd keep missing is this --- these are not restrictions on PEOPLE. These are restrictions on a VIRUS. Yuge difference, libertarily speaking. If anyone can show us how viruses have civil liberties, they'll have a ball to run with.

 

[dudmuck]

Didn't they learn a lesson from the first attempt? And they think that whining about the governor's reaction to Coronavirus will get this done?

---In response to the lack of preventative action that has been made across the state, we have no choice but to start making real palpable action to remove Bill Lee from office.---

Sign the Petition

Emergency Recall of Tennessee Governor Bill Lee

www.change.org

It probably worked, because yesterday Lee signed order to stay at home.

Its not a coup if the law is followed.
Its only a coup if illegal force is used.

 

[Lysistrata]

It would be interesting to know why, after so many other states have issued various orders in the name of public safety, the Governor of Tennessee hasn't followed suit...

The governor believes personal liberties should not be restricted. Some people believe in freedom, some don't.

Bullshit. Some people don't give a damn if they endanger others. I had to go to Home Depot this morning because we were having plumbing problems. There was a line outside, and the store had Xs outside to tell people how to keep their distance from each other. Sure enough, one of these spoiled baby bitches ended up right behind me, a white guy around 45, tough little boytoy, whining about he wanted to live in "freedom" and this is America, and he was "sick of this shit." He just whined away. I didn't want to engage with him, but I really wish that I could have given him the hard sock in the mouth that he so richly deserved.

If these types were not endangering everyone else, I'd just let them go do their stupid shit, but they are a menace.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It would be interesting to know why, after so many other states have issued various orders in the name of public safety, the Governor of Tennessee hasn't followed suit...

Maybe because he doesn't feel it's necessary. Tennessee is doing better than most states right now as far as the spread of infection.

the gov of Georgia thought that too......

And in the not too distant past, so did Trump....

It's not the same thing. We're already weeks into this. And look at Sweden. They haven't shut anything down. They are no worse position right now than anyone else. Still doing better than Italy, Spain, and the UK

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Again, the question isn't what spikes Tennessee "isn't seeing" but what spikes Tennessee "WILL see". That future depends on what's done in the present. And the massive spikes have everything to do with population density. The denser the population, the easier the virus finds it to spread. Hence, "social distancing" restrictions by definition DECREASE population density. Anywhere.

But you have no idea what Tennessee will see unless you have a crystal ball. As I just told someone else, look at Sweden. They haven't closed anything and so far they have been weathering it better than Italy, Spain, the UK, and several others. The government told their people to take precaution and use common sense. We'll eventually see if that works or not.

Actually it does. Viruses don't care where they are or who the governor is.

No, it actually doesn't. There is no reason for a small town to observe the same limitations as a large city when those places by their population alone have less contact with less people on a general basis. Small towns can observe common sense precautions. Furthermore, at no point did I imply a virus cares about who the governor is, did I? Don't inject non-sequiturs into my argument based on your own perceived bias.

They're going to work the same way, including, as we've known for some time, spreading as a result of silent carriers who never got tested because they're not showing symptoms. As long as that isn't done, how far those silent carriers can spread is limited only by whatever movement restrictions they, or an outside entity, adhere to. Regardless whether it's NYC or South Dakota. It's again only a matter of degree.

And what exactly do you think is going to happen a month from now? Say we get to April 30th and the number of new cases and deaths have decisively dropped. The president and/or governors decide we can start reopening things. Then what? The number of new cases are going to go up all over again. You can have all 50 states observe the same restrictions as New York City and it won't eliminate the virus. Unless you intend on shutting down the entire world for the next 18 months which is the approximate amount of time to develop a vaccine then the further spreading of the virus is inevitable. Of course, such an option is impossible. The question is how much economic damage we decide is acceptable to stave off the inevitable and prolonged economic catastrophe will also result in suffering and death all over the world.

What the 'civil liberties' crowd keep missing is this --- these are not restrictions on PEOPLE. These are restrictions on a VIRUS.

Semantics

 

[White 6]

Didn't they learn a lesson from the first attempt? And they think that whining about the governor's reaction to Coronavirus will get this done?

---In response to the lack of preventative action that has been made across the state, we have no choice but to start making real palpable action to remove Bill Lee from office.---

Sign the Petition

Emergency Recall of Tennessee Governor Bill Lee

www.change.org

That article is two weeks old. Wish they ha d contacted me, so I could have too them to get Fkd. Did not vote for him because Rep Governor before bought Has from Hugo Chavez and passed diesel tax so his stations could collect at purchase her money 90 days and the send original collected to the state. But, I am quite satisfied with Bill Lee even as I sit at home under emergency statewide stay home order on nonessential movement.

 

[Pogo]

Again, the question isn't what spikes Tennessee "isn't seeing" but what spikes Tennessee "WILL see". That future depends on what's done in the present. And the massive spikes have everything to do with population density. The denser the population, the easier the virus finds it to spread. Hence, "social distancing" restrictions by definition DECREASE population density. Anywhere.

But you have no idea what Tennessee will see unless you have a crystal ball. As I just told someone else, look at Sweden. They haven't closed anything and so far they have been weathering it better than Italy, Spain, the UK, and several others. The government told their people to take precaution and use common sense. We'll eventually see if that works or not.

Actually it does. Viruses don't care where they are or who the governor is.

No, it actually doesn't. There is no reason for a small town to observe the same limitations as a large city when those places by their population alone have less contact with less people on a general basis. Small towns can observe common sense precautions. Furthermore, at no point did I imply a virus cares about who the governor is, did I? Don't inject non-sequiturs into my argument based on your own perceived bias.

They're going to work the same way, including, as we've known for some time, spreading as a result of silent carriers who never got tested because they're not showing symptoms. As long as that isn't done, how far those silent carriers can spread is limited only by whatever movement restrictions they, or an outside entity, adhere to. Regardless whether it's NYC or South Dakota. It's again only a matter of degree.

And what exactly do you think is going to happen a month from now? Say we get to April 30th and the number of new cases and deaths have decisively dropped. The president and/or governors decide we can start reopening things. Then what? The number of new cases are going to go up all over again. You can have all 50 states observe the same restrictions as New York City and it won't eliminate the virus. Unless you intend on shutting down the entire world for the next 18 months which is the approximate amount of time to develop a vaccine then the further spreading of the virus is inevitable. Of course, such an option is impossible. The question is how much economic damage we decide is acceptable to stave off the inevitable and prolonged economic catastrophe will also result in suffering and death all over the world.

What the 'civil liberties' crowd keep missing is this --- these are not restrictions on PEOPLE. These are restrictions on a VIRUS.

Semantics

No, NOT Semantics, reality. NOBODY has suggested, or implemented any kind of behavioural changes for the purpose of controlling people. ALL of them have been to control a VIRUS -- spread by PEOPLE. If you can come up with a better way to starve a parasitic virus than by denying hosts for it, by all means bring it out and those stay-at-home orders will be sent home faster than you can sneeze.

 

[B. Kidd]

You can't make this Schiff up can you ?

Schiff proposes coronavirus commission, with subpoena power, to probe pandemic response

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Friday publicly proposed the establishment of a bipartisan commission, with subpoena power, to investigate the response to the coronavirus pandemic by the Trump administration and other levels of government.

www.foxnews.com

Oh ****!!!
Not another Commie-like Commission in the Dimm majority House.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Again, the question isn't what spikes Tennessee "isn't seeing" but what spikes Tennessee "WILL see". That future depends on what's done in the present. And the massive spikes have everything to do with population density. The denser the population, the easier the virus finds it to spread. Hence, "social distancing" restrictions by definition DECREASE population density. Anywhere.

But you have no idea what Tennessee will see unless you have a crystal ball. As I just told someone else, look at Sweden. They haven't closed anything and so far they have been weathering it better than Italy, Spain, the UK, and several others. The government told their people to take precaution and use common sense. We'll eventually see if that works or not.

Actually it does. Viruses don't care where they are or who the governor is.

No, it actually doesn't. There is no reason for a small town to observe the same limitations as a large city when those places by their population alone have less contact with less people on a general basis. Small towns can observe common sense precautions. Furthermore, at no point did I imply a virus cares about who the governor is, did I? Don't inject non-sequiturs into my argument based on your own perceived bias.

They're going to work the same way, including, as we've known for some time, spreading as a result of silent carriers who never got tested because they're not showing symptoms. As long as that isn't done, how far those silent carriers can spread is limited only by whatever movement restrictions they, or an outside entity, adhere to. Regardless whether it's NYC or South Dakota. It's again only a matter of degree.

And what exactly do you think is going to happen a month from now? Say we get to April 30th and the number of new cases and deaths have decisively dropped. The president and/or governors decide we can start reopening things. Then what? The number of new cases are going to go up all over again. You can have all 50 states observe the same restrictions as New York City and it won't eliminate the virus. Unless you intend on shutting down the entire world for the next 18 months which is the approximate amount of time to develop a vaccine then the further spreading of the virus is inevitable. Of course, such an option is impossible. The question is how much economic damage we decide is acceptable to stave off the inevitable and prolonged economic catastrophe will also result in suffering and death all over the world.

What the 'civil liberties' crowd keep missing is this --- these are not restrictions on PEOPLE. These are restrictions on a VIRUS.

Semantics

No, NOT Semantics, reality. NOBODY has suggested, or implemented any kind of behavioural changes for the purpose of controlling people. ALL of them have been to control a VIRUS -- spread by PEOPLE. If you can come up with a better way to starve a parasitic virus than by denying hosts for it, by all means bring it out and those stay-at-home orders will be sent home faster than you can sneeze.

By attempting to control the virus they are controlling the people, so yes, semantics, but you already know this, so I don’t know why you’re continuing to argue it

 

[Pogo]

Again, the question isn't what spikes Tennessee "isn't seeing" but what spikes Tennessee "WILL see". That future depends on what's done in the present. And the massive spikes have everything to do with population density. The denser the population, the easier the virus finds it to spread. Hence, "social distancing" restrictions by definition DECREASE population density. Anywhere.

But you have no idea what Tennessee will see unless you have a crystal ball. As I just told someone else, look at Sweden. They haven't closed anything and so far they have been weathering it better than Italy, Spain, the UK, and several others. The government told their people to take precaution and use common sense. We'll eventually see if that works or not.

Actually it does. Viruses don't care where they are or who the governor is.

No, it actually doesn't. There is no reason for a small town to observe the same limitations as a large city when those places by their population alone have less contact with less people on a general basis. Small towns can observe common sense precautions. Furthermore, at no point did I imply a virus cares about who the governor is, did I? Don't inject non-sequiturs into my argument based on your own perceived bias.

They're going to work the same way, including, as we've known for some time, spreading as a result of silent carriers who never got tested because they're not showing symptoms. As long as that isn't done, how far those silent carriers can spread is limited only by whatever movement restrictions they, or an outside entity, adhere to. Regardless whether it's NYC or South Dakota. It's again only a matter of degree.

And what exactly do you think is going to happen a month from now? Say we get to April 30th and the number of new cases and deaths have decisively dropped. The president and/or governors decide we can start reopening things. Then what? The number of new cases are going to go up all over again. You can have all 50 states observe the same restrictions as New York City and it won't eliminate the virus. Unless you intend on shutting down the entire world for the next 18 months which is the approximate amount of time to develop a vaccine then the further spreading of the virus is inevitable. Of course, such an option is impossible. The question is how much economic damage we decide is acceptable to stave off the inevitable and prolonged economic catastrophe will also result in suffering and death all over the world.

What the 'civil liberties' crowd keep missing is this --- these are not restrictions on PEOPLE. These are restrictions on a VIRUS.

Semantics

No, NOT Semantics, reality. NOBODY has suggested, or implemented any kind of behavioural changes for the purpose of controlling people. ALL of them have been to control a VIRUS -- spread by PEOPLE. If you can come up with a better way to starve a parasitic virus than by denying hosts for it, by all means bring it out and those stay-at-home orders will be sent home faster than you can sneeze.

By attempting to control the virus they are controlling the people, so yes, semantics, but you already know this, so I don’t know why you’re continuing to argue it

Because it's dishonest. Same reason I argue anything around here.

 

[lennypartiv]

By attempting to control the virus they are controlling the people, so yes, semantics, but you already know this, so I don’t know why you’re continuing to argue it

Because it's dishonest. Same reason I argue anything around here.

Move to North Korea or China if you want the government to control your life.

 

[HaShev]

You can't make this Schiff up can you ?

Schiff proposes coronavirus commission, with subpoena power, to probe pandemic response

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Friday publicly proposed the establishment of a bipartisan commission, with subpoena power, to investigate the response to the coronavirus pandemic by the Trump administration and other levels of government.

www.foxnews.com

Oh this can boomerang on him if people are observant:
1) he sets a standard that makes himself the Blame for the things he's investigating, this abuse of power to attack a political rival is what tied our hands and kept us sleeping at the wheel, so he'd have to recuse himself of his own investigation and file with the OCE an abuse of power investigation on himself.
2) he sets a standard that makes himself the Blame for Kobe Bryants death.
Instead of concern for air traffic safety, like flights in heavy California fog, he was kvetching about flight noise in his community. He was addressing his own snotty needs, disregarding the safety of his community.

As new Burbank airport noise concerns emerge, Rep. Schiff seeks answers from FAA chief

Questions are being raised about a new system that seeks to optimize air traffic efficiency in Southern California.

www.dailynews.com

Schiff Urges FAA to Review Airplane Noise Surrounding Burbank Airport

The Official U.S. House website of Congressman Adam Schiff of California District 30

schiff.house.gov

 

[Pogo]

By attempting to control the virus they are controlling the people, so yes, semantics, but you already know this, so I don’t know why you’re continuing to argue it

Because it's dishonest. Same reason I argue anything around here.

Move to North Korea or China if you want the government to control your life.

DING what's a classic example of Non Sequitur for 600 Alex

 

[the other mike]

The perils of residing in red states, especially ones with higher elected officials that are beholden to Trump or just resistant to science in general. Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi.....Tennessee.

Thanks for not including Arkansas.
It's okay if you want ....I'm from Ohio.
I'm a damn yankee....( one that won't leave)

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Again, the question isn't what spikes Tennessee "isn't seeing" but what spikes Tennessee "WILL see". That future depends on what's done in the present. And the massive spikes have everything to do with population density. The denser the population, the easier the virus finds it to spread. Hence, "social distancing" restrictions by definition DECREASE population density. Anywhere.

But you have no idea what Tennessee will see unless you have a crystal ball. As I just told someone else, look at Sweden. They haven't closed anything and so far they have been weathering it better than Italy, Spain, the UK, and several others. The government told their people to take precaution and use common sense. We'll eventually see if that works or not.

Actually it does. Viruses don't care where they are or who the governor is.

No, it actually doesn't. There is no reason for a small town to observe the same limitations as a large city when those places by their population alone have less contact with less people on a general basis. Small towns can observe common sense precautions. Furthermore, at no point did I imply a virus cares about who the governor is, did I? Don't inject non-sequiturs into my argument based on your own perceived bias.

They're going to work the same way, including, as we've known for some time, spreading as a result of silent carriers who never got tested because they're not showing symptoms. As long as that isn't done, how far those silent carriers can spread is limited only by whatever movement restrictions they, or an outside entity, adhere to. Regardless whether it's NYC or South Dakota. It's again only a matter of degree.

And what exactly do you think is going to happen a month from now? Say we get to April 30th and the number of new cases and deaths have decisively dropped. The president and/or governors decide we can start reopening things. Then what? The number of new cases are going to go up all over again. You can have all 50 states observe the same restrictions as New York City and it won't eliminate the virus. Unless you intend on shutting down the entire world for the next 18 months which is the approximate amount of time to develop a vaccine then the further spreading of the virus is inevitable. Of course, such an option is impossible. The question is how much economic damage we decide is acceptable to stave off the inevitable and prolonged economic catastrophe will also result in suffering and death all over the world.

What the 'civil liberties' crowd keep missing is this --- these are not restrictions on PEOPLE. These are restrictions on a VIRUS.

Semantics

No, NOT Semantics, reality. NOBODY has suggested, or implemented any kind of behavioural changes for the purpose of controlling people. ALL of them have been to control a VIRUS -- spread by PEOPLE. If you can come up with a better way to starve a parasitic virus than by denying hosts for it, by all means bring it out and those stay-at-home orders will be sent home faster than you can sneeze.

By attempting to control the virus they are controlling the people, so yes, semantics, but you already know this, so I don’t know why you’re continuing to argue it

Because it's dishonest. Same reason I argue anything around here.

Then stop being dishonest

 

[Pogo]

Again, the question isn't what spikes Tennessee "isn't seeing" but what spikes Tennessee "WILL see". That future depends on what's done in the present. And the massive spikes have everything to do with population density. The denser the population, the easier the virus finds it to spread. Hence, "social distancing" restrictions by definition DECREASE population density. Anywhere.

But you have no idea what Tennessee will see unless you have a crystal ball. As I just told someone else, look at Sweden. They haven't closed anything and so far they have been weathering it better than Italy, Spain, the UK, and several others. The government told their people to take precaution and use common sense. We'll eventually see if that works or not.

Actually it does. Viruses don't care where they are or who the governor is.

No, it actually doesn't. There is no reason for a small town to observe the same limitations as a large city when those places by their population alone have less contact with less people on a general basis. Small towns can observe common sense precautions. Furthermore, at no point did I imply a virus cares about who the governor is, did I? Don't inject non-sequiturs into my argument based on your own perceived bias.

They're going to work the same way, including, as we've known for some time, spreading as a result of silent carriers who never got tested because they're not showing symptoms. As long as that isn't done, how far those silent carriers can spread is limited only by whatever movement restrictions they, or an outside entity, adhere to. Regardless whether it's NYC or South Dakota. It's again only a matter of degree.

And what exactly do you think is going to happen a month from now? Say we get to April 30th and the number of new cases and deaths have decisively dropped. The president and/or governors decide we can start reopening things. Then what? The number of new cases are going to go up all over again. You can have all 50 states observe the same restrictions as New York City and it won't eliminate the virus. Unless you intend on shutting down the entire world for the next 18 months which is the approximate amount of time to develop a vaccine then the further spreading of the virus is inevitable. Of course, such an option is impossible. The question is how much economic damage we decide is acceptable to stave off the inevitable and prolonged economic catastrophe will also result in suffering and death all over the world.

What the 'civil liberties' crowd keep missing is this --- these are not restrictions on PEOPLE. These are restrictions on a VIRUS.

Semantics

No, NOT Semantics, reality. NOBODY has suggested, or implemented any kind of behavioural changes for the purpose of controlling people. ALL of them have been to control a VIRUS -- spread by PEOPLE. If you can come up with a better way to starve a parasitic virus than by denying hosts for it, by all means bring it out and those stay-at-home orders will be sent home faster than you can sneeze.

By attempting to control the virus they are controlling the people, so yes, semantics, but you already know this, so I don’t know why you’re continuing to argue it

Because it's dishonest. Same reason I argue anything around here.

Then stop being dishonest

Link?


See how hard that is? No, you can't brush off the Truth with "Semantics".

 

[lennypartiv]

What the 'civil liberties' crowd keep missing is this --- these are not restrictions on PEOPLE. These are restrictions on a VIRUS. Yuge difference, libertarily speaking. If anyone can show us how viruses have civil liberties, they'll have a ball to run with.

Restrictions on people is exactly what they are. Why should someone from NY or LA decide if a honky tonk in a small or medium sized town gets shut down?