Politicians and covid mandates

[InChrist]

So your inference is based on who he is, more than what he said.
To each his own, eh.
Perhaps @InChrist will say who got it right.

You have it right.
I think mainstream media like CNN, NYT , etc. are often bias and present slanted commentary rather than straight news. Nevertheless. I check out those news sources. I especially read or watch linked sources if someone includes them in a post before responding and making assumptions based on prejudice.

My perspective on the mandates are irrelevant to the point of this thread which is about the hypocrisy of the politicians are creating the mandates. I still wonder, are they just total hypocrites who believe they can make rules for others from which they are exempt or do they believe the virus isn’t a threat to their health?

 

[InChrist]

My inner pedant required correction.
Please tolerate it.

I feel better now.

Oh thank you.
Nice editing, I appreciate the correction.

 

[InChrist]

Politicians are hypocrites. They have no moral authority whatsoever.

Many politicians are hypocrites, but I don’t think they all are anymore than most of us. The thing is though, you or I don’t get to lay down mandates for entire cities or states to comply with while we ignore them.

 

[InChrist]

So you cited these ultra-right deniers, why? To prove that when people promote masks, yet are found on occasion to not be doing the best practices, what they say is meaningless? What exactly was your point? I really do not care to have the poison of Tucker's mind enter my mindspace. I've heard enough of his drivel to know he is just in it for ratings, not for your well-being. You always seem to be attracted to this extreme voices, not voices of reason.

Do you think masks should be mandated, or left up to the individual whether or not they think what scientists say has any merit? If the latter, that is what is stupid, beyond words.

You appear to easily make assumptions. This thread was about politicians and their hypocrisy or the way they consider themselves exempt from the mandates they demand everyone else comply with. So what if you think the links are from “ultra right deniers”? Do you just turn off your brain then with a prejudice assumption? What if the information presented in the links is factual?

My perspective on masks is off topic to the point of thread, but I’ll take that rabbit trail with you for a moment. Below are links to those who have a different perspective than you or the approved mainstream narrative on the virus and masks.
These different perspectives are from prominent virologists, microbiologists, epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, etc. Are their perspectives invalid? Are they just extremist, conspiracy theory nuts?



”As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.”

Great Barrington Declaration and Petition

 

[Almighty God]

That's also "freedom of assembly" going by how you're using it.

Obviously it's not, as the constitution specifies "peaceful" assembly.

Obviously you didn't reread the Preamble, which states "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [note the underlined part]

And where in that preamble does it state that the freedom to peaceably assemble can be restricted if the government feels like it?

The government can and has passed laws and e.o.'s that can help protect Americans, thus some "freedoms" can and have been restricted at various governmental levels. And if your supposed "freedom" can harm your own family through your carelessness, then I feel truly sorry for them.

Sure, some freedoms can be restricted, except for those explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Unless, of course, you believe we should just throw the Constitution in the garbage, and let the government make up whatever laws it feels like.

 

[metis]

Unless, of course, you believe we should just throw the Constitution in the garbage, and let the government make up whatever laws it feels like.

Since I taught a poli sci course on American Government for roughly 25 years, that's certainly not an option for me.

Peaceful assembly can be regulated per the SCOTUS, and taking reckless actions that can lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans is not "peaceful"-- it's pro-death.

 

[Almighty God]

Peaceful assembly can be regulated per the SCOTUS, and taking reckless actions that can lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans is not "peaceful"-- it's pro-death.

Ah, OK. So me gathering with 3-4 friends and then quarantining myself for 1-2 weeks after is "reckless" but the massive BLM protests of hundreds of people are perfectly fine I'm guessing, right?

 

[metis]

So me gathering with 3-4 friends and then quarantining myself for 1-2 weeks after is "reckless" but the massive BLM protests of hundreds of people are perfectly fine I'm guessing, right?

First of all, it was not a reference about you as I have no idea as to the level of caution that you may or may not take. As for BLM protests, I didn't comment on that one way or the other, so why did you even bring that up?

But since you did, should they have worn masks and used social distancing? Imo, yes to both, and some did but some didn't. So?