2076
Comments (1138)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
4
dark_webdev 4 points ago +5 / -1

I think of it as a war. As a battle

And the best weapon is to not contract or spread this virus

If it was a visible enemy with guns would you fight or let them take over?

If the virus was illegal aliens, would you build the wall (even though it limits your freedom to visit all of Texas) or you'd let everybody come in?

8
Former_RM2 8 points ago +9 / -1

The war, in my mind, has shifted to battling opportunistic authoritarian actions by our government. The real question is; how much freedom, exactly, are you willing to sacrifice for the security that's being promised?

Also, the constitution specifically gives the federal government almost unlimited power over the ports of entry to this country. If you are speaking about the checkpoints 50-100 miles inland that ICE used to do (is doing?), then no, I'm not for it and I have never been for it. Ports of entry, yes, a 100 mile zone around the nation's borders? No.

1
dark_webdev 1 point ago +4 / -3

Trump is the best hope we got against opportunistic authoritarian actions but if there's 2.2mn dead, every ad till Nov will be about the 2.2mn dead cos of 'Trump'.

So if you cherish your freedom and wanna help Trump, this is the way

10
Former_RM2 10 points ago +10 / -0

I want everyone to be tougher, not just you. I want this country to stop fearing death, not just you, me or my mom.

Having Trump in office right now is great, but what happens when it's another president and we see a catastrophe like this? Fear of death is what gave the governor of LA, the mayor of New Orleans and the president of this country, George Bush, the tacit permission to send police, Coast Guardsmen and National Guardsmen to go door to door in and around the city of New Orleans confiscating guns, despite what the constitution has to say about it.

How many excuses are we willing to give before it stops? Or, does it never stop?

1
dark_webdev 1 point ago +1 / -0

We're not in that phase where we start shooting people. We can still vote ourselves out of this mess

6
doodaddy 6 points ago +6 / -0

The yearly flu killed more people. Proportion must be considered. Should we change to shutting down the country every year for the flu season?

1
SecularConserv 1 point ago +2 / -1

2.2 million

But that's less than 1% of the population and it's the 1% that was about to step out anyway

It's not worth the collapse of our economy because that means China rules

2
krzyzowiec 2 points ago +2 / -0

That 2 million number was also based on the scenario in which we do absolutely nothing to impede the virus. It’s a worst case scenario.

1
SecularConserv 1 point ago +2 / -1

There's definitely the option of doing and intermediate approach

We could shut down stupid things like spring break but keep are Auto factories running now that people have learned to wash their hands and say a few feet away

3
SecularConserv 3 points ago +4 / -1

The best weapon is to take the hit and build herd immunity

When we come out of hiding it just restarts

1
zuccherina 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, the best weapon is to develop a treatment that works so we don't overwhelm or healthcare infrastructure, and slow the rate of infection so we can catch up on production of PPE and ventilators. This is all being done and working!

0
SecularConserv 0 points ago +1 / -1

The difference in the number of people who die isn't worth destroying the economy

People are still going to die look at the difference in the number of deaths between this type of shut down or a much less restrictive approach to social distancing

We are way too pussified

1
zuccherina 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can agree with it. Yet here we are and I prefer to think Trump is getting more information as president than he's sharing with the public.