I was under the belief that the protests were grassroot movements.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/910330/some-antilockdown-protests-are-reportedly-being-organized-by-groups-funded-by-republican-megadonors

The Post article is pay walled, but this overview from The Week shows how calling the protests “grassroots” movements is a lie.

It has been widely reported that 3 brothers, who have been called further to the right on 2A issues than the NRA, started the idea. Once the big money donors get involved, it is no longer grassroots. It is now a dangerous political movement to usurp the power of governors in an emergency.

I want this to be over sooner rather than later. But I do not want my family’s health jeopardized by doing it too soon with little to no protection (ie, vaccine, testing, CONTACT TRACING) for any of us.

29 thoughts on “I was under the belief that the protests were grassroot movements.

  1. Really?

    I’m surprised you would think the knuckle dragging morons that want to exercise their right to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater organized ANYTHING on their own…

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Certainly they can (with close instruction), but what really fries my ass are the somewhat smart people who knowingly feed their dumb asses the daily bullshit for fame and profit.

        There HAS to be a special place in hell for them, if one believes such places exist…

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Jimmie, I’m talking about Hannity, not Trump. Sounds like corona-brain. Similar to chemo brain, which I have suffered with since 2007. Even though my wife won’t let it be an excuse any more.

            Like

  2. RE: “Once the big money donors get involved, it is no longer grassroots. It is now a dangerous political movement to usurp the power of governors in an emergency.”

    No more dangerous than George Soros funding Antifa or the political campaigns of state prosecutors who now are releasing convicted criminals into the streets so they won’t get sick from Covid-19 in jail.

    I’m more interested in the fundamental question, Do governors have the power to infringe or abridge the civil rights of their constituents? I don’t think they do. If big-money donors are supporting protests on that basis, I’m grateful for it.

    Like

      1. RE: “Why do ‘conservatives’ pretend that reasonable state, local and federal government actions to stop the spread of dangerous disease do not have the law behind them?”

        I framed the issue differently. I said governors don’t have the power to infringe or abridge civil rights. I wouldn’t argue that public safety gives them such power. I’d be more inclined to argue that the public safety powers must be balanced with respect to the preservation of civil rights, as your exhibit points out.

        In other words, it doesn’t follow from the quarantine and isolation powers that a general authority to violate civil rights exists. So, if that’s your point, I’m not buying it.

        You might have figured this out if you had taken the trouble to think through what I actually wrote and not go off on a tangent. After all, I did not write that contagious persons have a civil right to infect others which governors cannot abridge. That, however, appears to the assertion that you are objecting to, even if I never made it.

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          I responded to what you said and it is the same as what you are still saying . . .

          “I said governors don’t have the power to infringe or abridge civil rights. I wouldn’t argue that public safety gives them such power. ”

          But it does. My post was a direct response to that opinion and the response was based on the law as documented by the Congressional Research Service report. Normally, you could win a case if a governor ordered you to shut your business or stay in you home or not go to church, but when there is a serious threat to public health, you would not win.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “But it does.”

            I say it doesn’t, for the reasons already given. But if you can’t grasp the concept, then I can’t help you.

            There is no rule that says it is OK to suspend the Bill of Rights due to public health. Consequently, I would expect litigation of such a dispute to be unpredictable, not certain as you maintain.

            Like

          2. @Roberts

            What concept do you think you are expressing that I cannot understand?

            The point I made is very clear. It was summarized and documented in the CRS article. The books are FULL of laws enabling towns,cities, states and the federal government to override basic rights when public health is at risk. And those laws have been tested in the Courts for almost two centuries and have passed muster. Of course, anybody can sue and you cannot predict with certainty how any lawsuit will turn out – especially nowadays with so many Trump judges on the bench. But both the law and precedent make it unlikely that the sort of quarantine and distancing measures we are talking about would be invalidated.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. Releasing convicted criminals.

      These are people who have served most of there sentences, non-violent crimes that probably didn’t merit incarceration to begin with, geriatrics and the like.

      But your choice.

      Can you cite Soros funding of Antifa?

      Liked by 2 people

        1. “ But taking that information and converting it into the assertion Soros himself funded Ferguson-related protests and riots is problematic for a number of reasons.”

          Your Snopes link

          Wikipedia does not list Antifa as a recipient.

          The rest of the first page are cut and paste right wing echo chambers.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. RE: “The rest of the first page are cut and paste right wing echo chambers.”

            If you say so, but you could have answered your own question. You’re on your own to prove that factual information is only available from sources you approve of for ideological reasons. Personally, I find that sort of prejudice fallacious and limiting.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Perhaps I should go back and read them. I do read both sides of the spectrum pretty regularly. Apple News makes it easy and affordable. FOX, NR, WSJ, Weekly Standard sometimes, Washington Times if a headline grabs me, but it is not on Apple News, Forbes. Of course NYT, NPR, WAPO, The Atlantic get my attention for starters, but then I like to compare.

            I am sure you do too.

            Don’t you?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “Don’t you [like to compare]?”

            Sometimes. When I watch TV, I make a point to watch segments on CNN and MSNBC, for example. But for the most part I look for internal evidence of quality in a source.

            The first link in the Duck Duck Go search results I posted was to a piece at Capital Research Center. I don’t know anything about it as a venue, but I find the article on Antifa pretty evenhanded as a matter of journalism.

            Like

          4. I watched little TV before the virus, almost none now. My choices were PBS shows like Nature, Antiques Roadshow, etc. and the Golf Channel. Some news if I am eating or cooking at the Newshour. MSNBC is a bit tiresome as is FOX. To much yelling and overtalk.

            Since we cut the cord a couple of months back, I’ve seen about 3 movies.

            I much prefer to read, even transcripts. When you link a 30, 40 minute video, I will often just skip around. Reading I can stop, cross reference, reread, etc.

            All this is odd since my career was photography for advertising. A visual game.

            So that’s it. Now you know all my secrets.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. @roberts

            “But for the most part I look for internal evidence of quality in a source.”

            And yet you frequently link to notoriously bad and/or alt right sources? Something does not compute unless you measure quality by how much you like the “facts” you find there.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. …”who now are releasing convicted criminals into the streets so they won’t get sick from Covid-19 in jail.”

      I believe that the 8th Amendment covers that. And the who’s that re being released are non-violent offender, the old and infirm, and in some cases, people that MAYBE should not have been imprisoned in the first place.

      Keep playing the fear card. It worked in 2016.

      And you are more than welcome to head to Richmond and beep your horn from a socially distanced safe space. Or get out of your car and have a kumbaya moment with your fellow protesters.

      Like

      1. RE: “And you are more than welcome to head to Richmond and beep your horn from a socially distanced safe space. Or get out of your car and have a kumbaya moment with your fellow protesters.”

        Of course I am.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s