Billionaires see fortunes rise by 27% during the pandemic

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The 1918 flu certainly is a precedent.

The issue with that compared to now was there were no wide spread government mandated shutdowns that played winners and losers with people's businesses and/or livelihoods.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
Sorry that two hundred years of legal challenges to states emergency powers proves there is no context that Trump could legally or meaningfully do anything from the get go of the first 28 to 30 days of state lockdowns.

There has been nothing like this prior so stop thinking this happened before.

What’s that about the 1918 flu? How about polio?

How U.S. Cities Tried to Halt the Spread of the 1918 Spanish Flu



When a flu outbreak at a nearby military barracks first spread into the St. Louis civilian population, Starkloff wasted no time closing the schools, shuttering movie theaters and pool halls, and banning all public gatherings. There was pushback from business owners, but Starkloff and the mayor held their ground. When infections swelled as expected, thousands of sick residents were treated at home by a network of volunteer nurses.
Dehner says that because of these precautions, St. Louis public health officials were able to “flatten the curve” and keep the flu epidemic from exploding overnight as it did in Philadelphia.

First rule of ATS, never use absolute statements like nothing, or never. It will just make you look like a jacka$$.

a reply to: neutronflux

Try reading the comment I made above to BFFT....

"The issue with that compared to now was there were no wide spread government mandated shutdowns that played winners and losers with people's businesses and/or livelihoods."

Try again.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
Sorry that two hundred years of legal challenges to states emergency powers proves there is no context that Trump could legally or meaningfully do anything from the get go of the first 28 to 30 days of state lockdowns.

There has been nothing like this prior so stop thinking this happened before.

This was your post. I replied to.


Yes. There was something like this.

Your wrong again.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

As far as government picking winners and losers? That has being going on decades through gambling regulations, liquor licenses, business licenses, annexation, zoning, environmental regulations, redrawing electoral voting districts, controlled drugs, health department inspections, creating things like sulfur credits.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
As far as government picking winners and losers? That has being going on decades...

Not the same thing, these are mandatory shutdowns where some are deemed 'essential' while the majority are not.

Feel free to continue to conflate in your next five replies to this post.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You said nothing like this ever happen. And you were proven wrong, while ignoring the numerous ways government picks losers and winners.

You just come of as disingenuous, ignoring history, and suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.

originally posted by: neutronflux
You said nothing like this ever happen.

And I was correct, there were no state mandated shutdowns.

Be keep arguing semantics, maybe you can make 55 posts in reply doing so. Oh, make sure you ask me more questions I'm never going to answer either.