The rally was coordinated in about a week's time and we had somewhere around 150 people attending. I know that's not packed, but considering the timeline, I was pretty happy with it. I'm not sure how many candidates there were, but I'm a member of Mensa myself and was able to use FB effectively to get this done. I'm not sure why the need for the derogatory comments directed towards people trying to fight for our constitutional rights.

I know some organizations that have been around for years that can't get more than a handful to the capitol for a rally. 

If you are a Mensa member and organized an anti-government protest on Facebook now it really arouses my suspicions. You got a hundred or so people flagged/watchlisted because you could not be bothered to figure out another medium that does not tie directly into the US surveillance state. Great job if your goal was to get a bunch of voluntarily sign ups for reeducation camp.

Did you show your support for the ReOpen Hawaii protest by attending yesterday's rally at the capitol?

Did you show your support for the 2A movement by testifying at the capitol?

Did you show your support for the 2A movement by testifying at the capitol?

==========
 

Did you show your support for the 2A movement by testifying at the capitol?

I donate money to the cause and submit testimony online.

Do you donate money to the Reopen Hawaii Movement and attend Friday's rally?

Oh. Well good. Now that we know that what really matters is that they have good "intentions", we should all approve a ban on civilian ownership of firearms, etc., as they have rolled out "study" after "study" demonstrating the harm civilian firearm ownership causes.

I have to admit, however, that I don't have "good intentions" for those politicians and judges and civilians who buy those lines of crap.

Since the millions of dead victims from CV-19 never materialized, it could be deduced that the actions the nation and states took worked.

Hard to argue with success.  Their actions appear to have worked as intended.

Hawaii is the subject of a Daily Mail report.

California couple honeymooning in Hawaii arrested for going out to get pizza in violation of 14-day quarantine rules.

Since the millions of dead victims from CV-19 never materialized, it could be deduced that the actions the nation and states took worked.

Hard to argue with success.  Their actions appear to have worked as intended.

Even you qualify your unfounded assertion of "success" with the words "could be" and "appear". And that's all it is, an "appearance" that "could be" causally connected, not founded in data analysis.

There are numerous analyses available that show that countries, states, counties, and cities around the world that did NOT impose the more draconian measures (isolating the less at risk groups, i;e. non-elderly and those with no associated underlying conditions that would lead to poorer outcomes) of the "stricter" areas had the same or even lower infection and death rates. Plus, we all know that the death rates, in the U.S. at least, are grossly inflated by agencies (CDC and other local entities) declaring that people who test positive for COVID-19 and die are listed as a death attributed to COVID-19. This includes victims of car crashes and other obviously false attributions.

You have no evidence that the more strict measures "worked". No one does. Because there isn't any such clear and convincing evidence.

If you believe those measures are effective, do you then support those measures (stay at home, close businesses, stop all hospital services except emergencies, etc.) being put into place every time there is a flu virus that appears to be more deadly that the usual strains, including those in the past that have killed significantly more than the COVID-19 has? I mean, that would be "good intentions" based upon measures that "could be" effective and "appear" to work?

It's always going to be a "cost/benefit analysis". But that can't be done using bogus numbers and assumptions about causality that are highly likely to be untrue. We could save nearly 40,000 lives per year if we banned any vehicle capable of going over 5 mph... all good people that don't deserve to die. But we don't enact that measure... why?

Even you qualify your unfounded assertion of "success" with the words "could be" and "appear". And that's all it is, an "appearance" that "could be" causally connected, not founded in data analysis.

There are numerous analyses available that show that countries, states, counties, and cities around the world that did NOT impose the more draconian measures (isolating the less at risk groups, i;e. non-elderly and those with no associated underlying conditions that would lead to poorer outcomes) of the "stricter" areas had the same or even lower infection and death rates. Plus, we all know that the death rates, in the U.S. at least, are grossly inflated by agencies (CDC and other local entities) declaring that people who test positive for COVID-19 and die are listed as a death attributed to COVID-19. This includes victims of car crashes and other obviously false attributions.

You have no evidence that the more strict measures "worked". No one does. Because there isn't any such clear and convincing evidence.

If you believe those measures are effective, do you then support those measures (stay at home, close businesses, stop all hospital services except emergencies, etc.) being put into place every time there is a flu virus that appears to be more deadly that the usual strains, including those in the past that have killed significantly more than the COVID-19 has? I mean, that would be "good intentions" based upon measures that "could be" effective and "appear" to work?

It's always going to be a "cost/benefit analysis". But that can't be done using bogus numbers and assumptions about causality that are highly likely to be untrue. We could save nearly 40,000 lives per year if we banned any vehicle capable of going over 5 mph... all good people that don't deserve to die. But we don't enact that measure... why?

It's too soon to say the places that did not lock down were grand success stories.  Some of those places like Sweden, Norway and Denmark are now seeing a rise in cases and deaths. 

The differences among Sweden, Norway and Denmark are not significant, Jennifer Kates,
director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told PolitiFact.

But the total number of confirmed cases is increasing faster in Sweden than in Norway and
Denmark — even though Sweden is doing less testing per 1,000 people than Norway and
Denmark.

Anders Tegnell, the epidemiologist who is credited with developing Sweden’s COVID-19
strategy, says infection rate is an unreliable measure of how a country is doing.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/28/facebook-posts/sweden-mostly-open-has-higher-covid-19-death-rate-/

Your question on driving deaths is obviously weak.  A disease has no safety devices, no decision-making process and no failure to act responsibly linked to who is harmed.  Diseases can infect anybody -- period.  Driving accidents are more often than not the result of bad decisions by one of the accident "victims".

it's all about power