2000 people at the White House? Did I miss something when I walked around the perimeter?
Where could they fit? Is it bigger on the inside?
3 Likes
You could probably fit 2000 people on the South Lawn if you didn’t care about social distancing.
And if you actually had 2000 people who were interested in coming.
8 Likes
looks like however much they paid them, they couldn’t pay enough for people to risk going maskless.
maybe that’s how you can differentiate his real supporters from everyone else. only his real supporters are disconnected enough from reality to forgo the masks.
eta:
tracked down that article @Brainspore mentioned above…
Supporters were invited to attend a “HUGE outdoor rally” by the group and asked to fill out a form that notified them that BLEXIT, a campaign urging Black Americans to leave the Democratic Party, will be covering travel costs.
Attendees for Saturday’s event were also told, “EVERYONE MUST WEAR A BLEXIT T-SHIRT (Which will be given to you ahead of the event) – no exceptions.”
11 Likes
They also seem to be a bit unclear on the meaning of the word “protest”.
16 Likes
This is what Trump does with everything, waive responsibility, waive liability.
3 Likes
The least effective form of propaganda.
2 Likes
I hope so. But recall that this is also how he got people to attend some of his earliest rallies after declaring his candidacy in 2015, so maybe it’s a winning strategy for his base.
8 Likes
The stuff we sign when we go in for surgery is about as draconian and rock-solid as legal wavers can get, but it still doesn’t protect completely. If a surgeon does something unnecessary that threatens your life, if he’s drunk, etc., the waver doesn’t protect him or the organization he works for.
The rally completely ignored covid procedure. I doubt seriously that waver would protect them when they knowingly ignored safety standards.
8 Likes
You might have difficulties if you knew your surgeon was drunk and signed it anyway…
To be fair he, does look like that. He just isn’t self-aware enough to realize it’s not a very good look.
1 Like
They are in a fucking cult.
6 Likes
Was coming to see this. I was under the impression that while thousands were invited only a few hundred attended and they were mostly POC. Which begs the question what they are thinking given that COVID negatively effects POC disproportionately. But these are also people wearing shirts to show support of the LEOs that are disproportionately killing POC…so I am guessing logic and reason is not strong in any of these folks.
1 Like
IANAL, but my lawyer friends tell me this is correct. A waiver like this is a contract, essentially, and contracts are a lot less enforceable than people tend to think they are. You certainly can’t sign away any other rights guaranteed under the law, such as protection from criminal negligence or deliberate endangerment of public health, as totally random examples.
9 Likes
I think of Republicans as the world’s largest white supremacy cult. Now they have a subset of Trumpkins who amount to a white supremacist death cult.
9 Likes
I know you’re kidding, but truthfully no you wouldn’t. The surgeon is held to a standard of care that can’t be signed away by a waiver.
7 Likes
'Thousands have descended upon Washington". The UK Independent says there were over two thousand there. I count 474…
I could not count those off the end of the image (which is where I would hide if I had to attend). I dare say I have missed a few in the image, but I have also included photographers, White House officials, and GOP officials putting down newspapers for the ‘guests’.
It is the cold-bloodednes that astounds me. Is Trump a super-spreader? Let’s hire a whole crowd of people that don’t matter, and see if they survive. I am sure those in charge know exactly how many they hired, and will trace what happens to them.
5 Likes
oh we know what they’re protesting
4 Likes
Lazy reporting for sure. Every news outlet I saw that had people on the ground said thousands invited, hundreds showed. And the ones that did show up were basically the ones organized/hired by Candace Owens.
7 Likes
I was about to comment on that. There is no waiver for negligence.
1 Like
Two issues here:
Duty of care. Did the organisers have a reasonable expectation that someone would be infected due to the organisers’ actions? That would be yes.
Contractual Fairness. Is the agreement fair to both parties? Perhaps no, as it tacitly and artificially downplays the risk.
It’s a bit like the disclaimers you see on the bottom of homeopaths, chiropractors, and other fake “health” providers’ websites saying that their opinion isn’t real medical advice. Would never stand up as a defence in court.
1 Like
