Early Retirement Extreme Forums

jacob wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:05 pm

...The reddest states are practically and not surprisingly all found in "The Far West" nation.

There are several factors that keep red/blue states trending in their political affiliations . And some blue states have a strong red majority in their outlying counties.

Cities being the centers of education, which largely have a leftward slant, it's not surprising that persons growing up in those areas affiliate blue. Likewise someone growing up in a Red State, with predominately red centers of education and governance, wind up being affiliated with the red team.

A lot of people like to make hay of these color code distinctions when convenient, i.e., cities are cosmopolitan ergo the penchant for the blue team must be the consequence of intelligence and sober reflection. However these same people will deny the color code is behind the shameful behavior resulting from their systems, i.e., the majority of US shootings occur in the most bluest of blue states. Majority vote blue because we're smarter but majority violence is caused by <insert policy voted in by opposing team despite our team being in the majority historically and presently>.

Same thing goes for the red states. Lots of "no true scotsman" fallacies on both sides to justify bad outcomes that should be attributed to the home team.

Secession unlikely because while blue states have the banking and info tech, the red states have the agriculture, energy, manufacturing, and the loyalty of people inclined to work in military and police.

If I had to diagnose the problem, I would say financialization and globalization has tilted a lot of power toward and policy in favor of the blue states and centers in the last 40 years and in the long run that is unsustainable because not only will financialization and globalization will/have reached limits, but also people in blue states and cities need food, energy, and someone to enforce the laws. Also if wealthy people migrate to red states to avoid excessive taxation that is going to go very poorly for the blue cities.

@campitor
Good post.

Add to that the red/blue dichotomy is false. Some people lean blue because of social liberalism, but take significant issue with the overstep of government in peoples lives. There are also plenty of economic conservatives that lean red, but are not very happy with the reds use of military in constant false flag/policing type warfare. These are just two examples.

It’s these nuances that create the different cultures from state to state and region to region, not party affiliation. At least not in the younger generations.

The bottom line is that neither party is very representative of the younger generations (genX and millennial) viewpoints in totality. These parties (as evidenced by the majority of their candidates)are still very much set up to represent boomers.

@MI
I dont think it'll happen, at least not in the short/medium term. I just think it may be used as a political tool in some regions to assure that the federal government allows constitutional state rights. Better to concede states still have right to independent governance, than to have them attempt referendums for secession.

Jason wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:44 pm

(@) Chenda

Ex-high ranking military such as Powell and Mattis are expressing their issues with Trump, including but not limited the calling for military deployment against the protestors. It was a breaking point for some as it offends the basic idea of the military to protect the country from external threats not its own citizens. Cotton's OP-Ed in The NY Times got the heir apparent to the top job axed. We know that Trump views all government agencies as existing to do his bidding. The fact that he has staffed the high ranking military ranks with like-minded people is kind of scary if things got out of hand. How it would play out is beyond my pay grade. Someone with military experience might have a better idea.

Well technically the President is responsible for commissioning and promoting every officer in the United States Military (see here). The reality is the President usually doesn't provide a say in officers other than those seeking appointments at the Chief of Staff level, who then still need to be confirmed by the Senate. I would not say the President has "staffed" the high ranking military ranks with like-minded people because career military officers are apolitical. However, I will say he has eroded a lot of civil-military trust by staffing so many former/retired high ranking military officers in senior civilian posts.

I read Mattis' article in the Atlantic and I wasn't super impressed. I was hoping he would use it to educate the public about the nature of civil-military relations and instead it just comes off as another smear against Trump (even though I agree with Mattis' view). In my opinion, former military officers wading into domestic politics paradoxically erodes the very apolitical nature of the military that many of them are arguing for. This is because the masses mistakenly interpret a retired officer's opinion as reflective of the entire military.

In regards to the basic idea of the military, let's take a look at the wording of the Oath of Reenlistment:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Note that the idea of the military is not only to protect it's citizens from external threats (although that is implied). It is to support and defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. Also note that the military is bound by law to obey lawful orders given by the President.

Keep in mind that our democracy is mostly based on norms, not strict policies. In other words, the President has a lot of leeway to do pretty much whatever he wants if he doesn't care about preserving norms (see here). Lets talk about using the military to suppress protests. Well according to the Insurrection Act, the President has the ability to do that:

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Again and again, what you'll realize is the President has enormous power as Commander in Chief. I think the Executive Branch's power within the Federal Government has been increasing in the last 20 or so years. There is an assumption built into all of the foundational laws of the United States that the President will act in the best interest of the country and the Constitution. If he doesn't, in theory impeachment exists to check his power, however as we saw a few months ago, impeachment might not even be a viable check.


I provide all of the above as background information. I'm not going to attempt to speculate how some sort of civil war would play out because there are just too many unknowns. However, I will say that folks in the military run the gamut on the political spectrum and are by no means mindless killing machines. But I will also say, the military's allegiance is to the Constitution and the Presidential Office, not to any specific person. Again, this makes it tricky to predict what would happen in some sort of mutiny/civil war scenario.

Sclass wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:53 pm

Tell that to the NVA or Taliban. Maybe they’ll stop shooting our guys in the back with AK47s...if we get tired and go home.

You have about the same understanding of war as our five star generals.

Seppia wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:42 am

I have zero understanding of war. I was just saying that if an oppressive government wants to crack down in the population, it can do so even if they have AR15s.

I'm of the opinion that personally owning firearms is not a very good hedge against state-sponsored violence. I think it's a good hedge against personal violence.

Here's the problem, if the state-sponsored actor believes there is even a possibility that you are armed, they will use far more aggressive tactics. We see this playing out regularly on traffic stops in the US because every cop has to assume that the driver has a gun. In the case of the military, they will use different tactics to mitigate any advantage that something like an AR-15 would provide (up-armored vehicle, drone strike, tank, etc). So in the end, you just end up in this tactical arms race that you're not going to win when you're going against the warmachine of the United States.

Insurgency/guerrilla warfare is certainly a viable option when fighting a stronger enemy, and we've seen that play out in every conflict. But the strength of an insurgency is in its ideology, not in its weapons. The ideology needs to be attractive enough that people are willing to kill themselves, their families, and civilians in order to drive it forward. Human ingenuity is what can make guerilla warfare successful, however it will still come at an enormous personal cost to the insurgent. Many people will die and in brutal fashion. Insurgents may have to resort to more vicious tactics than the state-sponsored enemy in order to sway the local populace.

I'd also be careful to draw a ton of parallels between the United States serving as the foreign power intervening in another country, to fighting on it's own home territory. The NVA and Taliban knew that by prolonging the conflict, they could weaken the political will of the United States. That may not be the case in a civil war since we all live here (there's no going home since this is home).

It's my opinion that most Americans are so disconnected from war that they do not fully understand the ramifications of what they are saying when they throw out the idea of a violent opposition to the government. Only 5% of Americans have served in the military during wartime and a huge chunk of those are over the age of 60 (2.2% have served during Gulf War and GWOT). War is hell. And it's hell for everyone; combatants and non-combatants. Old people will die. Children will die. Those who just want to live their lives and have no opinions on the conflict will die. Is that worth it over maintaining the status quo? Perhaps for some individuals, but again I don't think many folks are making this sort of calculated decision.

white belt wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:41 pm

. However, I will say that folks in the military run the gamut on the political spectrum and are by no means mindless killing machines. But I will also say, the military's allegiance is to the Constitution and the Presidential Office, not to any specific person. Again, this makes it tricky to predict what would happen in some sort of mutiny/civil war scenario.

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/g ... ained-gang

There are active gang members in the military and it's become so problematic that the FBI sees it as a serious threat to domestic safety. So you're right about the military being highly diverse.

, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The oath of enlistment stipulates obeying the President per the UCMJ. The UCMJ specifically states lawful orders are to be obeyed - unlawful orders can be ignored although this is not without peril. A President ordering the military to shoot peaceful protesters would be an unlawful order.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when- ... -an-order/

War is hell. And it's hell for everyone; combatants and non-combatants. Old people will die. Children will die. Those who just want to live their lives and have no opinions on the conflict will die. Is that worth it over maintaining the status quo? Perhaps for some individuals, but again I don't think many folks are making this sort of calculated decision.

Yet we still go to war. An insurgency's aim isn't to defeat the enemy's war machine. The goal is to make the war so protracted and painful (think of fire ants biting you) that you are willing to come to the bargaining table or leave them alone.

Everyone keeps saying that overwhelming firepower cancels out the ability to carry out an insurgency despite decades of wars that prove otherwise. You basically fight where their army is not. You fight where the enemy is weak. This isn't a new concept.

Is civil war likely in the US? Absolutely not. It's this media induced hysteria and paranoia that has us thinking troops will be firing on civilians and civil war is around the corner. We have a long way to go before that happens. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime nor in my children's lifetime.

Campitor wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:21 pm

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/g ... ained-gang

There are active gang members in the military and it's become so problematic that the FBI sees it as a serious threat to domestic safety. So you're right about the military being highly diverse.



The oath of enlistment stipulates obeying the President per the UCMJ. The UCMJ specifically states lawful orders are to be obeyed - unlawful orders can be ignored although this is not without peril. A President ordering the military to shoot peaceful protesters would be an unlawful order.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when- ... -an-order/

Well that was my first time reading about gang members in the military. I know that recruits are screened for gang tattoos and go through extensive criminal background checks, so I wouldn't think the problem would be widespread. It doesn't seem like there's been a ton of research on the topic so I'd be curious to get more information.

Yes, I am familiar with the UCMJ. However in real life, things are rarely that cut and dry. I think it would be highly unlikely that the president would issue such a top down order, since it would be quite easy for an officer to refuse it based on legal grounds. And the reality is that any such order would first have to make it through layers and layers of a chain of command before it makes it down to the individual actually carrying out such a thing.

However, things get a bit more complicated on the front lines. For example, how do you define peaceful protestors? Here are some things that could be interpreted as acts of violence: violating curfew orders, looting, smashing/burning cars, throwing bricks, throwing molotov cocktails, firing warning shots. Where is the line between peaceful and non-peaceful? I'd argue there's a ton of gray area and in real time it's going to come down to the eye of the beholder. In other words, the 20 year old National Guard Soldier getting a molotov cocktail thrown at him might react with swift violence in the moment. I've seen painstaking media coverage to highlight the outrage that David McAtee was shot and killed by a National Guardsman, and then halfway down the article I find out that he first fired 2 shots from his pistol either as a warning or directly at police/military.

In Philadelphia, a gun shop owner shot 3 people who broke into his gun store in an attempt to loot it. As far as I understand, this is perfectly legal because he felt his life was in danger. However, it seems in many cities that police have allowed looting of shops to go on unabated. I guess I find it confusing that an individual can exercise his right to defend his livelihood, but the state won't do anything to protect an individual's livelihood.
I understand that the majority of demonstrations have been peaceful and what not, but things can change pretty rapidly if a few members of the crowd resort to violence.

Now despite all this, I actually support the need for widespread police and criminal justice reform.

Well that was my first time reading about gang members in the military. I know that recruits are screened for gang tattoos and go through extensive criminal background checks, so I wouldn't think the problem would be widespread. It doesn't seem like there's been a ton of research on the topic so I'd be curious to get more information.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publ ... assessment

As of April 2011, the NGIC has identified members of at least 53 gangs whose members have served in or are affiliated with US military. Among the identified gangs with military-trained members are street gangs such as the Asian Boyz, Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings, MS-13, Sureños, Tiny Rascal Gangsters, and the Juggalos; the Aryan Brotherhood, Barrio Azteca, and Texas Syndicate prison gangs; and OMGs including the Bandidos, Hells Angels, Mongols, Outlaws, and Vagos. Some gangs, particularly OMGs, actively recruit members with military training or advise members without criminal records to join the military for necessary weapons and combat training.

Younger gang members without criminal records are attempting to join the military, as well as concealing tattoos and gang affiliation during the recruitment process, according to NGIC reporting.
Deployments have resulted in integrating gang members with service members and/or dependents on or near overseas military installations, including those in Afghanistan, Germany, Iraq, Italy, Japan, and South Korea. US military officials have reported a rise in gang graffiti both on and off post in Afghanistan and Iraq (see Figure 11).

Table 3. Gangs with Members Who have Served in the US Military

Gang Name

Type

Military Branch(s)

18th Street Gang

Street

Army, Marines, Navy

Aryan Brotherhood

Prison

Army, Marines, Navy

Asian Boyz

Street

Army

Asian Crips

Street

Army

Avenues Gang

Street

Marines

Bandidos

OMG

Army, Marines

Barrio Azteca

Prison

Marines

Black Disciples

Street

Army, Marines, Navy

Black Guerilla Family*

Prison

Army

Bloods

Street

Army, Army Reserves, Coast Guard, Marines, Navy

Brotherhood

OMG

Marines

Crips

Street

Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy

Devils Disciples

OMG

Unknown

East Side Longos

Street

Army, Special Forces

Florencia 13

Street

Army, Marines

Fresno Bulldogs

Street

National Guard, Marines

Gangster Disciples

Street

Army, Marines, Navy, National Guard

Georgia Boys (Folk Nation)

Street

Army

Haitian Mob

Street

Army

Hells Angels

OMG

All branches

Iron Horsemen

OMG

Army

Juggalos/ICP

Street

Army, Air Force

Korean Dragon Family

Street

Marines

Latin Kings

Street

Army, Army Reserves, Marines, Navy

Legion of Doom

OMG

Air Force

Life is War

Street

Army

Los Zetas

Street

Army

Maniac Latin Disciples

Street

Marines

Mexican Posse 13

Street

Army

Military Misfits

OMG

Marines, Navy

Molochs

OMG

Marines

Mongols

OMG

Marines, Navy

Moorish Nation

Separatist

Army

MS-13

Street

Army, Marines, Navy

Norteños

Street

Army, Marines, National Guard, Navy

Outlaws

OMG

All branches

Peckerwoods

Street

Marines, Navy, National Guard, Reserves

Red Devils

OMG

Army/ Coast Guard

Simon City Royals

Street

Navy

Sons of Hell

OMG

Marines

Sons of Samoa

Street

Army

Southside Locos

Street

Army

Sureños

Street

Army, Marines, Navy

Tango Blast

Prison

Army*

Texas Syndicate

Prison

Army, Marines

Tiny Rascal Gangsters

Street

Army

United Blood Nation

Street

Army

Vagos

OMG

Army, Marines, Navy

Vatos Locos

Street

Army

Vice Lords

Street

Army

Wah Ching Gang

Street

Army

Warlocks

OMG

Air Force, Marines[i/]

@Campitor

Interesting. I don't read that as gang members being widespread in the military, but rather that any gang member who has military training and returns to their gang after leaving the service can have dramatic effects. Any known gang affiliation will get you kicked out of the military quickly, so I imagine these people must keep that part to themselves. Additionally, these folks are probably only serving one term in the military, so they are not really in any sort of position of authority. The military has 2+ million members, so I'm not surprised that such individuals could slip through the cracks. It seems like law enforcement, corrections, and legal careers have similar issues based on that report.

I do not see a secessionist movement as being successful. And not neccesarilly violent, as I think it would make both sides happy. Nor necessarily organized around existing states ala Civil War because there is not one primary issue that distinguishes sides. I just see the idea as being in the air so to speak. Not seen but a threat. Kind of like a virus. We live in a time where the operative word when addressing progress is disruption. And secession is the ultimate disruption of our system. It's just logical. If the country was a marriage, it would have divorced in 2016. But it stayed together for the children and the children are now on the streets protesting for an ideal but not necessarily an agenda because IMHO they don't know exactly what they want. But the world has chosen George Floyd over Hong Kong to rail against and that speaks volumes as it demonstrates citizens of democratic leaning systems are not inclined to defend the very system that they live under. It implies they don't think the system is worth defending. But the problem that mommy and daddy hate each other's guts but are still living together is there when they get back home at every night. The idea of secession solves the problem.

Edit Redux: Military apologizes for accompanying Trump on Church walk.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politi ... story.html

In purple states or zones, it is also the case that the gender and generational divide becomes more relevant. Very common for young adult kids to view/vote differently than parents, and for wives to view/vote differently than husbands. I think the fact that more females are employed in public/social service has something to do with this. For instance, very likely that public elementary school teacher would be more blue than her Big 3 subcontractor engineer husband, yet this would be a common marriage mix in my realm.

@ campitor and white belt:

Gangs and military are nothing new.

Back when I was a soldier, one of the guys in my company was arrested with a few pounds of pot, and illegal weapons, in his wall locker. He was in his last few months of enlistment. He got 3 years in Leavenworth.

One of my old sargeants got out early, and became a local dealer. I knew several active members of gangs while I was in the service. Mostly just guys trying to get ahead, using the tools available to them. Several guys from basic and AIT joined up to get away from the gangs, but when one goes home on leave, the guys one knew back in school are still there, still working the same scams, or new ones.

I was in the service for desert shield & storm. The oldest enlisted at the time, were from Vietnam, or right after. The late 70's to the mid 80's were "a different army". One with a much more comfortable relationship between soldiers and crime. The stories our chaplain would tell, when you got him going... let's just say that authority was less unidirectional in practice than theory.

They were still pretty zealous in the early nineties about cracking down on that sort of thing. K-9 inspections were expected quarterly, and piss tests were every other month or so. Crazy amounts of active patrolling in garrison.

From the gang perspective, if your business model involves violence, why wouldn't you recruit from a pool of trained professionals who are comfortable taking orders, and used to harsh conditions, and low pay? Plenty of guys get out with prospects, places to go, and the right skills to get going. But plenty don't. They are going to do something to get by...

@MI

I wish I had your confidence. I'm not concerned about orders to shoot from above. As white belt pointed out, too many places where that order can be "reinterpreted".

But consider Ft Sumpter, where in what is commonly known to be the first battle of the civil war, both sides were under orders not to engage. Yet still there was a battle. (And not the first one, not even first in that conflict)

Or Kent State. Nobody ordered the national guard to fire on protestors.

Or to prevent that, sending squads of national guardsmen out to patrol, after the Rodney King riots, without ammo. That will keep them from shooting protestors. Problem being, once the locals found out they didn't have ammo, it wasn't long before jumping patrols and taking their weapons was the new crime of choice.

When politicians get confused about the difference between police and soldiers, bad things happen... Every time.

Sometimes, we use soldiers like police, and then soldiers and civilians have to suffer. (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan)

Sometimes we use police like soldiers, and then only civilians have to suffer. (War on drugs, no knock warrants, SWAT, HRT, BATFE, etc) Judging by the reaction, some people are really tired of this, and are ready to try the other option.

Me, I am all for peace, so I will hide out on an island, listening to birds sing. And wish everyone the best of luck.

If it happens, I am more prepared than most.

The government orders lockdowns and crashed the economy, and the virus (possibly man made) was a perfect scapegoat for another Wall Street bailout.

Then the protestors hit the streets.

Now I hear murmurs of more lockdowns.

Government is quickly losing credibility and respect.

I do not know if it is Russian and/or Chinese psy-ops, or a controlled demolition to the economy so the banking-governmental complex can buy everything and they can implement surveillance tech, or if it is incompetence, or some combination of all of the above.

The Bull Market in Fear has begun.

Through some quick and dirty googling, California alone produces about a quarter of the US's agricultural output, by dollar value anyway. Food production might not be so lopsided as people suppose. See: central valley, which is nothing like what most people expect to see in CA.

See Alsace-lorraine, and the Shenandoah Valley.

Productive agricultural land tends to be fought over, fiercely.

Then think of life in LA, when the pipes won't bring water...

Everyone is better off when we are throwing words and the occasional rock/brick/bottle, than if the shooting starts.

Easy to forget, when one feels targeted.

After one has been targeted, one may wish for the good old days when one merely felt targeted.

Oregon has paused re-opening for 1 week due to upward trend in new cases to evaluate medical preparedness.

I bet "workplace infections" will be the new watchword for the summer. Really feel sorry for those who get infected and don't even have sick leave provided by their employer.

Perhaps I spoke to soon about secession being unlikely.

“CHAZ,” or the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has fenced itself off and called itself a no-cop zone in Seattle.

This is getting good.

RJ, will your neighborhood form an islander mutual defense league?

They are demanding, among other things, rent control. I am very glad not to own property in a “blue” state.

Mister Imperceptible wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:22 pm

Perhaps I spoke to soon about secession being unlikely.

“CHAZ,” or the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has fenced itself off and called itself a no-cop zone in Seattle.

The odd thing about "CHAZ" is that they are implementing some of the same procedures that they criticize government for such as stop and frisk, erecting barriers, questioning people entering/exiting the zone.

Their supposed list of demands is pasted below. I've put bold font on the demands, if true, that would lead to the eventual demise of "CHAZ".

1. The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition.
   In the transitionary period between now and the dismantlement of the Seattle Police Department, we demand that the use of armed force be banned entirely. No guns, no batons, no riot shields, no chemical weapons, especially against those exercising their First Amendment right as Americans to protest
2. We demand decriminalization of the acts of protest, and amnesty for protestors generally…
3. We demand the City of Seattle and State Government release any prisoner currently serving time just for resisting arrest if there are no other related charges, and that those convictions should also be expunge
4. We demand that prisoners currently serving time be given the full and unrestricted right to vote, and for Washington State to pass legislation specifically breaking from Federal law that prevents felons from being able to vote.
5. We demand the abolition of imprisonment, generally speaking, but especially the abolition of both youth prisons and privately-owned, for-profit prisons.
6. We demand the de-gentrification of Seattle, starting with rent control.
7. We demand free college for the people of the state of Washington, due to the overwhelming effect that education has on economic success, and the correlated overwhelming impact of poverty on people of color, as a form of reparations for the treatment of Black people in this state and country.
   We demand that between now and the abolition of the SPD that Seattle Police be prohibited from performing “homeless sweeps” that displace and disturb our homeless neighbors, and on equal footing we demand an end to all evictions.
8. We demand a decentralized election process to give the citizens of Seattle a greater ability to select candidates for public office such that we are not forced to choose at the poll between equally undesirable options.

I'm not a fan of for profit prisons but you do need a system of incarceration to help reform criminals and to isolate repeat violent offenders from the general population. I wonder how CHAZ would handle a serial rapist for example? Death? Expulsion from CHAZ? Obviously their "Justice System" will be a finger in the air/my gut is telling me type of system.

De-gentrification? As businesses improve, they make upgrades. These upgrades attract customers. More customers means more money. More money means more capital improvements to the surrounding area. Capital improvements to the surrounding area attracts more people. More people means more housing. More housing means more investment in public utilities to accommodate the increased load. More investment in public utilities requires increased taxes. Increased taxes stimulates increased pricing in rent, goods, and services, which drive out lower income workers and mom&pop businesses that operate at a margin. Maybe CHAZ has created a barrier the blocks out the law of economics or they are all planning to work for free?

Free college? College staff will not work for free so it's not really free college. Taxing the local communities to provide free college will lead to gentrification as lower income workers flee while higher income workers stay until the Laffer Curve is hit and the systems that create wealth collapse/disappear.

Having the ability to choose candidates which bypasses the internal political machinery? Hahaha!!! Wait until they need to decide who is "fit" for office - that's when the whole thing falls apart as the CHAZ community finds out that they have different ideas concerning governance and who should represent them.

To bring this back into topic, CHAZ really isn't following the recommended isolation procedures so I predict a COVID surge in the CHAZ community. The only COVID unwinding they will have, if the facts surrounding COVID mortality rates are true, will be the decline in deaths as the vulnerable die off or the sick are removed to a non-CHAZ zone for treatment.

There’s also a good deal of land use allocation that could be altered as necessary. State lines don’t matter nearly as much as your local watershed. If you don’t know how to plant potatoes, time to get learning.