Hypothetical: How would Americans react to a full on “China style” type lockdown?

Just look at how Americans have handled the very lenient lockdown restrictions basically just ignoring them at best or reacting with immense anger at worst.

The rebeling wouldn’t only come from the right or Republicans either. Some of the biggest mass gatherings over the past six months have been BLM protests. If we were going true full lockdown by any means necessary as you described you would have to shut down BLM gatherings as well since a virus doesn’t really care about the virtue of your political motives. How do you think that would go over?

It couid never happen - it would be anarchy! Approximately 50% of Americans own firearms. This is where the Forefathers were thinking ahead by creating the 2nd Amendment- the right to bear arms. They knew after their experience with the Crown, there would always be the possibity of tyrannical government leaders taking over the U.S.

I think the next move after the election will be to force vaccinate everyone using the courts to rule on it. ?

Here's my take wrote:

I think the next move after the election will be to force vaccinate everyone using the courts to rule on it. ?

What does the Constitution say about that? Can people refuse if it's made mandatory?

Americans are soft, they couldn't handle a truly tough government like China's. There would be a lot of emotion on display. Okay, and we don't exactly have a command economy, either.

I think some states would sucede from the Union

The Chinese Chicken wrote:

Americans are soft, they couldn't handle a truly tough government like China's. There would be a lot of emotion on display. Okay, and we don't exactly have a command economy, either.

You also have to consider whether our military leaders or a Biden/Harris White House would have the stomach to put boots on the ground and declare a police state if sh*t really did hit the fan for a elongated period of time.

Like has been stated, the United States has had relatively lenient lockdowns and people are already up in arms- literally trying to kidnap elected officials. I can only imagine what the reaction would be to martial law.

I guess you could also argue if the US military just goes into communities with overwhelming force to enforce lockdowns that could break any resistance to them but then you would have to deal with enforcing a lockdown over a landmass the the size of the US.

Lol, considering the breathless furor about the "lockdowns" we have now, I can't imagine it would be good.

You can't go to a bar inside != having no rights. No wonder we have 250k dead or more.

The police were chomping at the bit to put down the BLM protests, they'd do the same if given orders to enforce a lockdown.

Whether it would wise and/or necessary? Probably not.

[quote]energeticlotuseater wrote:

[

Just look at how Americans have handled the very lenient lockdown restrictions ....

Spoken with the mentality of a slave.

Lockdowns have destroyed millions of businesses and jobs. Will result in tens of millions of people being evicted from their homes.

Lenient?

WT Hell is wrong with you?

The Unkle wrote:

Spoken with the mentality of a slave.

Lockdowns have destroyed millions of businesses and jobs. Will result in tens of millions of people being evicted from their homes.

Lenient?

WT Hell is wrong with you?

We could always pass laws to stop banks and landlords evicting people. After all, houses don't vanish during recessions...

Don't think Federal forces would be constitutionally permitted to enforce lockdowns.

Don't think a lockdown would be voluntarily complied with unless there was an ironclad argument for its effectiveness.

Don't think petulant Republicans would not do everything in their powers to throw a monkey wrench in any lockdown plan, unless the voting was so one sided that any Republican opposition would be social suicide.

appleswan wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Spoken with the mentality of a slave.

Lockdowns have destroyed millions of businesses and jobs. Will result in tens of millions of people being evicted from their homes.

Lenient?

WT Hell is wrong with you?

We could always pass laws to stop banks and landlords evicting people. After all, houses don't vanish during recessions...

There are many eviction bans in place already and landlords and banks are suing like crazy to get rid of them. Why should they not get paid and let people live on their property for free?

appleswan wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Spoken with the mentality of a slave.

Lockdowns have destroyed millions of businesses and jobs. Will result in tens of millions of people being evicted from their homes.

Lenient?

WT Hell is wrong with you?

We could always pass laws to stop banks and landlords evicting people. After all, houses don't vanish during recessions...

We could. But it won't happen. Small landlords will go broke and the big boys will gobble up all those properties on the cheap.

Dr. Run Freud wrote:

appleswan wrote:

We could always pass laws to stop banks and landlords evicting people. After all, houses don't vanish during recessions...

There are many eviction bans in place already and landlords and banks are suing like crazy to get rid of them. Why should they not get paid and let people live on their property for free?

Why should people who lost their jobs due to govt lockdowns and so unable to pay their rent or mortgage be made homeless?

If Biden/Harris sent in the national guard to repeatedly break up completely peaceful BLM protests (by force if necessary) because they were packed too close together the public outrage would off the charts.

Now, in reality I cannot imagine Biden sending in the boots to forcefully break up a peaceful BLM protest. I think it’s more likely he sends in the boots to break up an anti-lockdown protest (in this hypothetical police state) but choosing to break up one protest over another protest because you like one message more than another would just enflame the Republicans into near secession.

What has happened thus far is absolutely a constitutional violation. Those pushing lockdowns can justify it all they want as a human health issue but that is a strawman. The constitutional protections are designed for the citizen to be protected from the government forcing them to act in what the government thinks is in their best interest.

I think the only reason a lot are being complicit at this point is they believe come election day things will loosen up as this is all about the presidency. If we reversed course and went stricter there would be a full-on rebellion. Good luck telling a state like South Dakota that is doing literally nothing and has hosted a massive motorcycle rally that they need to lockdown.

Dr. Run Freud wrote:

appleswan wrote:

We could always pass laws to stop banks and landlords evicting people. After all, houses don't vanish during recessions...

There are many eviction bans in place already and landlords and banks are suing like crazy to get rid of them. Why should they not get paid and let people live on their property for free?

They don't 'get paid' like it's a job. There's nothing productive about being a landlord. Money for nothing.

appleswan wrote:

Dr. Run Freud wrote:

There are many eviction bans in place already and landlords and banks are suing like crazy to get rid of them. Why should they not get paid and let people live on their property for free?

They don't 'get paid' like it's a job. There's nothing productive about being a landlord. Money for nothing.

You mean they didn't create the land? Did not build the buildings?

The Unkle wrote:

appleswan wrote:

They don't 'get paid' like it's a job. There's nothing productive about being a landlord. Money for nothing.

You mean they didn't create the land? Did not build the buildings?

I guess so, builders build buildings. The only investment landlords provide into housing is money they've taken from their tenants going out to work.

Most people could afford to maintain or improve their home. I don't need a landlord to fix the shower or arrange repairs, all he does is call someone out and pays them with the money I've given to him.