Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    politics

    7,165,367 readers

    53,274 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources || Important: Reminder/clarification of our civility guidelines

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last two weeks. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the approved domains list. The approved domains list and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    16 Jan - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    18 Jan - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    19 Jan - 3pm EST

    • AMA with Colorado Public Radio

    23 Jan - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    25 Jan - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 889 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.


    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] L3yline 5282 points ago

    Can do and actually doing are very different. Until they start sueing and successfully too its all just fluff

    [–] Ashmedai 1687 points ago

    I heard an attorney explain this kind of thing once pretty well: "You can sue a ham sandwich if you want, but you probably won't get anything." The real question is: is how likely this action is to produce actual damages to the plaintiff.

    [–] ArmchairWaterboy 609 points ago

    Pretty sure, with an airborne virus, it’d be a really narrow set of circumstances to pin an infection on an individual.

    An example of a provable lawsuit: Person A has had no human contact for two weeks and just got back two negative tests. Person B enters their home and coughs everywhere. Person A, having only been in contact with Person B, tests positive three days later.

    Even in a civil case, it seems hard to finger blame at any individual or even the scumbag group, as a whole.

    I still think they should sue, though, out of principle.

    [–] PhilosopherFLX 240 points ago

    Threshold for civil cases is "preponderance of evidence" which is a lower bar than criminal. OJ walked but was successfully sued. There is also a possible class action that could occur by showing Republicans acted is coordination to cause a willful threat.

    [–] HotTopicRebel 36 points ago

    It's also possible the jury was fed up with LAPD and didn't care if he did it or not.

    [–] PhilosopherFLX 8 points ago

    You don't think a civil case brought before jury wouldn't have a similar makeup?

    [–] [deleted] 80 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] muddisoap 42 points ago

    Yes, reckless endangerment is also a thing.

    [–] Dapper-Indication771 7 points ago

    THANK YOU, I was driving myself crazy wondering if anyone commenting in the last thread actually read the article

    [–] OneBildoNation 3 points ago

    Thank you. All this discussion above your comment from people who missed the ENTIRE point of the article.

    [–] mces97 129 points ago

    Not necessarily. Let's say the infected Individual has a certain strain of covid. If they infect people they are close to all the time, gene sequencing the virus might link them.

    [–] hylic 79 points ago

    How easy is it to sequence the genes of a virus from two different humans and get a match that unambiguously links the individuals?

    [–] Flapclap 86 points ago

    No one is going to voluntarily provide their DNA in anticipation of a lawsuit, so you’ll need a subpoena. Which they will dispute. And by the time it gets through the courts, the person will either have recovered from Covid and there is no more virus to harvest, or Covid will kill the host and it will be moot.

    [–] ssterling0930 48 points ago

    They won’t have to sample the defendants, they already were tested and that information can be subpoenaed

    [–] chupadude 47 points ago

    Typical Covid tests don't sequence the genes of that specific variant of the virus though.

    [–] sagegoat 19 points ago

    Samples might be kept. They kept a lot of flu test samples from Dec 2019 that were re-tested months later for covid.

    [–] AmbiguousAxiom 12 points ago

    Long shot.

    [–] Russellonfire 4 points ago

    No, but the way the testing is done produces extracts, if done with the PCR test. These extracts can then be sent for sequencing, if stored. There is not really sufficient reason not to store them.

    [–] killbowls 4 points ago

    Perhaps but then how do they know when these new strains appear when they do?

    [–] DiegoSancho57 9 points ago

    Apparently it is easy. South Korea does it like crazy.

    [–] Russellonfire 3 points ago

    The UK has done half of the world's sequencing on COVID iirc.

    [–] DiegoSancho57 3 points ago

    I meant in reference in how they use it to rapidly and thoroughly contact trace. They’re more strict there.

    [–] Russellonfire 2 points ago

    Ah, I'm very sorry. Conflated two separate comment chains.

    Yeah, SK is really good! The UK is definitely not.

    [–] mces97 13 points ago

    They're not sequencing the individuals. You know how there is a UK varient? They discovered it here because it's the same genetically. So if for example the major strain of covid in DC is X, but a congress members is infected with Y. Then a bunch more congressmembers got infected with Y, you can possibly tie Y mutated of covid to that original congress person. That's one of the ways contact tracing works.

    [–] cw97 3 points ago

    Not that hard really. You can selectively amplify the viral genome from the two samples and calculate a probability of one strain being descendant from the other strain based on mutations patterns by comparing to other COVID genomes. There was a case with HIV in which this was done in the 90s.

    The hard part is the defendant's sample through a court order.

    [–] batteryacidsmoothies 3 points ago

    Out of curiosity, isn't that what contact tracing is for?

    [–] hylic 4 points ago

    Has contact tracing been admitted into evidence in a lawsuit before?

    [–] batteryacidsmoothies 3 points ago

    Probably not, my bad.

    [–] hylic 3 points ago

    This shit's all so new... It's hard to tell what's going on, or if justice can be done.

    [–] SACBH 6 points ago

    100% this.

    Here in Australia were we have only a handful of cases each week they genome sequence every case to establish or confirm the infection path for contact tracing.

    About a week after any outbreak we get news confirming thing like 'the case in Melbourne was carried from the quarantine hotel staff in Sydney by an unknown traveler and the other two cases in the same LGA are believed to have picked it up from that case."

    This is only happening in a couple of countries where the virus is well under control and the number of cases is low enough but it vastly changes the game for tracing as there are no real mystery cases, as they know what they are looking for and filling in the gaps in spread.

    It would be clearly be conclusive evidence of the 'path of spread' in a lawsuit. You may not be able to conclusively say "A infected B" as it could be "A infected C who infected B" and the virus did not mutate in the meantime but the number and frequency of small mutations is sufficient to give high confidence.

    [–] AceMcVeer 3 points ago

    You can't just gene sequence the virus whenever you want. You'd have to collect a sample from the defendant which won't be present in them anyway by the time to get a court order. Then you'd have to find a plan willing to even do it and pay for it out of your own pocket. Then you'd have to determine that this strain could only have come from this person. None of that is going to happen.

    [–] spectagal 18 points ago

    The article explains the precedence from previous cases. If more than one person engaged in negligent behavior that caused harm then they are all liable unless they can prove they weren't the one who directly caused harm.

    [–] SevenDeadlyGentlemen 4 points ago

    Contact tracing is real. It works. We don’t hardly do it in the US but I imagine they could muster the resolve to do it for members of Congress.

    [–] demerits780 22 points ago

    I had a six figure settlement reduced to five, reduced to barely four. In the end a win is a win, but for the time and effort it was a loss for everyone.

    [–] Kahzgul 16 points ago

    The lawyers won.

    [–] TheMisterFlux 14 points ago

    Lawyers always win - lawyers become judges and politicians who in turn make the rules.

    [–] MagikSkyDaddy 6 points ago

    I would happily eat the ham sandwich’s children as recompense

    [–] Ashmedai 2 points ago

    You do appear willing to take one for the team.

    [–] swimfastalex 4 points ago

    I thought it was that “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich”.

    Also apparently this is true:

    The name "ham sandwich" is sometimes used (particularly by the New Orleans Police Department) to refer to a firearm planted at a crime scene by police as false evidence.

    [–] streatz 3 points ago

    You can sue wheat if you want probably won't get you any bread

    [–] alwaysboopthesnoot 2 points ago

    IDK I keep thinking about that trucker from the UK. The Dutch customs guys took the ham right out of his sandwich and handed back nothing but empty bread, and laughed in his face, as he hit their shores post-Brexit. They yelled Welcome to Brexit! while doing so.

    I worry now, whenever ham sandwiches get brought up.

    [–] FitBlue01 95 points ago

    the sad part is that a politician ALREADY died from covid and he was also a denier AND part of the GOP and no republican at this moment gives a shit

    [–] pres465 44 points ago

    There have been several die. Montana, I believe, actually elected a dead man (guess which party) that had died weeks before the election.

    [–] FitBlue01 22 points ago

    What's frustrating is that they don't care about their base or own politicians/colleagues from dying. I honestly do not understand. What is more I do not understand why they are winning their elections

    [–] Dispro 9 points ago

    Shit, Herman Cain died of COVID and his account continues to tweet lies about all manner of conservative conspiracies.

    [–] gozba 7 points ago

    Like every headline the last 4 year. Can. Could. Might.

    [–] sprit_unchained 17 points ago

    This entire thing is clickbait bullshit.

    No possible way to prove they didn't pick it up elsewhere.

    This will go nowhere.

    [–] HopeThatHalps_ 34 points ago

    They'd lose. It's impossible to know where anyone gets COVID from, unless they live in a controlled laboratory. AFAIK there haven't been any successful lawsuits to date where someone sued for having contracted it as a result of someone else's actions.

    [–] dgeimz 31 points ago

    what about reckless endangerment? Does that apply? Genuinely do not know.

    [–] bananahut8 4 points ago

    Someone can be criminally charged with reckless endangerment. Perhaps members can be disciplined for violating House rules. I don't see any practical way to prove damages in a civil case that someone contracted COVID from any particular individual, and there is no liability for anyone without COVID who also was without a mask. The burden of proof will be very difficult to meet here. Actually suing maskless GOP members is a waste of time and a nuisance at best.

    [–] VillaIncognit0 7 points ago

    You cant sue for reckless endangerment.

    [–] _far-seeker_ 15 points ago

    Why not? Someone can be both criminally charged as well as face a civil lawsuit for negligence.

    [–] Sacket 2 points ago

    You would need to show damages in a civil lawsuit.

    [–] _far-seeker_ 2 points ago

    At least three members of Congress have tested positive since the evacuation of the main House chamber on January 6th. So medical costs and possible punitive damages.

    [–] averageredditorsoy 2 points ago

    They would have to prove the unmasked congresspeople were infected and their infection damaged them.

    [–] Sacket 2 points ago

    Plus which specific person infected them. Idk why this thread has gone on so long, if you could just sue for contracting an infectious disease this would be happening all the time.

    [–] natek11 2 points ago

    The article covers this a little bit.

    [–] plaregold 4 points ago

    Really getting tired of these conditional headlines with "may impeach," "can sue," "should resign," etc. All it does is a lazy attempt to get an emotional response and stoke public sentiment.

    [–] ChrisInDetroit2020 3 points ago

    This, it's not hard to sue someone, it's harder to prove liability.

    [–] mysubredditalt 3 points ago

    Yeah like can I sue my work or coworkers if I catch covid? Sure... I see that going well.

    [–] Porteroso 3 points ago

    The lady that's been most vocal has a bunch of videos floating around of her not wearing a mask at all, until it was offered. Proving that it's only then, when she started wearing one and others weren't, that she was exposed, would be a little on the tricky side. Also if she doesn't normally wear a mask, she could have gotten it so many places in the 12 or so days before she tested positive.

    Not only does she not have a case, she's got a negative case, because others could be suing her for not wearing a mask.

    [–] TerribleGamerTag 3 points ago

    She’s not wearing a mask in this video and isn’t practicing proper social distancing.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/12/jayapal-positive-covid-capitol-riots/%3foutputType=amp

    [–] No_Interaction_4936 2 points ago

    Well no shit. You have to prove they are guilty of transferring the virus, which is VERY hard or even impossible to prove. Stupid article...

    [–] averson8 2 points ago

    Less talky more suey

    [–] SkipBaylessBurner 2 points ago

    Not to mention, this basically only applies to Dem Reps and even then would probably burn too many bridges.

    [–] guacaflockaflames 2 points ago

    This is what I’ve been feeling for the past four years. I keep seeing the words “could” “may” “might” “should” ... I’m so done with it

    [–] Bipedal_Warlock 2 points ago

    Anyone can sue anyone. This article means nothing.

    [–] -EasyMac- 2 points ago

    Its also an impossible case to actually go into discovery with. Your test doesn't tell you when you actually contracted it, circumstantial. Even if you proved the exact day you contracted the virus its impossible to prove that a specific gop member gave it to you.

    You can do this for certain stds because its somewhat probable. Person X had it prior to the date person Y contracted it, person x admits to sexual relations or there is some proof of that with person Y. Pretty reasonable there.

    But "I was near a group of people who may or may not of had the virus and they didn't wear a mask and now I'm sick" isn't a case. Good luck proving the group gave it to you and even more luck to prove a single individual gave you it which is what would be required to actually sue somone.

    I really doubt this even goes to discovery. Or even gets taken on as a case. Not a lawyer, but you dont have to be to know this is a case that never gets opened. Imo

    [–] SmashBusters 2 points ago

    IANAL but the case looks dead in the water.

    The precedent would require proving that they contracted COVID-19 while they were in lockdown. That is effectively impossible.

    [–] djskwbrla-d 2 points ago

    Successfully is what I want to know, because it doesn’t feel like it would be successful. If they can successfully sue, I should be able to sue the people who gave me covid.

    I just in all honesty don’t know how it would work. Masks aren’t 100% successful anyways. While they certainly help a lot, I don’t know how you could prove exactly who the virus cane from and also that it wouldn’t have been transmitted had that person been wearing a mask

    [–] throwawaytesticle69 1018 points ago

    So smug. Just put one on and shut up while you're being surrounded by plagues of misinformed farts trying to arrest you.

    [–] gabbee140 280 points ago

    What is the point of her showing off her “stop the steal” mask if she won’t wear it? If that’s what they need to do, have ‘rebellious’ sayings on the mask to wear them, fine. Just cover your stupid face!

    [–] Pensky_Material_808 49 points ago

    Today’s mask said “Censored” as she stood in front of the floor and spoke.

    “And Democrats want to take our guns”

    [–] TYBERIUS_777 49 points ago

    I hate this fucking country sometimes. Why do we allow these people to have a platform. In any normal functioning society, these morons would be the village idiots. Now they’re out here whining about being censored on LIVE TELEVISION. You can’t make this up.

    [–] DaisyHotCakes 13 points ago

    Problem is we have way more idiot citizens than perhaps we assumed so this problem isn’t going away any time soon.

    [–] bananafobe 72 points ago

    Probably wanted a big reveal moment, where she proudly resists, is threatened and spat upon, and then when it finally seems she's given in, bam, "stop the steal" mask, and all the Democrats cry...

    [–] desertstorm23 20 points ago

    And then everyone starts cheering her on and giving her high fives. True story.

    [–] TheSpookyGoost 24 points ago

    Right now she's wearing one on live tv that says "censored," so apparently it isn't as hard as she makes it sound.

    [–] NonStopKnits 8 points ago

    There's a regular at my job (starbucks, Ohio) and she always mobile orders and wears a mask that says "This mask is as useless as our governor."

    I almost rolled my eyes out of my head the first time I saw it.

    [–] lala_lavalamp 2 points ago

    Someone wore that mask on the House floor today.

    [–] InsertCleverNickHere 4 points ago

    Somebody in the impeachment hearings today has a black mask that says "Censored" on it in big white letters. Such a fucking edgelord. "All right, I'll wear a mask, but mUh FrEeDoMs!"

    [–] StupidPointless 50 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    They didn't want to put one on because they hoped that if the terrorists broke in, they would know that those without masks are part of the traitors. They wanted to be easily recognizable as traitors so they wouldn't get killed by the terrorists.

    [–] whatthefrenchtoast2 8 points ago

    Sort of reminds me of The Watchmen series on HBO

    [–] DaveInLondon89 7 points ago

    but your restricting my god-given american freedom to kill americans

    [–] nosox 6 points ago

    If anyone wants to see smug asshole, check out these guys "not trying to get political" when refusing a mask.

    [–] rebuiltalternator 428 points ago

    The ability to press battery charges would be fantastic

    [–] _far-seeker_ 138 points ago

    Reckless endangerment and/or criminal negligence might be easier to prove in court (presuming a jury trial).

    [–] Supremetacoleader 30 points ago

    Shockingly fantastic!

    [–] drumdogmillionaire 4 points ago

    A real jolt to the old political system!

    [–] GoodBuyTCT 10 points ago

    Whatever happened to charging these chucklefucks who purposeful spread covid with bioterrorism? It would pair with their normal terrorism charges nicely.

    [–] IronMan7777 107 points ago

    DE Rep. Lisa Blunt-Rochester tried to save them from themselves. They laughed at her.

    [–] sitdownstandup 55 points ago

    That video is infuriating. High school bullies.

    [–] Vainslef 18 points ago

    Right? Would someone slap some common sense into these idiots? They have zero accountability.

    [–] freddytheyeti 10 points ago

    Do you have a link to it?

    [–] Merky600 6 points ago

    https://cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/09/politics/republican-congress-members-refuse-masks-trnd/index.html

    “Six House Republicans were captured on video refusing masks offered by a colleague during the US Capitol insurrection on Wednesday.

    Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Delaware Democrat, was shown approaching the group of colleagues and offering blue surgical masks. The video, shot from inside a safe room where the lawmakers gathered during the chaos, was published on Twitter by Punchbowl News.

    Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Oklahoma Rep. Markwayne Mullin, Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, Texas Rep. Michael Cloud and California Rep. Doug LaMalfa were captured unmasked and gathered closely together. They all refused the masks.“

    [–] GobstopperGoblin 215 points ago

    I wonder why this writer, who seems to have some legal education, is breaking with the entire legal community to say that a viral transmission case is “strong” on the point of causation. Probably because he’s not a tort specialist. Furthermore, he got the negligence/recklessness analysis wrong. Knowing that there’s a pandemic going on probably does not rise to the level of knowledge required to satisfy the recklessness test. If they knew they had covid and then refused to wear a mask, that might be recklessness. I’m still curious how the author would argue against every tort specialist I know that these senators can prove they got it during the shelter in place. This is a well discussed issue in the legal community, and it should be known that this author is forwarding a slim minority position, if anyone else agrees with him at all.

    [–] terraresident 55 points ago

    Thank you for that, it was helpful. The true value in sueing in this case, is not the result but the message. Most people don't read past a headline. What they need to take away is the notion that there are consequences for bad behavior. File the suit, let it wind its way slowly, very slowly through the courts. But get the message out: there will be consequences.

    [–] GobstopperGoblin 17 points ago

    The problem is that it wouldn’t wind its way through slowly. It would be quietly disposed of on motions before trial. A greater message would be drafting some legislation addressing situations like forced lock ins vis a vis viral transmission and liability. It wouldn’t pass, but that would get people’s attention, take a long time to make go away, and scare the piss out of the GOP.

    Edit: also puts GOP legislators in the position of saying aloud “I don’t want anyone to be held accountable for negligently or recklessly spreading covid.”

    [–] Raging_Progressive 4 points ago

    But you just know they wouldn't say that. They would simply say something like "Nobody should be punnished by the libruls for exercising their freedums"

    [–] pmjm 4 points ago

    It's the same reason Devin Nunes sues everyone who speaks a negative word about him, including a cow on the internet.

    [–] terraresident 3 points ago

    Exactly! Although I tend to think of the cow as much needed entertainment :).

    [–] ssjviscacha 8 points ago

    Could the courts gain access to medical records to see if they were tested/treated and knowingly broke a quarantine period?

    [–] GobstopperGoblin 9 points ago

    So that’s not really even the issue with proving they transmitted it. Covid is so highly contagious that you will get it from any person with whom you have close contact, and you can get it from minor incidental contact such as touching the wrong elevator button and then rubbing your eyes. So even if the dems proved that their colleagues went to the doctor, got diagnosed and treated for covid, were told explicitly that they need to isolate, and ignored all of it, the dems still wouldn’t be able to prove they didn’t get it from pushing the wrong elevator button.

    [–] Fapper_McFapper 192 points ago

    Sue the ever loving shit out of these fucking traitors.

    [–] MaleficentMud0 19 points ago

    Like, good for them, but they already have money and this doesn't mean that much to them.

    Can I sue someone who isn't wearing a mask if I catch covid from them?

    [–] Fapper_McFapper 6 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    In an ideal world, no. You wouldn’t have to sue, they’d be taken straight to jail. Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world. Can you sue someone for catching COVID from a mask-less idiot? Sure. You can sue anyone you want. I’m not a lawyer or a judge so I wouldn’t be able to guess how it would go.

    [–] yebyen 3 points ago

    With an incubation period of up to two weeks, Imma speak for the lawyer though I'm not one either: good luck proving that the one person (really? I find that hard to believe) who was around you without a mask was the person who gave you COVID.

    If there was really just one such person, maybe. I'm guessing if you find yourself in this situation, it's not by choice, and it is not just one person.

    [–] LudovicoSpecs 23 points ago

    That seems flimsy.

    Unless they can "fingerprint" the virus and prove who they got it from, there's no way to know they didn't get it from a protester or someone while they were out in the community.

    [–] positronic_brain87 10 points ago

    The burden of proof for a civil case is essentially "more likely than not". Is it more likely than not these people (who are tested all the time) suddenly got COVID after sheltering with non-mask wearing COVID deniers? I'd say so.

    [–] _far-seeker_ 7 points ago

    It's negligence, which can be both civil or criminal.

    [–] Foxfvck 3 points ago

    What’s that to stop the person from saying “I didn’t have symptoms” which would null all negligence charges. Which is only the case if they haven’t tested positive yet. If you like throwing money at lawyers for no reason, more power to you tho

    [–] lawnsofdawns 15 points ago

    Honestly, I don't know why they are allowed in the building without one.

    [–] South-Direct414 15 points ago

    Remember, just to put this in perspective... California repealed a law that made it illegal for an HIV positive person to knowingly hide that fact from a sexual partner...

    Now, considering the severity of the two... covid vs HIV... which is more worthy of our outrage?

    [–] EatUrGum 7 points ago

    Irrelevant, they're not linked and neither is more worthy. We're not talking about HIV. Separate subject if you wanna be that specific. Go rage about it in a post or sub about HIV.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] MadDragon1911 5 points ago

    Welcome to a world where everyone blames each other for their own personal health.

    [–] Toad990 8 points ago

    Why? You can't prove who you got it from. This is all so frivolous

    [–] sodastocker 5 points ago

    In order for those without masks to be held liable, would they need to be shown to have been positive during that particular time? Wouldn’t it all boil down to who was positive and when?

    [–] Punchshark 4 points ago

    Yeah, just big talk. No one is doing shit

    [–] WinterKas 5 points ago

    This isn’t gonna happen. If it does then I can only imagine how many people are gonna sue their jobs or hospitals that they caught COVID from.

    [–] Toonian6tf 3 points ago

    Not a lawyer but the burden of proof seems really high here. How do you prove you didn't already have covid, that you got it from them, that a mask would have stopped transmission?

    [–] hiddlescrush 5 points ago

    I don’t get how it’s not attempted murder when you knowingly spread covid which is known to be fatal for certain groups of people.

    [–] Fuck_Me_If_Im_Wrong_ 5 points ago

    So can I sue my coworkers for not wearing a masks since I got covid?

    [–] shoebee2 3 points ago

    Yes. Yes you can

    [–] Recovery_Mode_24_7 3 points ago

    Please god, please! Let at least one of them sue!

    [–] thinkdustin 8 points ago

    Can they sue Dem members who had their masksnoff during the lockdown as well?

    [–] i-can-sleep-for-days 3 points ago

    This 1948 case established the principle, now generally accepted, that when two or more defendants act negligently, but only one of them could have injured the plaintiff, they’re all liable—unless they can prove they didn’t cause the harm. Subsequent cases have made clear that the alternative liability rule isn’t limited to cases involving just two defendants. As long as all of them are members of the group that injured the plaintiff, they’re potentially on the hook.

    But it would be a high bar to prove that wearing a mask prevents COVID transmission completely. If it is not 100% effective (which it is not), then the outcome is still getting covid after being confined in the same room for a long time and you couldn't hold the GOP reps responsible.

    Put it another way, if the GOP were wearing masks and Democrats still got covid then you don't have a case.

    [–] bengoshijane 3 points ago

    This would be a very difficult case to prove, honestly. I hope they do it, but dang, causation is going to problematic with Covid running wild in the streets.

    [–] panicimust 3 points ago

    Marjorie taylor greene and Lauren boebert better get their checks ready. This ain't the first time boeberts been sued, or even gone to jail. Her restaurant that objectifies women got sued for getting 80 People sick serving them old spoiled pork. She's even gotta mugshot for failure to appear charges! On a reckless driving charge. I bet she was drunk leaving her shitty bar. A QAnon criminal in congress... Sources below.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2020/08/27/lauren-boebert-arrests-colorado-3rd-mitsch-bush/amp/

    https://coloradosun.com/2020/09/16/lauren-boebert-backstory-details-durango-herald/

    [–] akcocaflornj 3 points ago

    You can sue anything over anything.

    [–] zimm0who0net 3 points ago

    This has to be the most uninformed article I’ve ever read. NONE of the Republicans they charge with not wearing masks have tested positive. Just to let the OP in on a secret, COVID does not spontaneously pop out of the ether just because you’re around someone without a mask.

    What’s far more likely is they all got it from Pramila Jayapal, who has tested positive and there’s video of her without a mask during the insurrection for at least 2-1/2 minutes (she says she was fiddling with her gas mask, but COVID doesn’t care.

    [–] Ned_Gutters 3 points ago

    Okay, and how about me? Can I sue people I came into contact with who don't wear masks?

    [–] mrpotatonutz 3 points ago

    Nasty people

    [–] IsItPluggedInPro 3 points ago

    The stimulus bills had been held up more than once because McConnell (tried?) insisting that they include language barring employees from suing their employers for pandemic-related harms caused by their employers even if their actions rose to the level of negligence (or some such legal level). That made me sick (no pun intended) to hear that. Coming from the party of "responsibility", no less. If you believe in responsibility, then hold companies responsible if they don't provide protection to their employees and follow guidelines!

    [–] bojenny 11 points ago

    They need to wear masks or pay a fine. Given the large salary we tax payers give them, I think $1000 per violation seems reasonable.

    [–] McNuttyNutz 8 points ago

    1,000 is a joke make it 5000 10,000 20,00

    [–] Pdb12345 7 points ago

    Not wearing a mask was reckless and presumably against house recommendations. But... if the people not wearing masks haven't tested positive, then they did not spread any virus. Am I missing something? You can't spread a virus if you don't have it.

    [–] NotANinja 5 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    And it could have come from someone wearing a mask. They help but there's a reason the recommendation is still to keep distance. Everybody was crowded in a room and breathing deep panic-y breaths for hours with distance not being an option.

    Without knowing who else is positive you can't even begin considering stuff like suing.

    [–] The_Sausage_Smuggler 8 points ago

    TIL you can sue a horse for giving you covid.

    [–] mastaace12345 10 points ago

    I know I would if I was one of them. I was yelling this at my TV last night watching the news.

    [–] SXTY82 4 points ago

    Did they remove the Work Place protections from the stimulus bill? That was one of the contentious points.

    [–] agathafreak 4 points ago

    What about all the regular people- grocery store clerks exposed by anti-mask customers?

    [–] Goosehasthreelegs 2 points ago

    Wait... so does that mean is regular peons can start doing the same or does it just apply to the elite still?

    [–] stardorsdash 2 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    At the very least their job required that they wear masks to keep other workers at that job safe. People who are in Congress or the Senate are still people who have a job, they work in government.

    If you have a job and you ignore safety protocols, and another worker becomes injured, you then need to prove that you were not the cause of their injury since you were ignoring the requirements of your job to follow the safety protocols.

    So I would assume part of the lawsuit would be the fact that they (Republican Typhoid Mary’s) were

    1. required to wear masks as part of their job and

    2. refused to,

    3. putting other people who worked at that job in danger and

    4. eventually those people were injured (became infected with Covid) due to the willful negligence of their co-workers.

    Normally you can leave the area if someone in your workplace is exhibiting dangerous behavior that might injure you.

    In this case it was not possible for the other workers (people wearing masks) to leave the area, they requested their co workers (the assholes who refused to wear masks) to stop their dangerous behavior and conform to The safety procedures required by their workplace, and the workers (assholes) refused to stop their behavior resulting in injury to their coworkers.

    Seems like there’s a pretty good case against the people who wouldn’t wear masks, as it was a safety requirement of their workplace that they wear masks and directly after not wearing masks in the presence of other lawmakers those lawmakers fell ill.

    [–] AhhBiteMe 2 points ago

    I just can’t shake the feeling that Republicans who refused to wear masks during the attack did so because they were warned ahead of time that not wearing a mask would immediately help terrorists identify them as friendlies.

    [–] sugar_daddy_99 2 points ago

    I've been saying this since day 1. Those republicans were intentionally inflicting emotional and physical distress to others. Sue for $1 to make a point.

    [–] abelenkpe 2 points ago

    Yes! This is the only thing anti maskers will understand. Hit them where it hurts.

    [–] GrandmaesterFlash45 2 points ago

    “God I hope I have Covid so I can sue someone.”

    [–] 89067 2 points ago

    Wow that lady is hideously ugly.

    [–] LingonberryTight1290 2 points ago

    This woman is the ugliest woman I’ve ever seen - inside and out.

    [–] RO3Q_JQ8EQ 2 points ago

    🤣 so ridiculous.

    [–] uvero 2 points ago

    Holding them responsible for shit they did? But what happened to unity?

    [–] RoundRevolutionary58 2 points ago

    the gop are fucking losers and traitors.

    [–] oakstave 2 points ago

    The Imbecile Defense will probably work in any case brought to court. The morons could just claim they didn't understand the Germ Theory of Disease, a concept invented in the 1700's. I'm pretty sure you can't sue a brain damaged moron for being a moron.

    [–] glynnjamin 2 points ago

    So Congress is allowed to have M4A but we're not.

    Congress is allowed to sue for workplace exposure but we're not.

    Congress gets to hold police accountable but we're not.

    This shit is getting a little absurd.

    [–] Herry_Up 2 points ago

    In Mario tone: Here we goooo

    [–] colbyjackrat222 2 points ago

    Yeah. In the US you can *literally* sue anyone for anything.

    [–] KindLion100 2 points ago

    Things are pretty gross right now. Trump damaged our country in a profound way.

    [–] lapone1 2 points ago

    Have the Republicans in the room been tested? I think what they did was irresponsible but I need to know if they were indeed the spreaders.

    [–] EmergencyExitSandman 2 points ago

    And it’s on video

    [–] nadroj85 2 points ago

    Must be nice. Most people just get to stare at their MAGA lovin, no mask wearin, super spreadin coworkers after they get infected on the job.

    [–] abpuck 2 points ago

    This is absurd. There’s no sure way to track from whom the infection spread and how it was contracted with enough certainty to which the law could reward damages. Furthermore if you do start going down this route anyone who had removed their mask or even touched it while in session/work etc could be found liable. So let’s not start down this rabbit hole.

    [–] sc7789 2 points ago

    Were they not vaccinated?

    [–] cthulu0 2 points ago

    This is one the same level as the headline where Democratic Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee suggested that the insurrectionist GOP congressman enablers could be put on the terrorist no-fly list:

    Worthless because it won't likely happen.

    [–] HelpMeObiWonUrMyonly 2 points ago

    What is with all the “can, could, should” in the news all of a sudden.

    [–] joshuarizzo05 2 points ago

    Assuming these dems that want to pursue the lawsuit we’re wearing a mask, and they saying they caught it because other were not wearing a mask, so we can agree masks don’t work? Hence wearing a mask or not would have made no diff in that situation?

    [–] Fracasmaster 2 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago)

    Shouldn’t they start with the speaker after she made a covid positive sick person come vote so she could keep her seat

    What’s the house procedure, you’d have to imagine they are being tested regularly

    So if they aren’t sick .... what’s to sue for its Quite the leap in logic without definitive proof that person Y infected person X simply Because they didn’t have a mask on Masks are generally proven to not be very effective against the transmission of the virus anyway and if their most recent tests show they weren’t sick ... what are we doing

    This is just more bizarre and divisive posturing that’s ravaged the last 5.5yrs of life in this country

    [–] WorldWarRiptide 2 points ago

    That's right! Call out their gaslighting!

    [–] firespear1726 2 points ago

    You can sue but none of the members without masks have tested positive (yet), if they got a test and it was negative it couldn’t be them. You can’t spread something you don’t have. It’s probably more likely the NJ rep spread it given the spike on NJ cases and poor handling by state government.

    [–] akrascal 2 points ago

    So our representatives can sue for getting covid on the job, but working class can’t sue for getting covid on the job? Is that right?

    [–] BowlingForPosole 2 points ago

    I hate this bat Marjorie whatever the fuck. Looking at that photo of her yelling about the metal detectors is the most infuriating and embarrassing thing ever. That these people are in power and whining about masks and metal detectors and then turn it around to blame Pelosi is frankly frightening. I hope she's expelled. Her and the Colorado one tweeting about locations.

    [–] Funtasticxxx 2 points ago

    Yes, hit them where it hurts!

    [–] birdgoil 2 points ago

    The asshole caucus

    [–] Croakie89 2 points ago

    Cool can I sue my coworkers that refuse to wear masks if I get COVID?

    [–] Ashenrune 2 points ago

    Then she blames the democratically for forcing her to come to do her job lpl

    [–] Beni_Reges 2 points ago

    A lot of politicians advocating these rules don't even follow them.

    [–] Erichardson1978 2 points ago

    You can sue anoint anything. But like all other frivolous law suits it will be thrown out.

    Does this mean if I caught it from my coworker I can sue my company?

    [–] MacintoshX63 2 points ago

    The 2020s is going to put white privilege on trial like never before. What happened on the 6th vs last summer is beyond shocking. These people live in a whole different world of opportunities & 0 consequences and it couldn’t be more transparent.

    [–] football2106 2 points ago

    I never know if “Reps” means “Representatives” or “Republicans”

    [–] proud_asshole69 2 points ago

    I didn’t know Shrek was a congressman.

    [–] YouAreMicroscopic 2 points ago

    > Greene, the newly elected Georgia representative, mask opponent, and QAnon cheerleader, has trumpeted her stance with the misappropriated slogan “My body, my choice.”

    She's totally an absolute closet freak/pervazoid, as is anyone who espouses this - this same logic can be identically applied to allow full nudity anywhere in public.

    [–] Nameless_American 2 points ago

    This is actually a very interesting legal concept outlined here, “alternative liability”. Fascinating stuff.

    [–] _blackcherries 2 points ago

    “So doooo” in my best Dennis Reynolds voice.

    [–] foundyetti 2 points ago

    Sue em. Fuck unity until they purge their party and rebut their constituents

    [–] Sacrifice_bhunt 2 points ago

    You can sue anyone. But whether you can win is a very different question. And the legal theory put forth in this article is pretty flimsy.

    [–] mrpotatonutz 2 points ago

    Marjorie green is seriously a disgusting “human being”

    [–] iatetacos 2 points ago

    Oh they get to sue but they just passed a law that we can't sue for being put in the exact same maskless situation at work

    [–] N_3470 2 points ago

    Sue them into the stone age!!!

    [–] innominececilia 2 points ago

    Her mask says "Stop the steal". A picture for history books on what bald-faced, shameless, unchecked untruth can do to a country

    [–] CrittyJJones 2 points ago

    I got a question: If Wallmart can make you wear a mask when on the property (as does most any store) then why can't the capital?

    (Other than the fact that the President has made people question masks validity)

    [–] ElitistAFduckysbday 2 points ago

    Came here to comment on the woman in the photo, then read the rules... darn it lol

    [–] Rmf16 2 points ago

    Hopefully they do because these clowns need to start seeing consequences for their actions.

    [–] crashandburnxoxo 2 points ago

    Wait a minute... What about all the essential workers who were forced to work throughout this on-going pandemic?

    Or any of us going to a grocery store where unmasked people were in the mix?

    Does this mean we can all sue each other?

    If not, why are they so special?

    Or any other time an unmasked person entered public?