Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tywin Manderly

US Politics: Get Tested or Get Bested

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

just worried how they'll work and what the effects of the virus will be on them. 

Fair enough, and agreed.

43 minutes ago, Gorn said:

the harm that it would do would be far greater than any potential deaths caused by people spending time at the polling places.

No, I strongly disagree with this.  First, the "Spanish flu" did not impact a presidential election at all, it occurred in between cycles.  Second of all, the rest of your examples were wars where we were fighting an enemy that threatened our government itself.  Of course you want to maintain consistency in such instances, and have voters vote as should be to reinforce confidence in the cause.

That's not the same as this.  Who knows how long this will last, but if both parties agree it's reasonable to delay or alter November's general elections - which, ya know, is not out of the realm of possibility - I'll be willing to hear their explanation for why with an open mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's not the same as this.  Who knows how long this will last, but if both parties agree it's reasonable to delay or alter November's general elections - which, ya know, is not out of the realm of possibility - I'll be willing to hear their explanation for why with an open mind. 

I'm extremely cautious about the idea of delaying elections for any reason.  We have almost 250 years of history that elections go on no matter what, and I'm really leery about letting the two parties "agree" to postpone elections.  American democracy is bigger than Republicans and Democrats, and I don't feel at all comfortable just leaving it up to the two parties. 

At the very least, I need a damn good reason why such a delay is acceptable, and "mail in voting is awfully hard to do in just a few months" is not enough.  If it were October 30 right now instead of March 30, I could understand, but 6 months is a long time to get something done if the country wants to do it enough.  And there are very few things that the country ought to value higher than maintaining the integrity and safety of its elections. 

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Not worried about them being cancelled, just worried how they'll work and what the effects of the virus will be on them. 

My thoughts as well. How legitimate could they really be if large numbers of people are unable to vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm extremely careful of the idea of delaying elections for any reason.  We have almost 250 years of history that elections go on no matter what, and I'm really leery about letting the two parties "agree" to postpone elections.  American democracy is bigger than Republicans and Democrats, and I don't feel at all comfortable just leaving it up to the two parties. 

At the very least, I need a damn good reason why such a delay is acceptable, and "mail in voting is awfully hard to do in just a few months" is not enough.  If it were October 30 right now instead of March 30, I could understand, but 6 months is a long time to get something done if the country wants to do it enough.  And there are very few things that the country ought to value higher than maintaining the integrity and safety of its elections. 

The easy answer would be to just throw a lot of money at it and open like a hundred times as many voting locations as we had in 2016.

And everybody has to bring in their own pen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If it were October 30 right now instead of March 30, I could understand, but 6 months is a long time to get something done if the country wants to do it enough.

Agreed, I don't think this will be an issue - but there is obviously an increased possibility.  If October 30 looks like right now, then it is something to consider.  And no, it's not just because vote-by-mail is "too hard," it's because drastically changing the way millions of voters habitually go to the polls and then expecting or assuming they'll comply to such an alteration is just as much a "threat to democracy" or the traditional way of life as delaying the election would be.  

Anyway, normatively, the emphasis should be on ensuring turnout is at relatively similar levels to recent cycles.  If that means delaying for a bit, so be it in my view.  I am comfortable "just leaving it up to the two parties," because that's always been how anything meaningful changes in the entire history of the US government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Leaving any decision up to rethugs inclusion is really stupid.  OTOH, what the Dems have to offer is also really stupid.

Joe Biden told the interviewer just now on MSNBC that he doesn't support M4A; it wouldn't have helped with this disease.

He's not even the nominee and he's stabbing us in the back.

With him running there's no need for an election at all.

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Joe Biden told the interviewer just now on MSNBC that he doesn't support M4A; it wouldn't have helped with this disease.

M4A is a loser in polling. It's not a shock that Elizabeth Warren's faltering in polls exactly happened when she presented her M4A plan. It's not a surprise that Biden is opposed.

A public option, as in Biden's proposal, is a more popular measure. Let insurers compete against a robust government plan. If they can manage, great, the market works. If they can't, the popularity of M4A will increase with time until it is inevitable.

 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

With him running there's no need for an election at all.

Have you caught any of the news lately? There seem to be some problems that a basic functioning government would help with. Tens of thousands of avoidable deaths on the way over the next month. We have no capability to test and trace/monitor to get people safely working again. 

His support for M4A (WHICH STILL IS NOT A BILL THAT IS PASSING IN CONGRESS) is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. As this discussion always has been. I support universal coverage. I agree that privately-run insurance and healthcare is immoral and cannot be effective at scale. Pounding the table for M4A or bust AT ALL TIMES is not going to get us there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Joe Biden told the interviewer just now on MSNBC that he doesn't support M4A

Good.  All that means is he's not an idiot.  The worst thing the Democratic standard-bearer could do right now is support an unpopular policy change on the most important issue to voters that also entails the highest proportion of the national budget.  Radical change is not how you beat the "rethugs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Good.  All that means is he's not an idiot.  The worst thing the Democratic standard-bearer could do right now is support an unpopular policy change on the most important issue to voters that also entails the highest proportion of the national budget.  Radical change is not how you beat the "rethugs."

Particularly when he ran on not supporting M4A for the last year.  For him to change his policy now would be an extremely risky and highly questionable choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned a few days ago that Trump wants his signature on the crisis checks that go out to people, and the pushback was everyone has direct deposit.

I just heard the number: 60% of US taxpayers have direct deposit. There were 140 M taxpayers in 2018 (weirdly, there were 143 M in 2017, the number went down). So potentially 56 M checks will go out with Trump's name on them, if he manages to get that arranged. Many people will try to get direct deposit arranged, but who knows how many will succeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I mentioned a few days ago that Trump wants his signature on the crisis checks that go out to people, and the pushback was everyone has direct deposit.

I just heard the number: 60% of US taxpayers have direct deposit. There were 140 M taxpayers in 2018 (weirdly, there were 143 M in 2017, the number went down). So potentially 56 M checks will go out with Trump's name on them, if he manages to get that arranged. Many people will try to get direct deposit arranged, but who knows how many will succeed. 

I gotta say, I'm impressed. Republicans didn't just win this one, Democrats might as well hold hands and jump into a volcano together. 

Enjoy your thousand bucks morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I just heard the number: 60% of US taxpayers have direct deposit. There were 140 M taxpayers in 2018 (weirdly, there were 143 M in 2017, the number went down). So potentially 56 M checks will go out with Trump's name on them, if he manages to get that arranged. Many people will try to get direct deposit arranged, but who knows how many will succeed.

And the voter turnout in 2016 was 60.1% of VEP (voting eligible population) with just under 139 million total ballots cast.  The disengaged are, yes, going to continually be fucked over.  But that's a larger systemic problem that will take a lot of work to solve - with or without the current pandemic.  Point is, Trump's signature on the check ain't changing the vote choice for the basically any habitual voter.  Could it for new voters?  I suppose that's a theory one could entertain, but I'm already skeptical just based on the basic premises or assumptions of such a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruh roh. Has AOC been deemed unclean by "progressive" purists?

If we're forecasting political futures and capacity to actually do anything useful for progressive causes, my money is definitely on AOC and not on the Cenk Uygurs of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

my money is definitely on AOC and not on the Cenk Uygurs of the world.

Ha!  Yeah me too.  Good for AOC.  I assigned this reading for this week in my course, meant to record the lecture this afternoon but, well, I decided to waste me time here instead.  There's always going to be people on the outer ends that will attack you for not being purist enough - particularly when you start actually trying to influence policy on the HIll.  I trust AOC's instincts in how to balance that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess once in a while he does actually tell the truth:

Quote

Donald Trump admitted on Monday that making it easier to vote in America would hurt the Republican party.

The president made the comments as he dismissed a Democratic-led push for reforms such as vote-by-mail, same-day registration and early voting as states seek to safely run elections amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Democrats had proposed the measures as part of the coronavirus stimulus. They ultimately were not included in the $2.2tn final package, which included only $400m to states to help them run elections.

“The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox & Friends. “They had things in there about election days and what you do and all sorts of clawbacks. They had things that were just totally crazy and had nothing to do with workers that lost their jobs and companies that we have to save.”

Democrats often accuse Republicans of deliberately making it hard to vote in order to keep minorities, immigrants, young people and other groups from the polls. And Republicans often say they oppose voting reforms because of concerns of voter fraud – which is extremely rare – or concerns over having the federal government run elections. But Trump’s remarks reveal how at least some Republicans have long understood voting barriers to be a necessary part of their political self-preservation.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

God this press conference seems to have more looney tunes than ever.

"The economy has always been #2 for me, saving lives is #1."

"We have done more tests than any country in the world and they are better than the tests done by any other country in the world."

He said 'everything is under control' because he didn't want to panic the country....

oh here we go again

"We inherited a broken system, a system that didn't work"

And for at least three days in a row, he saw a picture of an empty 5th Ave, something he's never seen before in his life. Is his short term memory that bad?

I wonder who his heavy set friend is, the one in the coma. Could it be someone who got Covid-19 at Mar-a-Lago?

And more fights with reporters, more 'nasty' questions.

And just what is it with the weird pronunciations of words he does? 'China' and other words.

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think watching these farces is good for one's mental health, @Fragile Bird.

And some of the weird pronunciations could simply be a result of growing up in NYC. They have a tendency to eat their "h's."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Particularly when he ran on not supporting M4A for the last year.  For him to change his policy now would be an extremely risky and highly questionable choice. 

That was then, right?  You think everything is the same now or in November?

:P:rolleyes::(

He also thinks its too harsh to admit trump has blood on his hands.

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That was then, right?  You think everything is the same now or in November?

You think the people that were opposed to MFA are going to change their minds based on the pandemic?  The voters that are scared of losing their private insurers are now miraculously gonna say "ya know, now that I'm in significantly more danger of dying, I'll change my preferences on my healthcare provider"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...