Jump to content

US Politics: “How did we come to this...”


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Fez said:

Death data in the US is terrible in general; and in many states coroners/medical examiners will bend to the wishes of outside parties, both the police and others. Suicides get misclassified all the time when families push back, overdoses get called suicides by coroners with certain viewpoints, traffic death data gets screwed up a million different ways to fit whatever narrative is needed, etc. Plus all the police-related deaths.

The issue is that there's generally a complete lack of oversight of death reporting. There is no national system, the CDC runs the National Vital Statistics System, but it just accepts whatever data is reported by states. And within states, most of them simply report upwards whatever the local coroners/medical examiners give them. Plus, there's 3,143 counties in the US; in about 1,600 of them coroner is still an elected position. There's no requirements for the office, it's just whoever gets the votes, so it's very easy for them to get corrupted.

There's also a handful of states where coroners are officially part of law enforcement agencies, as opposed to health or public health agencies; which makes it even easy for undue influence to occur. 

The whole system is a mess and generally shouldn't be trusted at all when there's even the slightest hint of controversy.

I have never understood why "Coroner" is an elected position in most of the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, Joe Biden kinda operating on the down low seems to be really working.  It’s like Trump is running against (and defeating) himself.  After 4 years of Trumpism maybe his penchant for dominating the news cycle is actually beginning to weigh him down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, S John said:

You know, Joe Biden kinda operating on the down low seems to be really working.  It’s like Trump is running against (and defeating) himself.  After 4 years of Trumpism maybe his penchant for dominating the news cycle is actually beginning to weigh him down.

Oh, definitely.  If this is a referendum on Trump, then he's finished.  He must bring Biden down into the mud with him.  But thus far, Joe isn't taking the bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2020 at 10:06 AM, GrimTuesday said:

I know, I'm not having a panic attack over it or anything, but we've seen this before with George McGovern in 1972, which basically paved the way for the introduction of third way centrist politics taking over the Democratic party.

This next part I confess is mostly me being paranoid, but it also kind of explains why I'm slightly worried about this. In a time when the left wing of the party is ascendant, I honestly think that there are those in the center and the right of the party who see that as a direct challenge and are going to seek to blunt it. I think there are a lot of folks in the house who have made a career out of saying they are the liberals/progressives (and at some point this may have been true) and point to the other side as proof. These people are now faced with a reality that they are the ones who are being moved to the right and can no longer cover their asses by pointing at the right wing of the party as proof of their liberal-ness. They want those people to the right of them because it makes their jobs easier.

Anyone arguing Booker losing to McConnell indicates progressives can't win would be being as stupid as the people who argued Hillary's loss was proof a moderate candidate can't beat Trump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, S John said:

You know, Joe Biden kinda operating on the down low seems to be really working.  It’s like Trump is running against (and defeating) himself.  After 4 years of Trumpism maybe his penchant for dominating the news cycle is actually beginning to weigh him down.

Someone in here a long time ago quoted a study that tracked poll numbers and the amount of time (or mentions?) that Hillary or Trump got in the press.  Whenever they were talked about more, their polling went down.  Hillary's strategy of making it all about Trump may have been the right one, she just failed to execute it as Benghazi, the nomination, her emails, lying about getting sick, her emails, DNC hack etc. all kept her in the news.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2020 at 11:15 AM, Tywin et al. said:

......

You've got a Republican and Democratic seat that seem sure to flip, and then a few toss ups with Republican incumbents. Best hope seems to be a 50-50 split without some more things changing. And one of those 50 Democrats isn't really a Democrat anyways. 

Say I'm wrong. Say the Senate is 52-48 on our side. What get's through other than court appointments? 

I don't really understand why the more political knowledgeable such as yourself and @DMC are so against removing the legislative filibuster.  Why is that?

I would have thought that although it could obviously create carnage when Republicans control all three houses, that is more than offset by what the Dems could do when they do.  Especially since it would finally establish that winning elections matter.  It feels like there are so many moderate and Dem voters who are either disillusioned or don't care about voting because they know not much can or will change.  That Dems get in and not much changes.  

In my mind, the biggest deterrent to change is the filibuster in a world of polarisation.  No party is going to get 60 votes for anything reasonably important unless it is an emergency or so bland nobody cares.  How many times have the far left on this site complained about nothing happens, and the pragmatists go that's as much due to the system as anything else?  How will Dems keep the left enthused if they can never get 60 votes and change anything significant, beyond what is allowed via reconciliation once a year?  

Yes, if Republicans could pass their agenda it would suck.  But you know what, it would reveal their colours.  They never had worse polling than during the healthcare bill.  And couldn't even get all of their caucus to vote.  Removing the filibuster would bring some bad, but I think it would bring a lot more good, and get more people voting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Triskele said:

There's a new piece on Obama here (NYT, limited clicks)

 

This part amused me. George RR Obama?

The book’s timing remains among the touchiest of topics. Mr. Obama, a deliberate writer prone to procrastination — and lengthy digression — insisted that there be no set deadline, according to several people familiar with the process.

In an interview shortly after Mr. Obama left office, one of his closest advisers had predicted that the book would be out in mid-2019, before the primary season began in earnest, an option preferred by many working on the project.

But Mr. Obama did not finish and circulate a draft of between 600 and 800 pages until around New Year’s, too late to publish before the election, according to people familiar with the situation.

He is now seriously considering splitting the project into two volumes, in the hope of getting some of it into print quickly after the election, perhaps in time for the Christmas season, several people close to the process said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ants said:

But you know what, it would reveal their colours. 

Colors in Merika thread, mate! 

But the reason is rather simple. Ethics. One side wants to accomplish a lot, in an ethical way. The other side doesn't want to do much, and accomplishing said goals in an unethical way is completely fine. And since those of us in the former group are cowards anyways........

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. intelligence shows Russian bounties led to U.S. troop deaths, reports say

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-russia-taliban/u-s-intelligence-shows-russian-bounties-led-to-u-s-troop-deaths-reports-say-idUSKBN24016F

Quote

 

WASHINGTON/MOSCOW (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies found that Russian bounty offers to Taliban militants led to the deaths of several American soldiers, the Washington Post reported, as President Donald Trump sought to cast doubt on the information.

It was unclear how many U.S. or coalition troops may have been targeted or killed under the Moscow program, the Post said late Sunday, but the intelligence stemmed from U.S. military interrogations of captured militants and was passed up from U.S. Special Operations forces in Afghanistan.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like two people decided to fuck around in Chaz / Chop last night and rob someone then do drive by shootings, then they crashed and got hit with return fire from people armed in chop / Chaz, not cops.

 

wonder how the mayor of Seattle and the cops there will try to use it and demonize those that ended it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Colors in Merika thread, mate! 

But the reason is rather simple. Ethics. One side wants to accomplish a lot, in an ethical way. The other side doesn't want to do much, and accomplishing said goals in an unethical way is completely fine. And since those of us in the former group are cowards anyways........

 

wait so getting rid of the filibuster would be unethical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

wait so getting rid of the filibuster would be unethical?

Getting rid of the legislative filibuster would open a can of worms that yes, would lead to very unethical things. But OTOH, you could argue its existence has also at times created such outcomes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roberts has knocked the socks off everyone again. He has sided to block the Louisiana abortion law that would have left the state with only one doctor who could perform abortions. The Louisiana law was nearly identical to a Texas law that the court found unconstitutional in 2016. Roberts voted against blocking the law at that time. Kennedy was the important vote then.

Roberts said that the Texas decision is the law of the land, and even though he voted against that decision, he is voting to block because it's the law of the land. That's huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ants said:

I don't really understand why the more political knowledgeable such as yourself and @DMC are so against removing the legislative filibuster.  Why is that?

Because of the combination of (1) a presidential system in which the executive wields extraordinary and increasing power and discretion; (2) an environment of extreme polarization and negative partisanship that yields a GOP caucus that refuses to check their president in even the most egregious of circumstances; and (3) a GOP party (in government and the electorate) that has increasingly - and shockingly - authoritarian tendencies (as if their baseline wasn't worrisome enough). 

If we had a parliamentary system with a no confidence motion, of course the filibuster would be unnecessary.  As an institutionalist, (1) above is enough for me to retain the legislative filibuster.  But in the context of (2) and (3), it's rather essential.  Congress has spent the last century ceding power to the presidency.  The filibuster is just about the only real check a minority party has left.  Under the current environment, abolishing the filibuster would effectively render Congress as akin to Putin's Duma for any GOP president - not just Trump - if they can achieve unified government. 

That concern trumps (no pun intended) the progressive push for change in my book - particularly considering the GOP also has the advantage in the judiciary (this morning notwithstanding).  Further, as discussed, the GOP will increasingly reap the benefits of malapportionment in the Senate due to the rural/urban divide in the future, barring a rather radical realignment.  Ironically, the filibuster is the only means for the Senators that represent the majority of the population to counteract such non-majoritarian rule.  

That does not mean there aren't ways to reform the filibuster to limit its frequency and abuse.  See here.  I am in favor of pretty much all of those listed short of complete abolition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how much credence to give this.  If true, though, Trump is likely screwed and the republican party gravely wounded.  Hype?

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-faces-mounting-defections-once-155643540.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=2_15

 

Republican presidential candidates typically carry older voters by solid margins, and in his first campaign Trump bested Hillary Clinton by 7 percentage points with voters over 65. He won white seniors by nearly triple that margin.

Today, Trump and Biden are tied among seniors, according to a poll of registered voters conducted by The New York Times and Siena College. And in the six most important battleground states, Biden has established a clear upper hand, leading Trump by 6 percentage points among the oldest voters and nearly matching the president’s support among whites in that age group.

That is no small advantage for Biden, the former vice president, given the prevalence of retirement communities in a few of those crucial states, including Arizona and Florida.

No Democrat has won or broken even with seniors in two decades, since Al Gore in 2000 devoted much of his general election campaign to warning that Republicans would cut popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. In 2016, Trump, now 74, seemed in some ways keenly attuned to the political sensitivities of voters in his own age group. As a candidate, he bluntly rejected his party’s long-standing interest in restructuring government guarantees of retirement security.

But Trump’s presidency has been a trying experience for many of these voters, some of whom are now so frustrated and disillusioned that they are preparing to take the drastic step of supporting a Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...