covid politics

[hodad]

(first section is a crazydoc reply to JR

Quote from: JohnRoberts on April 28, 2020, 10:39:08 PM


    [edit my larger point is that this technology is what President Trump was talking about, when the opposition media attacked him. /edit]


Hmm, no evidence for this, and I still can't read minds, but I guess you've now learned how. 

I don't have to read any minds the attacks were in plain sight

JR

So I went away for a while, & then I caught the utter obliviousness of the response to crazydoc's comment. 

It made me wonder:  Is it that people on the right are incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy, or that they're unwilling to admit to it, no matter how blatant it might be? 

Sorry for interrupting. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

(first section is a crazydoc reply to JR

Quote from: JohnRoberts on April 28, 2020, 10:39:08 PM


    [edit my larger point is that this technology is what President Trump was talking about, when the opposition media attacked him. /edit]


Hmm, no evidence for this, and I still can't read minds, but I guess you've now learned how. 


So I went away for a while, & then I caught the utter obliviousness of the response to crazydoc's comment. 

It made me wonder:  Is it that people on the right are incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy, or that they're unwilling to admit to it, no matter how blatant it might be? 

Sorry for interrupting.

No it was the expected response when you can't argue facts you attack the individual...

I hope you are well...

JR

 

[iturnknobs]

One town over from me. Local newspaper.

 

[iturnknobs]

It made me wonder:  Is it that people on the right are incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy, or that they're unwilling to admit to it, no matter how blatant it might be? 

I agree. I find it entertaining when the party who, overall professes to be religious, stands for tribalism, selfishness and profit. WWJD? "Not what Republicans do", is the answer.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I agree. I find it entertaining when the party who, overall professes to be religious, stands for tribalism, selfishness and profit. WWJD? "Not what Republicans do", is the answer.

No political party has a corner on hypocrisy, it is the nature of the job.

Right now Joe Biden is the poster boy for hypocrisy

"For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real," said Biden during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who faced accusations that as a teenager he had assaulted a woman at a party.

As vice president, Biden played an important role in the Obama administration's efforts to compel colleges and universities to take sexual violence more seriously—and to adopt policies that limited the due process rights and presumption of innocence for the accused. In recent years, his rhetoric on these issues has been in lockstep with #MeToo activists.

That was then, now it "never never" happened.....  Like the last high profile partisan METOO eruption, this one after decades passing is lacking hard evidence but the response seems instructive. Joe Biden's short list of VP female candidates are walking a tightrope in their comments about this accusation. Similar quotes from them during the Kavanaugh hearing could be found. The hypocrisy from them is delicious to watch. If they were posturing for his job instead of to be his pick, their tone would be dramatically different.  That is just politics as usual.

I have no idea if there is any there there, and it is unlikely that this will derail Joe Biden's  nomination. They need to open it up to as much sunlight as possible and move past it as quickly as practical, because this is ultimately a he said/she said that will not be resolved one way or the other by finding hard evidence. As I said before the timing of this is seems incredibly opportunistic (maybe she is angling for a book deal).

JR

PS: You forgot the cliche "clutching their bibles and guns")....... For the record I do not profess to be religious, I do not promote tribalism, arguably I can be a little selfish (I'm human), and without any evil profit my business will go away (don't ask me how many drum tuners I sold last month but hint, it rhymes with hero). Philosophically I lean libertarian but they haven't been electable ever. IMO republicans offer a better chance of improving future government policies, while I expect my opinion is not shared by many posters here.

 

[iturnknobs]

The current president had many more accusers and SEVERAL NDAs. Kavanaugh got the job. Argument dealt with. Probably better placed in the the thread you put together for politics alone. Next.

 

[crazydoc]

So I went away for a while, & then I caught the utter obliviousness of the response to crazydoc's comment.   

JR was obviously ignoring the meaning of the response and diverting attention to an irrelevant matter, and his post wasn't worthy of a response.

Just some random thoughts on covid and politics:
Trump campaign is now laying the groundwork to blame China for how the pandemic got so out of hand in the US, rather than Trump's absolutely pitiful response through January, February, and into March, when it was obvious to all but the most ignorant what was likely to happen.

There are lots of red hats in the protests/demands to "open up." If this backfires and there is a significant uptick in cases/deaths, some of Trump's voters may not be around at election time.  :'(

 

[JohnRoberts]

JR was obviously ignoring the meaning of the response and diverting attention to an irrelevant matter, and his post wasn't worthy of a response.

maybe I'm just stupid?

Just some random thoughts on covid and politics:
Trump campaign is now laying the groundwork to blame China for how the pandemic got so out of hand in the US, rather than Trump's absolutely pitiful response through January, February, and into March, when it was obvious to all but the most ignorant what was likely to happen.

if you want to take China's side in this good luck, the evidence against them is piling up despite them concealing and destroying early(?) evidence. 

There are lots of red hats in the protests/demands to "open up." If this backfires and there is a significant uptick in cases/deaths, some of Trump's voters may not be around at election time.  :'(

You can always hope....  :  (be sure to wash your hands and don't touch your face, no matter who you plan to vote for.)

This is business as usual for the republicans to attract wingnuts from the extreme right, and democrats to attract wingnuts from the extreme left. They all look like wingnuts to me...

JR

 

[crazydoc]

maybe I'm just stupid?

You know that's not what I said, and there you go again, same thing, ignoring the actual meaning and diverting to another  - just your way I guess.

if you want to take China's side in this good luck, the evidence against them is piling up despite them concealing and destroying early(?) evidence.  You can always hope....  :  (be sure to wash your hands and don't touch your face, no matter who you plan to vote for.)

I'm not taking China's side - they surely had some culpability in this world wide, but as regards the US, not to the extent of our narcissistic (and probably social darwinist) supreme leader. Who is, as usual, avoiding taking any responsibility for his bad decisions and trying to dump it elsewhere.

JR
[/quote]

 

[cyrano]

No political party has a corner on hypocrisy, it is the nature of the job.

Wow, John. Do you really believe that? 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Wow, John. Do you really believe that? 

um yes.... I believe what I say.

I hold politicians in pretty low regard... the only thing lower is, well more than one thing lower and I don't feel like making that list right now.

JR

 

[Scodiddly]

It made me wonder:  Is it that people on the right are incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy, or that they're unwilling to admit to it, no matter how blatant it might be? 

What you have to understand is that Trump supporters don't evaluate his performance with logic, they evaluate it with faith.  They have a great deal of faith that Trump will lead in a new era where America is great again.  And for many of them it's also apparently a new era where "white people will be respected again" or some similar racist bullshit.

His supporters know he's flawed. Their faith is invested in the team, the whole gathering of supporters who will shepherd things forward under the banner of their golden-hair boy.  He is just the figurehead, which is all he really needs to be with a Senate willing to acquit him of almost anything.

To use one of JR's favorite analogies, picture yourself at the poker table.  Who's the patsy?  Well, you don't want to be the patsy yourself, so maybe you line up with the most obvious card sharp at the table to make sure that somebody else gets screwed.

 

[JohnRoberts]

What you have to understand is that Trump supporters don't evaluate his performance with logic, they evaluate it with faith.  They have a great deal of faith that Trump will lead in a new era where America is great again.  And for many of them it's also apparently a new era where "white people will be respected again" or some similar racist bullsh*t.

You mind reading has taken a turn toward meanness. I thought after President Obama retired I wouldn't be called racist so often. (It did change, now the partisan mud slingers call me a white supremacist.    )

His supporters know he's flawed.

yes, we are all flawed.... he is a blowhard for one.

Their faith is invested in the team, the whole gathering of supporters who will shepherd things forward under the banner of their golden-hair boy.  He is just the figurehead, which is all he really needs to be with a Senate willing to acquit him of almost anything.

Mind reading still... I shouldn't need to repeat my reasons yet one more time but the choice was between him and Hillary, enough said. Joe Biden seems a lot more popular than Hillary, but he seems to have lost a step perhaps due to age (He is even older than me  : ).

To use one of JR's favorite analogies, picture yourself at the poker table.  Who's the patsy?  Well, you don't want to be the patsy yourself, so maybe you line up with the most obvious card sharp at the table to make sure that somebody else gets screwed.

The "poker patsy" joke is a warning to not let yourself be taken advantage of because you do not understand what is happening. That warning seems more than appropriate for today's weapons grade political persuasion.  You have turned my poker lesson into suggesting cheating. How do you align with a card shark, by losing to him or her on purpose?  Have you ever played poker? You generally don't win by losing on purpose. Poker is not a team sport.

I am glad to see that somebody read and remembered my post, I wish you fully understood the lesson but I will take some  of the blame since I repeat myself a lot, so don't always explain myself fully.

If it makes you feel good casting aspersion on President Trump's supporters you have tens of millions of targets... Maybe you just want to shut me up. Good luck with that, that is one of the oldest political strategies in the book (Rules for Radicals, distract the  opponent by making him defend himself). 

JR

 

[Matador]

There is a great quote from Frank Wilhoit which seems apropos: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There are very few conservative policies (to the extent they even exist any longer) that don't map cleanly onto this proposition:  from tax-breaks for the wealthy (in-group), a literal border wall (out group),  to controlling women's bodies.  These same protestors with assault rifles in state capitals are the same groups (the in-groups) that screamed at the TV in rage that Colin Kaepernick (the out-group) was taking  a knee during the national anthem:  that somehow that knee was more disrespectful "to the troops" than dressing up in combat armor and storming government buildings.  Even the overall claims of 'small government' seem to fly contrary to every GOP congressional majority who expanded spending at every chance since Reagan, since of course they were part of the in-group, however argued at the same time to cut public goods like food stamps and unemployment benefits, since of course those were going towards "out-groups".

Now to head off the inevitable cries of 'political screed': I don't claim that the democrats/the left have every answer, but far more of the policies like Medicare for All, pushing for an Equal Rights Amendment, creation of the CFPB, and expansion of voting rights, fall more often than not into the idea of enveloping everyone under the umbrella of an 'in-group', more than excluding others in 'out-groups'.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There is a great quote from Frank Wilhoit which seems apropos: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

cute take on law....

I thought it bound everyone, and protects everyone.

There are very few conservative policies (to the extent they even exist any longer) that don't map cleanly onto this proposition:  from tax-breaks for the wealthy (in-group), a literal border wall (out group),  to controlling women's bodies.  These same protestors with assault rifles in state capitals are the same groups (the in-groups) that screamed at the TV in rage that Colin Kaepernick (the out-group) was taking  a knee during the national anthem:

a little too neatly wrapped up, but nice try. .

that somehow that knee was more disrespectful "to the troops" than dressing up in combat armor and storming government buildings.

disrespectful to the flag and by implication our entire country ( the citizens not the troops).

That said I appreciate that the military these days get more respect from the public than back when I was drafted and served in the army (It was pretty ugly in the 70s).

Even the overall claims of 'small government' seem to fly contrary to every GOP congressional majority who expanded spending at every chance since Reagan,

indeed... but democrats want to spend even more than republicans... while both spend too much.

since of course they were part of the in-group, however argued at the same time to cut public goods like food stamps and unemployment benefits, since of course those were going towards "out-groups".

I can't tell is that is boring or annoying...

Now to head off the inevitable cries of 'political screed': I don't claim that the democrats/the left have every answer, but far more of the policies like Medicare for All

yup that will reduce spending.

, pushing for an Equal Rights Amendment,

keep pushing...  this country only tries to provide equal opportunity not equal results.

Title IX, clause of the 1972 Federal Education Amendments, which stated that 'no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'

creation of the CFPB,

create it again?

Vote for Elizabeth Warren she really likes it....  BTW funding the CFPB outside congressional oversight is not constitutional.

and expansion of voting rights,

citizens already have the right to vote, who else do you have in mind for granting the vote?

fall more often than not into the idea of enveloping everyone under the umbrella of an 'in-group', more than excluding others in 'out-groups'.

Yes it is getting annoying...    for you entertainment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF7KU50IY34

JR

 

[Matador]

I thought it bound everyone, and protects everyone.
...
citizens already have the right to vote, who else do you have in mind for granting the vote?
...
this country only tries to provide equal opportunity not equal results

Ask a minority, or better yet a woman of color, how the right to vote and 'protecting everyone' is working out.  And while you are at it, ask that same woman, or even a gay couple, how equal rights is applied in practice. 

'equal results' doesn't even appear in the last draft of the ERA, so to steal a phrase, 'cute, and nice try'.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Ask a minority, or better yet a woman of color, how the right to vote and 'protecting everyone' is working out. 

[edit] today a video surfaced about an unarmed black jogger shot in GA... something like two prosecutors recused themselves from the case and a grand jury is expected. [/edit]

I generally do not have that conversation with my neighbors of color or minorities, but I do see them in my local polling place on election day without any apparent restrictions. (This is very old and tired screed, the flip side of the vote fraud screed.)

And while you are at it, ask that same woman, or even a gay couple, how equal rights is applied in practice. 

I don't have any gay couples in my immediate circle of acquaintances. If that doesn't sound homophobic enough I can't find a recent new TV show, or made for TV movie with less than one openly gay couple, some recent shows have two for good measure. No doubt an aggressive social influence campaign to normalize that behavior.

I suspect I have experienced any number over the decades who were not blatant about their sexuality. There was one supply sargeant in the Army who was unusually effeminate, but under "don't ask-don't tell" we didn't ask or care.  Back in the 70s I picked up one hitchhiker on a cold winter night and he grabbed for my third leg, before the car barely got moving, I did not return his advances and let him out immediately since we had very different ideas of what kind of ride I was offering.

I do not care what your sexual appetite includes (except for maybe violating young interns), but don't try to get me to sign up for some other team. After 7 plus decades I have a pretty strong sense of my personal inclinations. 

'equal results' doesn't even appear in the last draft of the ERA, so to steal a phrase, 'cute, and nice try'.

A swing and a miss...  :

That is classic political speech, they aren't going to openly admit that goal. Transferring assets from the wealthy to the poor, has one logical final outcome, everybody ends up with the same (less the overhead cost to redistribute, and lower output due to obvious disincentives). That pretty much describes the current conditions in Cuba or Venezuela, everybody has the same but is poor, except for the government elite overseeing the wealth redistribution. 

We already have a progressive tax schedule, another tired old argument. (Speaking of economic disincentives to work, in the rush to get the covid stimulus/support payments out, they didn't take the time to scale the support payments for local economic conditions, because it would have delayed the legislation several weeks. The unintended consequence of a flat one size fits all payment is that a number of workers are now paid more on unemployment, than what they got paid before while working. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they will be in no hurry to return to work,  only to get paid less (duh).

Any number of minority individuals have experienced great success in America that they attribute to the opportunity they were offered here (and hard work). Of course opinions vary, but this sounds like more old school class warfare in preparation for Nov.

JR

PS: I guess now my detractors will start calling me homophobic in addition to racist, and white supremacist.  : Still better than back in the 70s when the anti-viet nam war crowd called me a baby killer (and I was anti-war too). I just got drafted and obeyed the law.

 

[john12ax7]

There is a great quote from Frank Wilhoit which seems apropos: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit....

Conservative principles like individual liberty,  limited federal government,  fiscal responsibility, etc, can be very sound and logical.  Republicans,  on the other hand,  are not.  It's important not to conflate the two.

 

[john12ax7]

We already have a progressive tax schedule, another tired old argument.

It is only very slightly progressive when you factor in all the various taxes paid,  and then only up to a point. Eventually it actually becomes regressive. When you get to 0.1%, .01%, .001% brackets they actually pay less than the middle and upper middle class.  Can an argument be tired and old if it is still valid?

Also the new round of bailouts will cost everyone between $10k-20k each with those at the top getting a disproportionate higher share.  So shouldn't the real backlash be directed at them? The responsible savers are having to subsidize millionaires and billionaires once again.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Conservative principles like individual liberty,  limited federal government,  fiscal responsibility, etc, can be very sound and logical.  Republicans,  on the other hand,  are not.  It's important not to conflate the two.

opinions vary and both groups think they are correct

JR

[edited to make it nicer  /edit]