covid politics

[living sounds]

I will give ex-president Obama a one-time pass for this obviously divisive speech because of the circumstance and audience.

"Obviously divisive"? Obama was demanding that democratic principles and Constitutional rights be upheld. Everyone should be on board with it.

As I wrote before, voting rights for minorities, poor people, students, latinos, former convicts (in other words, voters that skew Democratic) are being infringed upon to this day, and increasingly so since the SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act (the one John Lewis fought for) a few years ago. If you haven't heard about what is going on, may I suggest you review the media you are consuming.

 

[hodad]

I've thought about it, and you know what, I guess Obama's speech was partisan, because he was talking about voting rights.  And in this country there's one political party that's not into that sort of thing.
There's ONE party that:
*engages in voter purges designed to disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters;
*engages in gerrymandering expressly to diminish the voting power of minorities;
*engages in vote suppression a la Georgia in 2018 (trust me, I was there.)
*works fiercely to thwart the will of the vast majority of a state's voters (talking Fla. here) to reinstate the voting rights of nonviolent felons because they might vote for Democrats;
*closes polling places in majority minority areas in order to discourage people from exercising their right to vote;
*is so mired in its moribund and discredited dogma that the only way they can think of to retain their tenuous hold on power is to deny "those people" (ie, Democrats) their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. 

So yes, in the sense that the GOP is opposed to (certain) people being able to exercise their voting rights, Obama's speech was partisan.  And every Republican should be ashamed of himself that that is the case.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Of course you didn't.  I'll wager tha 90+% of the folks criticizing the speech didn't watch any more than 30 seconds of the speech. 

You obviously are incapable of comprehending the world around you if you think Obama's speech was divisive and yet you choose to support Trump.  Obama's message is of inclusion--he didn't say a word about keeping people from voting as Trump has.  He didn't demonize a group of people the way Trump has with brown-skinned immigrants. 

"I didn't watch it but I know it was awful."  Thank you for sharing your entirely uninformed opinion.

Feel free to disregard my opinion, but back away from the ledge you are approaching by attacking me and suggesting that I do not comprehend the world around me. 

Consider this an official warning. Be nice(r).

You need to pace yourself, another three months to go...

JR

 

[iturnknobs]

I haven't even read this thread in weeks, except for the only preceding post. This would make me uninformed at the very least, but it would be great if Republicans could suggest to their peers to be nice(r). They do claim to support Christianity. The world has lost its mind and right is absolutely wrong.... unless you reject science and support white power... Will provide footnotes, references and accredited news outlets... you can't make this stuff up. SHAMEONtheUSa.

 

[cyrano]

Feel free to disregard my opinion, but back away from the ledge you are approaching by attacking me and suggesting that I do not comprehend the world around me. 

Consider this an official warning. Be nice(r).

You need to pace yourself, another three months to go...

JR

Wow.

Superman at work? You don't even need to hear the speech to form an opinion? Yet, as a moderator you don't even need to allow others to point out how wrong you are?

I feel for you. It must be hard to become delusional, a tiny bit at a time.

 

[crazydoc]

Here it comes, of course:

"I've developed the vaccine to protect you all from this terrible disease. It's the greatest thing a president has ever done - it's beautiful, it's perfect. Vote for me."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/experts-fear-political-pressure-on-covid-19-vaccine/ar-BB17trt2?ocid=bingcovid

 

[JohnRoberts]

Wow.

Superman at work? You don't even need to hear the speech to form an opinion? Yet, as a moderator you don't even need to allow others to point out how wrong you are?

I will admit I'm wrong, when I believe I am wrong. "I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken."  ;D

More details from his eulogy are circulating. Ex-President Obama apparently is also advocating for a senate rules change to remove the filibuster rule (allowing bills to be passed with a simple 51 vote majority).  Of course this requires the democrats to win a wave election including control of the senate.

I still can't predict the future, but it is no secret what the democrats want to do. Then President Obama squandered his first term super majority. Changing the filibuster rule (IMO) would make passing controversial legislation too easy for either side with a simple majority.  We have already seen the unintended consequence from Harry Reid's rule change regarding judgeship appointments. Be cafeful what you wish for (advocate for).

I feel for you. It must be hard to become delusional, a tiny bit at a time.

I feel for you, thinking that is not a personal attack.  (Rule #4)  :

JR 

PS: I have watched years of President Obama's speeches and don't need to watch another one to know if he made news... (he did and it is impossible to ignore in today's political climate).

 

[hodad]

I will admit I'm wrong, when I believe I am wrong. "I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken."  ;D

We have already seen the unintended consequence from Harry Reid's rule change regarding judgeship appointments. Be cafeful what you wish for (advocate for).:

Of course, if Republicans hadn't abused the filibuster, Harry Reid wouldn't have pushed for the rules change.  I'm glad that you agree with me that Rs have abused the rules change by confirming judges who are absolutely unfit for the bench.   

Trump has taken the rule-bending shenanigans of the modern GOP and pushed it to its limits.  So many of the conventions of our govt. depend on tradition rather than hard and fast law (the emoluments clause comes quickly to mind--no president to my knowledge has ever abused the office for personal gain as Trump has, so there's no case law there), and Trump has flouted those traditions in extremis, and at this point is also (almost certainly) breaking the law (Federal Vacancies Reform Act) with his numerous unconfirmed appointments to cabinet-level positions. 

One party has wantonly and eagerly abused rules, laws, tradition, and the truth for the last 25+ years while the other has played by the old rules, or at best reacted slowly and with limited effect to the threats to American democracy posed by the other party. 
Trump is simply the most grotesque and openly unAmerican manifestation of that so far.  Something needs to be done.  The GOP as currently configured cannot stand if we wish to continue with our Great Experiment. 

There's an interesting foreword to a book that references a Henry Kissinger paper on "revolutionary powers."  It posits that this is what the GOP has become--playing outside the rules while loudly calling out the other party for doing anything similar, going so far as to ignore truth, to ignore even their past lies in pursuit of their goals (see Karl Rove and his comments on the "reality-based" community).  And they wrap themselves in the flag while burning the Constitution. 

It's been a pretty effective strategy too.  But I can't help wondering:  what is the end game?  Is it just to win?  Is it to safeguard the power of white,  mostly Christian conservatives?  Is it to support outmoded and discredited notions like the Laffer Curve and trickle-down economics? 
It certainly has nothing to do with preserving and strengthening American democracy--as much as Republicans might like to say otherwise.  I see nothing at the end of the GOP line but a potential pyrrhic victory--winning by destroying the thing they claimed to be fighting for.  It's kind of sad really.
 

 

[living sounds]

Here's a story everyone should read:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/how-jared-kushners-secret-testing-plan-went-poof-into-thin-air

In a nutshell: Jared Kushner oversaw the preparation of a detailed COVID-19 response plan in the early days of the pandemic (March and early April) wherein the White House would have taken the lead in managing supply chains and expediting testing nationwide. And then, the First Son-in-Law saw analyses suggesting that blue states would be hit much harder than red states, so he threw the plan in the garbage. The thinking was that residents of blue states would blame their governors (and maybe their senators) and that Donald Trump's reelection chances would thus be improved.

 

[crazydoc]

That's a good read.

And I've finally figured out the federal government's response to this pandemic in the USA - it's "every man for himself." And that's how I'm dealing with it.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Of course, if Republicans hadn't abused the filibuster, Harry Reid wouldn't have pushed for the rules change.  I'm glad that you agree with me that Rs have abused the rules change by confirming judges who are absolutely unfit for the bench.   

Trump has taken the rule-bending shenanigans of the modern GOP and pushed it to its limits.  So many of the conventions of our govt. depend on tradition rather than hard and fast law (the emoluments clause comes quickly to mind--no president to my knowledge has ever abused the office for personal gain as Trump has, so there's no case law there), and Trump has flouted those traditions in extremis, and at this point is also (almost certainly) breaking the law (Federal Vacancies Reform Act) with his numerous unconfirmed appointments to cabinet-level positions. 

One party has wantonly and eagerly abused rules, laws, tradition, and the truth for the last 25+ years while the other has played by the old rules, or at best reacted slowly and with limited effect to the threats to American democracy posed by the other party. 
Trump is simply the most grotesque and openly unAmerican manifestation of that so far.  Something needs to be done.  The GOP as currently configured cannot stand if we wish to continue with our Great Experiment. 

There's an interesting foreword to a book that references a Henry Kissinger paper on "revolutionary powers."  It posits that this is what the GOP has become--playing outside the rules while loudly calling out the other party for doing anything similar, going so far as to ignore truth, to ignore even their past lies in pursuit of their goals (see Karl Rove and his comments on the "reality-based" community).  And they wrap themselves in the flag while burning the Constitution. 

It's been a pretty effective strategy too.  But I can't help wondering:  what is the end game?  Is it just to win?  Is it to safeguard the power of white,  mostly Christian conservatives?  Is it to support outmoded and discredited notions like the Laffer Curve and trickle-down economics? 
It certainly has nothing to do with preserving and strengthening American democracy--as much as Republicans might like to say otherwise.  I see nothing at the end of the GOP line but a potential pyrrhic victory--winning by destroying the thing they claimed to be fighting for.  It's kind of sad really.

In interesting version of history, but no we do not agree even when you try to put words in my mouth, an unsafe practice in these COVID times.

JR

 

[Matador]

Of course, if Republicans hadn't abused the filibuster, Harry Reid wouldn't have pushed for the rules change.

Look at a chart of cloture motions over time:

And of the number of unconfirmed judicial appointments:

It's almost like something drastic happened in 2008, but isn't labeled on the first chart.

Can anyone help me figure out what this might be?

 

[crazydoc]

Just some of the most recent quotes from the world's most famous ignoramus:

“They are dying. That’s true, and -- it is what it is,”
“First of all, we have done a great job,”
“Numerous categories, we’re lower than the world,”
"The fact is they (children) are virtually immune from this problem,"
"we show cases, 99 percent of which are totally harmless."

“A man works for us and yet they’re highly thought of and nobody likes me. It can only be my personality.”
And this is his concern when people are sick, people are dying, people are losing their homes, people are losing their businesses, and the country is unraveling.

This is the guy that is "leading" USA's fight against the pandemic. The saddest part is that so many people think this is the word of god.

FUBAR.

 

[iturnknobs]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the-sun.com/news/1134404/people-refuse-wear-face-mask-lower-cognitive-ability/amp/

Here's some COVID politics that you just can't make up.

 

[iturnknobs]

Can we start calling it the Sturgis virus instead of the Wuhan virus now? 250,000 geniuses attending Sturgis this weekend.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Can we start calling it the Sturgis virus instead of the Wuhan virus now? 250,000 geniuses attending Sturgis this weekend.

It is perhaps a little early to start counting bodies.

This will be yet another community spread experiment to analyze afterwards.

I can wait.

JR

 

[cyrano]

“Follow the Money: How the Online Advertising Ecosystem Funds COVID-19 Junk News and Disinformation.”

https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/covid19-disinfo-seo/

 

[iturnknobs]

It is perhaps a little early to start counting bodies.

I was counting the idiots. You put the rest of the puzzle together.

 

[boji]

It is perhaps a little early to start counting bodies.

I was counting the idiots. You put the rest of the puzzle together.

Sturgis selects for those who by nature, possibly by viral infection, are prone to 'live dangerously'. 

Toxoplasmotorists - the Gathering.

 

[boji]

Ha, seek and ye shall find:  https://nextnature.net/2011/02/the-cat-parasite-that-sells-motorcycles