US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2151

On February 27 2020 21:54 farvacola wrote:
Overnight, the first US case of unknown origin was identified in NorCal, so I expect that Coronavirus will definitely become a bigger issue in some respects. Got some domestic travel at the end of April and end of May coming up, so I'm paying close attention.

On February 27 2020 21:17 Belisarius wrote:
I think it's fair to say that it plays badly with specific minorities in Florida, which is unfortunately a swing state. I agree with Bernie's response, but it highlights a vulnerability that I still think Trump will be more than capable of exploiting.

Now, someone might ask why a few thousand expats in Florida should have the same influence as a hundred times their number in Oregon or Nebraska, but that person is not making America great.

On February 27 2020 21:44 farvacola wrote:
Let's just say that I do not think the inadequate public health attitude implications of puritanical nut job-ism stop at STDs, but yes, the fact that sex and needles are not involved weighs in favor of his not utterly failing, that much I can agree with lol

On February 27 2020 23:40 Artisreal wrote:
Are uninsured people obliged to pay for hospital based quarantine? Or do they have to self quarantine due to not wanting to bancrupt themselves?

On February 27 2020 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:


Hadn't thought of that, damn... I'm going to be in the US at the beginning of april, hopefully that's not an issue.

On February 28 2020 00:03 IgnE wrote:


there are more cases in europe than the US right now

On February 28 2020 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Since we are hearing open talk about superdelegates, I've been closely examining my views on voting. In 2016, I took a firmly math'ish approach where no matter what, I owe it to the people who fought for democracy before I was born to vote. If I don't get my ideal candidate, that is fine, I should always vote for the lesser of two evils because many people had no such choice 300 years ago. 2016 was a weird year, since global populism was only beginning to go into full swing, social media became a big issue, Russian interference and many other things. It was a shit show.

There was a lot of thumb on the scale from the DNC towards Bernie, but I still felt like the party deserved a second chance to learn from their mistakes. None of it was illegal, but a great deal with it disagreed with my views on political ethics. Something doesn't need to be illegal to be wrong. I decided the DNC behaved wrongly during 2016 but they showed a willingness to change. Kind of.

Now that we are in 2020, it is perhaps worse than last time. The CBS debate is the nail in the coffin. If Bernie gets more non-super delegates over the course of the election, but is not made the nominee, I will not be voting for the democratic nominee in 2020. Easy for me to say, living in Oregon, but I think it is important to recognize what a shift this is from my 2016 stance. I am COMPLETELY unwilling to back a party that uses super delegates to override the majority. While I am not trying to make myself up to be some important person, a few of my friends seem to be coming to the same conclusions. It is really interesting to see. Despite being the anti-Trump party, its just not enough. I need to want to support what I am supporting. I've been flexible and recognizing that 2016 was weird, but we understand this stuff now in 2020.

If Bernie doesn't have the most delegates, I will get behind whoever does. But I don't recognize super delegates as a legitimate form of democracy. I'm not going to pretend some political party deciding on a set of rules is some divine, all-powerful code. If he gets the most, and isn't the nominee, I'm out.

On February 28 2020 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Since we are hearing open talk about superdelegates, I've been closely examining my views on voting. In 2016, I took a firmly math'ish approach where no matter what, I owe it to the people who fought for democracy before I was born to vote. If I don't get my ideal candidate, that is fine, I should always vote for the lesser of two evils because many people had no such choice 300 years ago. 2016 was a weird year, since global populism was only beginning to go into full swing, social media became a big issue, Russian interference and many other things. It was a shit show.

There was a lot of thumb on the scale from the DNC towards Bernie, but I still felt like the party deserved a second chance to learn from their mistakes. None of it was illegal, but a great deal with it disagreed with my views on political ethics. Something doesn't need to be illegal to be wrong. I decided the DNC behaved wrongly during 2016 but they showed a willingness to change. Kind of.

Now that we are in 2020, it is perhaps worse than last time. The CBS debate is the nail in the coffin. If Bernie gets more non-super delegates over the course of the election, but is not made the nominee, I will not be voting for the democratic nominee in 2020. Easy for me to say, living in Oregon, but I think it is important to recognize what a shift this is from my 2016 stance. I am COMPLETELY unwilling to back a party that uses super delegates to override the majority. While I am not trying to make myself up to be some important person, a few of my friends seem to be coming to the same conclusions. It is really interesting to see. Despite being the anti-Trump party, its just not enough. I need to want to support what I am supporting. I've been flexible and recognizing that 2016 was weird, but we understand this stuff now in 2020.

If Bernie doesn't have the most delegates, I will get behind whoever does. But I don't recognize super delegates as a legitimate form of democracy. I'm not going to pretend some political party deciding on a set of rules is some divine, all-powerful code. If he gets the most, and isn't the nominee, I'm out.

On February 28 2020 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:
I think its a reasonably safe thing to say that if the DNC were to get behind anyone other then the person with the most 'normal' delegates after the primary they would be committing suicide.
Which is also why I see it as a completely unrealistic scenario that isn't going to happen.

On February 28 2020 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:
The Corona virus is an extremely good argument for changing our healthcare system. That's bad news. The Trump administration will 100% prioritize messaging over safety.

On February 28 2020 03:02 Artisreal wrote:

My wife said it'd also constitute a good start for an argument about sky-high walls around the country to keep the infected (i.e. foreigners) out. That 100% suits Trumps narrative as far as I can see.