EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2198
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13750 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22727 Posts
On March 22 2020 08:26 Slaughter wrote: I think its somewhat unfair to compare a private citizen who isn't currently in any position to the president of the US. You don't know what he is doing. Just because he isn't in front of a camera being an idiot like Trump is doesn't mean he isn't doing anything. I can agree with you that he isn't going to be president, but that's it. He isn't the janitor at a middle school, he's supposed to be the leader of the Democratic party auditioning to be the leader of the US. The "private citizen" argument is weak at best imo. Biden isn't leading or providing the basic presence required of a leader in times like these. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On March 21 2020 22:47 mierin wrote: This election is the last time I'm voting for a democrat "no matter what". From now on they are going to need to earn my vote. I don't even. This is like something I would expect Vanessa Hudgens to say. Please tell me more. On March 22 2020 08:28 Sermokala wrote: The stories about Bloomberg honestly make me think hes worse then trump. Trumps a fake billionaire buffoon who doesn't understand much but Bloomberg is a real billionaire who understands stuff. Telling a female worker to kill her baby is worse then what trumps ever done. The amount of shit Trump gets away with whether it be personal, pyramid schemes/business or how he used the office? I don't know man. You always have to go with voting for the lesser of the evils I get that but.... shit. I guess it doesn't help when you have so many buffoons running for office. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Vivax
21801 Posts
On March 22 2020 08:28 Sermokala wrote: The stories about Bloomberg honestly make me think hes worse then trump. Trumps a fake billionaire buffoon who doesn't understand much but Bloomberg is a real billionaire who understands stuff. Telling a female worker to kill her baby is worse then what trumps ever done. Yeah after looking up what you meant he seems to have a vein of mysoginism I wasn't aware of. Too bad, he seemed like the smarter one of the bunch. Warren then I guess? I don't know, it's hard to pick the right one when it's a pit of snakes you have to choose from. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22727 Posts
On March 22 2020 08:36 Slaughter wrote: I don't know for me it would just seem like he was campaigning since he can't do anything besides repeat what has already been said 1000x? He already gave a speech about it a few days ago....For me he should just stay out of the way for now, maybe help out behind the scenes like other private citizens. Otherwise it would seem like he was just using the crisis to campaign. The thing about that position is that he intends to speak daily specifically to counter Trump. He and his entire team have just been unable to navigate the logistics of that until Monday at the earliest. That is their explanation for why Biden hasn't been seen since Tuesday. EDIT: Additionally, he is campaigning and sending out fundraising (not for Corona Virus aid) emails. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On March 22 2020 08:36 Vivax wrote: Yeah after looking up what you meant he seems to have a vein of mysoginism I wasn't aware of. Too bad, he seemed like the smarter one of the bunch. Warren then I guess? I don't know, it's hard to pick the right one when it's a pit of snakes you have to choose from. He has a vein of lacking almost anything resembling an actual connection to the concerns of his fellow human beings problem. I mean sure he understands things which is what makes him even worse than others who merely bumble. | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 22 2020 08:36 Slaughter wrote: I don't know for me it would just seem like he was campaigning since he can't do anything besides repeat what has already been said 1000x? He already gave a speech about it a few days ago....For me he should just stay out of the way for now, maybe help out behind the scenes like other private citizens. Otherwise it would seem like he was just using the crisis to campaign. I suspect a good chunk of the people upset with Biden for not making daily press appearances would indeed call him making daily statements taking advantage of the tragedy and crisis and assuming he's the leader even though the primary race is still ongoing. It's the same situation as the lack of postponing the primaries-if they had been postponed, it would have been called a sign of the DNC meddling so that voters couldn't go to the polls and show they have more confidence in Sanders than Biden to handle the crisis in the early stages (you could see rumblings of this the weekend before). Since they weren't, it's a sign of the DNC endangering the public health to anoint their preferred candidate. When you think someone is the worst option and/or human garbage, it becomes easy to figure out ways that all their decisions are the worst/wrong ones. That's how I feel about Bloomberg, more or less. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On March 22 2020 11:25 TheTenthDoc wrote: I suspect a good chunk of the people upset with Biden for not making daily press appearances would indeed call him making daily statements taking advantage of the tragedy and crisis and assuming he's the leader even though the primary race is still ongoing. It's the same situation as the lack of postponing the primaries-if they had been postponed, it would have been called a sign of the DNC meddling so that voters couldn't go to the polls and show they have more confidence in Sanders than Biden to handle the crisis in the early stages (you could see rumblings of this the weekend before). Since they weren't, it's a sign of the DNC endangering the public health to anoint their preferred candidate. When you think someone is the worst option and/or human garbage, it becomes easy to figure out ways that all their decisions are the worst/wrong ones. That's how I feel about Bloomberg, more or less. Probably fair in part absolutely, still I think there’s a reasonable middle ground between using the crisis for transparently self-serving reasons and doing well, nothing whatsoever. If the administration’s response is inadequate, slam it, if it is decent, pull the old ‘we must set our differences aside and band together as Americans’. He’s doing neither at a time some Republicans are even donning their human suits and the need for much of a Sanders or a Warren platform is being massively spotlighted by the pandemic. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On March 22 2020 10:55 schaf wrote: Watching Bloomberg debate I got the impression that in his head he was just screaming at everybody "you must see I'm the best candidate, why even have this circus!?" Haha you sum up my feelings pretty well there. Wonder if Mike is going to dip into his pocket to help his fellow Americans now to the same degree he threw advertisements down their throats. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On March 22 2020 11:52 Wombat_NI wrote: Haha you sum up my feelings pretty well there. Wonder if Mike is going to dip into his pocket to help his fellow Americans now to the same degree he threw advertisements down their throats. No. He's gone back on his promise to run ads. He disbanded his operation and donated 17million to the DNC instead. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 22 2020 11:50 Wombat_NI wrote: Probably fair in part absolutely, still I think there’s a reasonable middle ground between using the crisis for transparently self-serving reasons and doing well, nothing whatsoever. If the administration’s response is inadequate, slam it, if it is decent, pull the old ‘we must set our differences aside and band together as Americans’. He’s doing neither at a time some Republicans are even donning their human suits and the need for much of a Sanders or a Warren platform is being massively spotlighted by the pandemic. Just realize that this situation and the stress is causing heavy time dilation and that, just like most conventional media is going to bend over backwards supporting Biden, most social media is going to expose you overwhelming towards some combination of "Biden Bad." And as a supporter of universal healthcare (I refuse to call it Medicare For All because I know what Medicare is and I want something better for Americans), the discussion over how it would somehow do substantially better than a public option in this case kind of baffles me. Sometimes I get the perception that even Sanders is claiming that universal healthcare would make this a non-issue, which is very frustrating to me after voting for him. The problem here is going to be an infrastructure overload due to a black swan event, which is not going to go away when you allocate resources to maximize public health rather than to maximize life years of the wealthy. Once 500 people were in the United States with COVID-19, the system was going to be under stress to the point of failure. Whether people are scared of going to the doctor or not because of a price tag, whether they had paid sick leave, whether people pay their employer 250 dollars a month or the government 100 dollars, and whether Bloomberg has the same care as someone living in the LA tent cities. Things would be better, probably, but it would still be an unprecedented disaster (well, except for the Spanish flu). That said, what would happen in that case is pretty close to the definition of an untestable hypothesis, which is why I don't spend too much time debating it with myself. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35092 Posts
On March 22 2020 11:57 Nevuk wrote: No. He's gone back on his promise to run ads. He disbanded his operation and donated 17million to the DNC instead. Do you know when that was? I'm curious if the backing out of that was strategically timed. On March 22 2020 12:19 TheTenthDoc wrote: Just realize that this situation and the stress is causing heavy time dilation and that, just like most conventional media is going to bend over backwards supporting Biden, most social media is going to expose you overwhelming towards some combination of "Biden Bad." And as a supporter of universal healthcare (I refuse to call it Medicare For All because I know what Medicare is and I want something better for Americans), the discussion over how it would somehow do substantially better than a public option in this case kind of baffles me. Sometimes I get the perception that even Sanders is claiming that universal healthcare would make this a non-issue, which is very frustrating to me after voting for him. The problem here is going to be an infrastructure overload due to a black swan event, which is not going to go away when you allocate resources to maximize public health rather than to maximize life years of the wealthy. Once 500 people were in the United States with COVID-19, the system was going to be under stress to the point of failure. Whether people are scared of going to the doctor or not because of a price tag, whether they had paid sick leave, whether people pay their employer 250 dollars a month or the government 100 dollars, and whether Bloomberg has the same care as someone living in the LA tent cities. Things would be better, probably, but it would still be an unprecedented disaster (well, except for the Spanish flu). That said, what would happen in that case is pretty close to the definition of an untestable hypothesis, which is why I don't spend too much time debating it with myself. I believe the long form answer would be explaining how M4A would have the country in a better position to absorb the situation so it wouldn't be as bad. However, given the "debate" system, nothing that can be explained in more than a paragraph will ever be elucidated properly. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On March 22 2020 12:30 Gahlo wrote: Do you know when that was? I'm curious if the backing out of that was strategically timed. March 20th : (that's 3.4% of what he spent on his own vanity campaign. lol) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22727 Posts
On March 22 2020 11:50 Wombat_NI wrote: Probably fair in part absolutely, still I think there’s a reasonable middle ground between using the crisis for transparently self-serving reasons and doing well, nothing whatsoever. If the administration’s response is inadequate, slam it, if it is decent, pull the old ‘we must set our differences aside and band together as Americans’. He’s doing neither at a time some Republicans are even donning their human suits and the need for much of a Sanders or a Warren platform is being massively spotlighted by the pandemic. Worth noting Ten's making a fallacious argument at best in that the issue isn't Biden valiantly fighting an optics battle with critics no matter his action. The issue I was presenting was that he is trying to offer counter briefings to Trump (whatever the optics) and he and his team are incapable until Monday at the earliest. Additionally, that those covering for him aren't better than Trump supporters in that way. I imagine some of the millions of people losing Biden's favored employee based healthcare would do a better job than myself explaining why universal healthcare would be exponentially better than a public option under these current conditions. The Boston woman that got charged $34,000+ to get treated for COVID-19 probably would too. Granted, no healthcare system can make up for decades of bipartisan incompetent leadership from DC on down. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 22 2020 13:11 GreenHorizons wrote: Worth noting Ten's making a fallacious argument at best in that the issue isn't Biden valiantly fighting an optics battle with critics no matter his action. The issue I was presenting was that he is trying to offer counter briefings to Trump (whatever the optics) and he and his team are incapable until Monday at the earliest. Additionally, that those covering for him aren't better than Trump supporters in that way. I imagine some of the millions of people losing Biden's favored employee based healthcare would do a better job than myself explaining why universal healthcare would be exponentially better than a public option under these current conditions. The Boston woman that got charged $34,000+ to get treated for COVID-19 probably would too. Granted, no healthcare system can make up for decades of bipartisan incompetent leadership from DC on down. The whole point of a public option (which is, of course, the central point of Biden's ACA expansion) is that it is easily available and means-tested for those who don't have access to employer healthcare. Even without a true public option and with just a functional ACA, it's easy for the government to make provisions to expand the subsidy mechanism already in place with two votes and a stroke of the president's pen (and in cases like this, maybe even just the pen). It's even trivial to make exceptions where insurers have to cover the full cost of treatment. EDIT: Deleted a needlessly antagonistic comment. I guess I see "doing pretty much nothing" and "promoting a policy in a misleading manner" as equal opportunity ills. EDIT2: And to clarify, the ACA mechanism would be far less efficient resource-wise, and I prefer universal healthcare by miles. But the core problems our healthcare system will face would not be solved no matter whose plan was in place, and implying otherwise seems like a cheap tactic to push a good policy rather than being honest with the public. | ||
| ||
