|
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 |
On May 05 2020 20:00 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2020 15:06 Elizar wrote:On May 05 2020 03:16 Gahlo wrote:On May 05 2020 02:49 Elizar wrote:On May 04 2020 13:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2020 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2020 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2020 04:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2020 15:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2020 14:33 Nyxisto wrote:
To use the situation right now as some "we can't be sure who would've won folks, this isn't a normal primary!" to cast doubt on the fact that Biden would have won is pretty bad faith. He bombed hard in pretty much every state that wasn't California, IIRC even in Vermont he lost a ton of votes.
It's obviously regrettable that COVID disrupts the entire process but Sanders had virtually zero chances of winning this thing, that's not really debatable Put another way, if Biden died from Covid next week they wouldn't have to change the rules to have a winner that wasn't him, since he never won. On May 03 2020 14:56 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Bernie endorsed Biden. Any primary anything after that is just silly. And especially with Reade completely falling apart at this point, I'm so done trying to pretend this is even somewhat dramatic. How is Reade "completely falling apart"? https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/02/tara-reade-joe-biden-accusation-sexual-assault-reportFirst says not explicitly sexual assault then another "wait no" Part of this is understandable. It was in 1993. It makes sense for her to have a hard time remembering something 27 years ago. But don't drag this shit on once you make it clear you aren't even sure if you are remembering things right. I also don't think she has done a good job at explaining why this, rather than the other elections, were the time to talk about this. Then again, sometimes people simply aren't able to talk about trauma until a lot of time goes by. I don't know. Right now, I would say roughly 50/50 chance this actually happened. Nothing about that is "completely falling apart". I was always under the impression the complaint wasn't for sexual assault? The article you linked says that is what she told the AP in 2019. Perhaps it would be better to just phrase it like this: In your eyes, why should I believe Reade? 2. Biden's well documented history of lying If that is really a problem for Americans in general, then why is Trump the president? Because we're holding everybody to actual standards and not just going along with somebody because they have the correct color on. From an outsider point of view (i.e. not being an American), that response has to a joke right? As much as I want to believe you, the fact that Trump is president contradicts that, espescially the last part. On the other hand: I believe you, when you say, that you have actual standards and do not care about correct colors, but who do mean by "we"? It can´t be Americans in general, at least not the voting ones. While the result didn't reflect it, you have to remember that Trump didn't win the popular vote, nor did all the eligible voters vote. Also, when I say "we", I'm referring to people that went after Trump and are going about Biden about their (potential) misdeeds.
Thank you for clarifying.
|
Devil's advocate: If the US is among the first to end up with an immune population, we will be well poised to basically do what we did in WW2 and be dominant through others being weak. When European and Asian countries prioritize drawing everything out, if the US is able to just get fully rolling again quickly, we could be huge manufacturers for what the world needs?
My understanding is that a big part of why Sweden is doing what they are doing is the fact that there will likely be multiple outbreaks. If the US is so negligent that we end up doing 3 outbreaks in 2, would that make us in a commanding position, ethics and human life be damned?
|
Kind of hard to use it to sling shot yourself forward with manufacturing when you shipped all your manufacturing to China, which is recovering from it as well.
|
Norway28667 Posts
I mean as harmful as the lockdown is for the economy in various european countries, there's an enormous distance between post corona and post ww2 in terms of infrastructure destruction..
|
On May 06 2020 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Devil's advocate: If the US is among the first to end up with an immune population, we will be well poised to basically do what we did in WW2 and be dominant through others being weak. When European and Asian countries prioritize drawing everything out, if the US is able to just get fully rolling again quickly, we could be huge manufacturers for what the world needs?
My understanding is that a big part of why Sweden is doing what they are doing is the fact that there will likely be multiple outbreaks. If the US is so negligent that we end up doing 3 outbreaks in 2, would that make us in a commanding position, ethics and human life be damned?
Whether or not the US is in a position to help other nations or otherwise reassert itself as a global power led by someone rational depends entirely on politics and not on pandemic dynamics.
|
On May 06 2020 06:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean as harmful as the lockdown is for the economy in various european countries, there's an enormous distance between post corona and post ww2 in terms of infrastructure destruction..
yeah fair enough. Not a lot of bridges getting blown up right now.
|
On May 06 2020 06:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean as harmful as the lockdown is for the economy in various european countries, there's an enormous distance between post corona and post ww2 in terms of infrastructure destruction..
Yes this is true,the damage now is to the workforce itself not beeing able to work and produce which is arguably just as bad if not worse. There is a spin off towards purchase power/demand as well though that in theory at least can be solved by simply giving people government money as soon as production starts up again and people are allowed to go out again.
The advantage is that as soon as people can go back to work all the infrastructure is already there.
|
On May 06 2020 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Devil's advocate: If the US is among the first to end up with an immune population, we will be well poised to basically do what we did in WW2 and be dominant through others being weak. When European and Asian countries prioritize drawing everything out, if the US is able to just get fully rolling again quickly, we could be huge manufacturers for what the world needs?
My understanding is that a big part of why Sweden is doing what they are doing is the fact that there will likely be multiple outbreaks. If the US is so negligent that we end up doing 3 outbreaks in 2, would that make us in a commanding position, ethics and human life be damned?
I'm curious where people are getting this idea that we'll develop meaningful immunity to this when it really seems uncertain if that will be the case.
|
On May 06 2020 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2020 06:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean as harmful as the lockdown is for the economy in various european countries, there's an enormous distance between post corona and post ww2 in terms of infrastructure destruction.. yeah fair enough. Not a lot of bridges getting blown up right now.
Also, if the total post-pandemic death count is higher in the US (which is a reasonable assumption in a scenario in which the US rushes for an immune population), then the US will be proportionally weak in this reguard. The dead don't produce, and training a human being is not a cheap process.
|
Car manufacturing starts again in Germany.
I'd be more concerned about the highly specialized small and middle enterprises not making it through due to supply chains up- and downstream collapsing.
|
On May 06 2020 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Devil's advocate: If the US is among the first to end up with an immune population, we will be well poised to basically do what we did in WW2 and be dominant through others being weak. When European and Asian countries prioritize drawing everything out, if the US is able to just get fully rolling again quickly, we could be huge manufacturers for what the world needs?
My understanding is that a big part of why Sweden is doing what they are doing is the fact that there will likely be multiple outbreaks. If the US is so negligent that we end up doing 3 outbreaks in 2, would that make us in a commanding position, ethics and human life be damned?
There's a lot of factors why we're doing what we're doing but the herd immunity thing is a small part of it if any. The biggest reason why we're doing this is because the population can in large be trusted to keep to our CDC (FHM, folkhälsomyndigheten, literally "Population health agency") guidelines. There are of course deviations, which are the ones getting reported on, but in general this is going well.
Since it's a big agency which a multiple disciplines, there is an assessment that from a social standpoint, people will not accept being locked up for several months. We could probably lock everyone up for 1 month, but after that it's not doable and the pandemic will not be gone in one month.
We're also having light travel restrictions because it does not really matter if you have them or not in a global economy. You will be exposed regardless, and we are getting reports that the virus has been in Sweden maybe since november so it's a done a lot of spreading.
The result is that we are having a lot more deaths per capita compared to our neighbours, but they are expecting to catch up to us in the long run unless a vaccine is going to be developed quicker than the projected 12 months that the best case scenario was done.
Life is adjusting to the new normal, which is more normal than basically the rest of the world and it does look like we're going to be able to keep doing this for a while. We also have excellent public finances and a lot of room for borrowing more towards our government debt.
Dunno if I should have posted this in the Coronavirus thread but it's a reply to here. Don't know if any of this is applicable to the US.
EDIT:
Forgot to mention that actually putting us in a national lockdown is not supported by our constitution I believe, so there'd have to be pretty big changes to that which would most probably be a very long political process.
|
On May 06 2020 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Devil's advocate: If the US is among the first to end up with an immune population, we will be well poised to basically do what we did in WW2 and be dominant through others being weak. When European and Asian countries prioritize drawing everything out, if the US is able to just get fully rolling again quickly, we could be huge manufacturers for what the world needs?
My understanding is that a big part of why Sweden is doing what they are doing is the fact that there will likely be multiple outbreaks. If the US is so negligent that we end up doing 3 outbreaks in 2, would that make us in a commanding position, ethics and human life be damned?
Ah. The US is literally months behind China for that. China has been expanding their influence thanks to it, while the US just seems incompetent to the rest of the world.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I'm not so sure that "this is good for China" is really accurate overall, even from a morbid/cynical perspective. They do get to put on a show of saving everyone else with tests and masks and such, but there's less buying of exports from China and that's likely here to stay.
Probably worse for the US than it is for China since the former has proven to be a show of incompetence in pandemic response, but not great for China either.
|
On May 06 2020 22:57 LegalLord wrote:
I'm not so sure that "this is good for China" is really accurate overall, even from a morbid/cynical perspective. They do get to put on a show of saving everyone else with tests and masks and such, but there's less buying of exports from China and that's likely here to stay.
Probably worse for the US than it is for China since the former has proven to be a show of incompetence in pandemic response, but not great for China either.
They're buying a shit ton of real estate for next to nothing in Africa in exchange for medical equipment while the west is getting overwhelmed. We are going to wake up in 6months with every single airport/port/mine in Africa owned by the chinese government.
|
On May 06 2020 23:14 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2020 22:57 LegalLord wrote:
I'm not so sure that "this is good for China" is really accurate overall, even from a morbid/cynical perspective. They do get to put on a show of saving everyone else with tests and masks and such, but there's less buying of exports from China and that's likely here to stay.
Probably worse for the US than it is for China since the former has proven to be a show of incompetence in pandemic response, but not great for China either. They're buying a shit ton of real estate for next to nothing in Africa in exchange for medical equipment while the west is getting overwhelmed. We are going to wake up in 6months with every single airport/port/mine in Africa owned by the chinese government.
Well that was already more or less the case, especially for the last few years under Trump.
|
|
|
On May 06 2020 22:57 LegalLord wrote:
I'm not so sure that "this is good for China" is really accurate overall, even from a morbid/cynical perspective. They do get to put on a show of saving everyone else with tests and masks and such, but there's less buying of exports from China and that's likely here to stay.
Probably worse for the US than it is for China since the former has proven to be a show of incompetence in pandemic response, but not great for China either.
The biggest benefit to China will be the success of its surveillance apparatus as a superior form to laissez-faire liberal politics, which is the one thing they're trying to export to much of the world. I don't think they really give a crap about how the initial botched response looks outside of China, as they've already successfully reframed domestically. I think most of the antagonism towards the country is probably something they've been expecting in particular since Trump came into office.
|
While I, and likely anyone here, will never know the true behind the scenes geopolitics, I don't see how china benefits from this whole situation at all.
As up-and-coming as they are, they still are merely playing in the current hegemony's game.
China's "soft power" policies have been more by necessity than by choice. They don't have the power to operate like the U.S. for example.
If china decides it wants to become more aggressive and contentious in any way or form, it runs the risk of losing everything. Its military and economic power pale in comparison to those of the US/the west. Outside of the west it is surrounded by enemies in its own continent - South Korea, Japan, for example, and of course its rival in India. In terms of geopolitics it is nothing but an uphill battle for it in all senses.
I'm not saying china doesn't have any leverage but if they cross a line (according to the standing hegemony/rest of the world) it wont matter how many assets China "owns" in foreign lands as that can all be violated at the drop of a hat.
I don't think true, global antagonism against the country, especially if the U.S. is included in that antagonism, is something China can handle. I think the closest thing to formal military alliances China has are with Pakistan and North Korea?
|
On May 06 2020 09:37 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2020 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Devil's advocate: If the US is among the first to end up with an immune population, we will be well poised to basically do what we did in WW2 and be dominant through others being weak. When European and Asian countries prioritize drawing everything out, if the US is able to just get fully rolling again quickly, we could be huge manufacturers for what the world needs?
My understanding is that a big part of why Sweden is doing what they are doing is the fact that there will likely be multiple outbreaks. If the US is so negligent that we end up doing 3 outbreaks in 2, would that make us in a commanding position, ethics and human life be damned? I'm curious where people are getting this idea that we'll develop meaningful immunity to this when it really seems uncertain if that will be the case.
It's pure assumption that people don't want to think too critically about because the prospect of there not being real immunity is terrifying.
Granted, it's what happens with most infectious diseases like this, but there really isn't any explicit proof yet that "infection-and-done" immunity is how this virus works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
