US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

As for Trump he showed that he takes it seriously when he banned travel from China and Iran back back in January when the Democrats were still opposed to it, mainly because it was Trump doing it.

.

Yes, I will give him that. Didn't go far enough, but can you imagine the uproar the Dems would have had if he had ordered a 14 day quarantine to all arrivals like Israel did? Yes that would have been the smart move.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Now come on, you can not say I ever suggested this virus would so kill many people there would not be any left for an election.

Nobody needs to be "alive" for democrats to "win" an election.

[Rufus Shinra]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...hortage-125212

A looming shortage in lab materials is threatening to delay coronavirus test results and cause officials to undercount the number of Americans with the virus.

The slow pace of coronavirus testing has created a major gap in the U.S. public health response. The latest problem involves an inability to prepare samples for testing, creating uncertainties in how long it will take to get results.

CDC Director Robert Redfield told POLITICO on Tuesday that he is not confident that U.S. labs have an adequate stock of the supplies used to extract genetic material from any virus in a patient’s sample — a critical step in coronavirus testing.

Who'd have guessed defunding CDC to push for The Wall and for tax cuts could have led to some issues? Noone, I suppose, since even a stable genius couldn't.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Now come on, you can not say I ever suggested this virus would so kill many people there would not be any left for an election

Sure they can vote ... it's just that everyone waiting in line will have to stand six (6) feet apart from each other with no sneezing or coughing.

November 3rd will be flu season again

This may be this first election decided by absentee voters

Think about it

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Rufus Shinra

Who'd have guessed defunding CDC to push for The Wall and for tax cuts could have led to some issues? Noone, I suppose, since even a stable genius couldn't.

Ok, we need a wall so that should have been funded separately from any other budget considerations. Border security should not have impacted the CDC. Is there a direct link from "defunding the CDC" to building a border wall?

Moving these posts to the US politics thread.

[Onkel Neal]

Biden has the upper hand now but seems to be eager to lose in Nov.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1234683280735297536

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke endorsed the former vice president Monday night at a rally in Dallas, and Mr. Biden reciprocated by saying the Texan would be in charge of his anti-gun efforts.

“I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him,” Mr. Biden said of Mr. O’Rourke, the New York Post reported. “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-control-push/

[vienna]

Meh...


The whole gun thing is a red herring pushed by Far Right interests who have basically co-opted the issue as a means of garnering cheap votes for issues and candidates the want to push but lack sufficient support to pass/elect; it also provides a revenue stream for their causes and, in a lot of cases, gives them a means of skirting campaign finance laws and restrictions, sort of like the PACs...

No one is gonna take away anyone's legally acquired guns en masse and there is no way the Second Amendment is gonna be repealed and or amended. Confiscation of guns en masse is a myth; there have been too many cases at both the state and Federal level establishing certain parameters which cannot be breached when it comes to legal gun ownership and SCOTUS has not upheld any of the more draconian state or local laws that have led to unreasonable restrictions on legal gun ownership; the whole NRA/gun lobby rhetoric amounts to little more than a "Chicken Little 'The Sky Is Falling'" sideshow to deflect from the real intent of the FR and to provide a false 'litmus test' of "electability"...

As far as revoking the Second Amendment: Never Happen, GI. The Amendments that make up the Bill Of Rights portion of the US Constitution are as sacrosanct as the Ten Commandments to Jews and Christians and neither is likely to ever be revoked. Even if a President and Congress of the same party were to be in power, neither would be around to sustain the effort to repeal or amend the Second Amendment; first of all, just how long does anyone think it takes to even get an actual repeal or amendment through either chamber of Congress? It would be argued to death and would probably never see the light of a vote due to the various means of tabling or killing resolutions in either chamber. Even if it did get to a vote, both chambers would have to pass the proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote of each chamber and this is where the gun lobbies whole Chicken Little scare tactic really begins to fall apart: neither party since 1961 (when the current total of 50 States was established) has had a two-thirds majority of BOTH houses at the same time, making the argument that one party or the other could bulldoze through a repeal/amendment in BOTH chambers at the same time; and, given how control of each Chamber waxes and wanes every two or so years, the idea that an repeal or amendment of any of the Bill Of Rights is literally impossible...

Now, for the sake of argument, lets say the impossible should happen and Congress does pass a repeal/amendment. The next step is to get two-thirds of the States to individually ratify what Congress has passed, This means 34 of the 50 current states, via vote of each of their own State Legislature, passing in BOTH of their respective chambers by super majorities, would have to sing off on Congress' action. This is an impossibility upon the impossibility of Congress actual repealing/amending a part of the Bill Of Rights. In order to stop a repeal or amendment, it would take getting just seventeen states to deny ratification, an easy enough tally to accomplish. Does anyone really think defenders of the Second would fail to get at least seventeen states to vote against a repeal/amendment?...

No matter how you slice it, the Second Amendment is not going to be repealed or amended within any of our lifetimes, if ever. This whole canard of the government taking away, en masse, guns is nothing more than a version of your local store trying to get you to by their product by saying its a "limited time offer", when most people know the offer or something like it will come by again when they need to boost sales. I'm 69 years old and, for as long as I've been alive, the Chicken Little of "they're comin' fer yer guns!" has been around and nothing has happened or will happen. I dare anyone to give a plausible, workable, legal scenario where the Second Amendment will be repealed, short of a an armed overthrow of the US government...

The Bill Of Rights, for all intents and purposes is entrenched and will not be altered. And, as far as amendments are concerned, lets use this case as an illustration: there is an amendment to the US Constitution that was passed in 1972 (forty-eight (48) years ago) that is still out there and has only recently seen some signs of life (although it is probably moot due to legislative expiration dates) and it dealt not with any of the Bill Of Rights and it still hasn't been ratified as law; the full text of the proposed amendment is this:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE —
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

The above is the text of the "Equal Rights Amendment" and it still failed.

(Aside: I have gotten many a woman's ire when I have pointed out that the effort and monetary expense expended in trying to pass the ERA would have been better spent in filing class action suits on behalf of aggrieved women, not only hitting the offenders in the checkbook, but, also, establishing solid case law and precedent to move forward with achieving equity; I also pointed out, even if the ERA passed, there would still have to be litigation to establish the practical extent and parameters of the scope of the ERA, so even more effort would have to be expended over and above that of just passing the ERA; my arguments did not endear me to the ladies with whom I discussed the ERA...)...

The ERA, all that it is, is just really a nothing in the great scheme of things and it has failed...


So, again, can anyone give a rational scenario where a repeal/amendment of the Second would succeed where a nothing like the ERA failed? Trying to tie the electability of any candidate, of any party, to their stance on the Second is laughable. Neither party will ever repeal/amend the Second and the effort and expense to "defend" something that is impregnable is wasted expenditures...


I don't want to turn this thread into yet another debate on the Second; I'm just saying, in the grand scheme of an election for president, its a non-issue over something that cannot be changed. And what I've said about the Second applies to not a few of some of the other narrow "issues" bandied about by both parties as litmus tests for electability: I'm not going to vote for an idiot solely because he/she supports the Second any more than I would vote for an idiot solely because he/she support something like Dumping Dairy or some such nonsense...


When I vote for someone as President, I look for experience, knowledge, maturity, ethics, the ability to make cogent decisions, the ability to administer and delegate responsibly and ethically, and, among other things, and maybe the more important, the ability to take responsibility and to accept consequences with grace and sincerity; I also look for a track record of fiscal responsibility and results and the creativity and intelligence required to meet challenges. All of the more transient, and oft times, specious concerns of narrow thinking lobbyists and special interests don't really rate very high on my metrics...

By the way, the reasons I gave for voting for a candidate are exactly the reasons I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and why I certainly won't vote for him come November' I am interested in only voting for sane adults...







<O>

[Onkel Neal]

If you say so. That's not what I hear from liberals.

[vienna]

Liberals can say what they want and its all meaningless: they still aren't capable of repealing or modifying the Second Amendment and the issue is as much a deflection for them as it is for the far right...


...and I still haven't heard from anyone who can prove out how electing anyone from either party is going to change or strengthen the Second; any takers out there?...


I guess we will just have to waste our time with those minor insignificant issues like, oh, say, jobs, health care, economic stability, governmental stabililty, the effects of political corruption, housing, education, etc., you know stuff that's nowhere near as important as an amendment that's going nowhere and can't be changed...


The Second Amendment? Still a big yawn...







<O>

[Catfish]

^^^ good post Vienna

Originally Posted by vienna

When I vote for someone as President, I look for experience, knowledge, maturity, ethics, the ability to make cogent decisions, the ability to administer and delegate responsibly and ethically [...]<O>

If i look at the world we have a "leadership" of blithering idiots, everywhere.

[vienna]

With the current Covid-19 pandemic surging on, its going to be interesting to see what affect it will have on the traditional US campaign model. Already, both Biden and Sanders took action to cancel their respective primary post-election rallies and the next Biden/Sanders debate will be held without an audience in the hall. How will the campaigns go forward without the ability to stir up their bases without holding rallies or other mass campaign events, down to the handshaking tours in smaller communities? This is going to be a particular problem for Trump, who has pretty much made mass, frenzied rallies a personal trademark. For him, or any other candidate, it would be disastrous if a significant virus outbreak is traced back to one of their rallies should a candidate or campaign choose to ignore warnings against large gatherings. The issue also applies to statewide or local campaigns where mass campaign appearances are essential to their campaigns. Depending on how long this pandemic takes to play out, and particularly, ultimately, how severe the contagion develops, the whole election process could be upended at every level of politics...






<O>

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Sure I do. He should have confirmed the situation is very serious and the best thing we can do avoid to making it worse is to take decisive action immediately. Seal off the most heavily affected regions, bring in the resources to keep the food flowing, ask people in surrounding areas to self-quarantine, reduce travel, stop large gatherings, work from home if your occupation permits, and get ready for a tough three-six months. Be straight with the people, they can handle it. The point is to be proactive and not wait until it turns into a disaster. Look at Singapore, they know how to handle it.

Trump doesn't have a flipping clue and it's pretty obvious. He goes on and on about total bs like his perfect phone call, and Fine network Fox News". Was he drunk? I assume not so that leaves stupid, oblivious,and out of touch. He doesn't know better than to riff about his super genius uncle and how he surprised all the scientist by "getting it", wow he should have been a viral epidemiologist. I don't get you, August. I am a conservative as much as you but I sure can't pretend this guy is nothing other than a blithering idiot. Jeesus christ that CDC press conference looked like a North Korean dear leader stage show.

If I may add: Trump is not a conservative, he is as populist. Ronald Reagan was a conservative who had values...

Apart from this he is absolutely incapable to govern in these time of crisis. Instead of leading and finding solutions and mitigations with other close partners of the US (like all previous US presidents have done so in the past since WW2) he does do unilateral actions like this EU ban for 30 days , which well not help at all. A panic reaction to look like he is the man of "action" without having any mid or longterm strategy.
But yeah, he wanted to be measured how the Dow Jones performs. Today: the next drop of 8 %. Well done, indeed

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Trump doesn't have a flipping clue and it's pretty obvious. He goes on and on about total bs like his perfect phone call, and Fine network Fox News". Was he drunk? I assume not so that leaves stupid, oblivious,and out of touch. He doesn't know better than to riff about his super genius uncle and how he surprised all the scientist by "getting it", wow he should have been a viral epidemiologist. I don't get you, August. I am a conservative as much as you but I sure can't pretend this guy is nothing other than a blithering idiot. Jeesus christ that CDC press conference looked like a North Korean dear leader stage show.

What president in your past recollection would have a clue in this situation?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What president in your past recollection would have a clue in this situation?

Well ... a possible future President would call this virus a liar, curse at it and challenge it to a pushup contest.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by u crank

Well ... a possible future President would call this virus a liar, curse at it and challenge it to a pushup contest.

Do you know who is next in line if President Trump and VP Pence should contract Covid-19?

Speaker of the House: Nancy Pelosi