Page 1024 of 1172 FirstFirst ... 245249249741014102010211022102310241025102610271028103410741124 ... LastLast
Results 15,346 to 15,360 of 17573
  1. #15346
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    None of us WANT to be doing this for months and months. But we understand that it's something that we need to do, like laundry. Of course, I'll bet Trump has never once done his own laundry.
    Look, I hate Trump as much as the next person (probably more, in fact). But the criticism of him making statements saying that in August and September we can be reasonably expected to have sports and community events again ISN’T contradicted by the evidence (unlike his prior Easter prediction). At best, one could argue we don’t know what the future holds and Trump has demonstrated his administration will do little to ensure that that is a viable target (like make sure testing is widely available, contact and trace practices are widely in place, that those who have it are self-isolating, checks are in place at airports, and keeping funding directed towards treatments for COVID-19). I might be willing to agree there, but the states are in active control of our situation.

    More than thirty states, with over 95% of the population, have issued stay-at-home orders. Sure, a national lockdown would’ve been better and more effective, but actual data indicates that stuff doesn’t just happen and have no meaningful impact on the spread. It will work—it just doesn’t feel like it right now, because people who got it are finally being tested in appropriate numbers and the forward momentum of people finally coming down with symptoms after having been infected for a few days. Once we start to see the numbers of necessary resources being used and, unfortunately, daily deaths start to go down, we can start to see that plans can start to be made for what it looks like as we come out of this, which, if we’re smart, will probably be roughly a month after we peak in our respective states so that numbers are down to truly manageable levels for testing and contact/trace policies to be enacted for all those who have it, and health care personnel can handle the onset.

    According to IHME models, a far better resource than any news outlet, we will nationally peak around April 16th with New York, the state hit hardest by the epidemic, peaking on April 10th and moving that average. Here in Colorado, for example, that date is a bit later. In Colorado, we will peak right around April 19th. So, while a national lockdown would’ve been better, different states will need to ease off their lockdowns, and, eventually, their social distancing, at their respective regional pace.

    Given this data, I would say that it is probably good practice for states, and the country, to expect to maintain social distancing policies with closed restaurants, movie theaters, and no public events, through the end of May, at least. Some states may need to go through mid-June.

    But Trump’s statements about being in a more relatively normal place by August or September aren’t as outrageous as it might seem. Provided states can get the tests they request, the equipment they need (which has been too big an “if” with this Administration to date, but, thankfully, we can expect hospital resource demand to ease up after the peak), and the resources to conduct contact and tracing practices, we can probably get back to going out with our families and having barbecues in the summer.

    Here’s the resource I mentioned earlier: https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

    Feel free to use it. I feel it has stopped my head from pounding and from worrying so often.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  2. #15347
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    Whatever, just don't blame us when you lose again.
    You're pouring gasoline all around our house and asking us not to blame us if we burn to death.

    You seem nice.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  3. #15348
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    23,918

    Default

    A German Exception? Why the Country’s Coronavirus Death Rate Is Low

    They call them corona taxis: Medics outfitted in protective gear, driving around the empty streets of Heidelberg to check on patients who are at home, five or six days into being sick with the coronavirus.

    They take a blood test, looking for signs that a patient is about to go into a steep decline. They might suggest hospitalization, even to a patient who has only mild symptoms; the chances of surviving that decline are vastly improved by being in a hospital when it begins.

    “There is this tipping point at the end of the first week,” said Prof. Hans-Georg Kräusslich, the head of virology at University Hospital in Heidelberg, one of Germany’s leading research hospitals. “If you are a person whose lungs might fail, that’s when you will start deteriorating.”
    versus

    "Shoot them dead": Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte orders police and military to kill citizens who defy coronavirus lockdown



    In the Philippines, the 57 million residents of the country's main island, Luzon, are under strict lockdown orders to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Despite that, many in a Manila slum took to the streets Wednesday to protest a lack of supplies, arguing they had not received any food packs since the lockdown started two weeks ago.

    The local government refutes those claims and clashed with protestors, ultimately arresting 20 people who refused to return home.
    Later that night, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte took to the airwaves with a chilling warning for his citizens: Defy the lockdown orders again and the police will shoot you dead.
    Last edited by Tami; 04-05-2020 at 11:55 AM.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  4. #15349
    Astonishing Member jetengine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,849

    Default

    Reminds me when I was talking to hardcore british leftists who were saying the media was destroying Bernie and I pointed out his "Americas race issue is all class" is rubbish only to be told "But he's right" with no answer or follow up when I pointed out (as you say) the black middle class buisnessman is treated like dirt.

  5. #15350
    Ultimate Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    Whatever, just don't blame us when you lose again.
    I have yet to see any data or study that shows Bernie would have won in 2016. Or that he has a better chance than Biden this year. So if you want to keep attacking the only alternative to Trump this year. Or worse, vote for Trump over Biden, yes I will blame you.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  6. #15351
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,305

    Default

    George W. Bush in 2005: 'If we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare'
    A book about the 1918 flu pandemic spurred the government to action.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/geor...ry?id=69979013

    In the summer of 2005, President George W. Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he began flipping through an advanced copy of a new book about the 1918 flu pandemic. He couldn't put it down.

    When he returned to Washington, he called his top homeland security adviser into the Oval Office and gave her the galley of historian John M. Barry's "The Great Influenza," which told the chilling tale of the mysterious plague that "would kill more people than the outbreak of any other disease in human history."

    "You've got to read this," Fran Townsend remembers the president telling her. "He said, 'Look, this happens every 100 years. We need a national strategy.'"

    Thus was born the nation's most comprehensive pandemic plan -- a playbook that included diagrams for a global early warning system, funding to develop new, rapid vaccine technology, and a robust national stockpile of critical supplies, such as face masks and ventilators, Townsend said.
    Even George W. Bush saw this coming.

  7. #15352
    Extraordinary Member Jackalope89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    6,139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    George W. Bush in 2005: 'If we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare'
    A book about the 1918 flu pandemic spurred the government to action.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/geor...ry?id=69979013



    Even George W. Bush saw this coming.
    I know its not the most popular opinion, but when even George W. Bush looks like a well prepared and thought out President in comparison to the Orange Menace, we have a SERIOUS problem.

  8. #15353
    Astonishing Member PwrdOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    Bernie supporters talk a lot about how economic inequality is the biggest issue holding back minorities. But I ask, what would you do about the Black businessman in a three piece suit who can't catch a cab in a big city? Or the brown skinned small businessman who's often yelled at to "Speak English!" Or the transgender person who's persecuted for using the "wrong" bathroom? The economy is a big part of it, but there are other significant issues that need to be addressed, as well.
    The thing is, a lot of those black and brown businessmen are the same kind of people who tell everyone else to stop blaming the white man for all of their problems and that if THEY could pull themselves up from poverty through hard work and determination, then anyone should be able to. These sorts of incidents are a hurtful but honestly necessary wake up call for people that there's no such thing as honorary whiteness, and that no matter how well educated and well mannered you might be, there is no true justice until the lowest among us can expect to be treated with dignity and respect.

  9. #15354
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    The thing is, a lot of those black and brown businessmen are the same kind of people who tell everyone else to stop blaming the white man for all of their problems and that if THEY could pull themselves up from poverty through hard work and determination, then anyone should be able to. These sorts of incidents are a hurtful but honestly necessary wake up call for people that there's no such thing as honorary whiteness, and that no matter how well educated and well mannered you might be, there is no true justice until the lowest among us can expect to be treated with dignity and respect.
    This is a massive overgeneralization and still doesn’t get to the heart of the issues most black and brown Americans recognize as their biggest issues. It is the extra scrutiny placed on them by police and the higher the hostility, not the neighborhoods they live in—as even white folks are subject to less scrutiny there. Of course they want those neighborhoods to improve, but the neighborhoods can’t really improve if there aren’t opportunities and opportunities don’t come to places where the reputation of those neighborhoods is defined by their blackness and the police presence there. There has to be real social justice in these areas before we start to lift people up. Because the effect of doing it the other way around is that a) these neighborhoods still get left behind despite economic investments and progressives write black and brown folks as off as not improving their status in these majority-minority neighborhoods, as they have been known to do, and b) when someone does come along and move to address these problems so these folks can share in the prosperity, including these programs, support for these programs plummet, even among those who benefit from it.

    These are real political issues and we need to resolve these social ills at least concurrently. Progressives like Sanders, though, have been more eager to reach out to the white working class voters who are more likely to turn on these programs as soon as black and brown folks share in their prosperity as well. I’m not saying to leave these folks behind as a matter of policy, but we really should be more concerned with addressing real problems with this system and elevating the worst off in the system, as it will, in some way, help everyone. Sanders’ preoccupation with white working class voters is the same preoccupation that got black folks excluded from New Deal programs. People aren’t eager to see a re-run of that. We all know how that movie ends.

    And let’s not pretend Barack Obama’s Democratic Party didn’t care about economic issues. Most of the bills passed by that first Congress under Obama were economic reforms, one of which was to create the Consumer Protection Bureau. They might have been further to the right than maybe people wanted, but they were infinitely further to the left than policies we got since.

    Basically, the political choice is between a return to FDR’s Democratic Party, which got us wonderful programs while selling minorities down the river, most often implicitly, or Barack Obama’s Democratic Party, whose focus was primarily on social justice, with economic proposals for reform in toe. I’m sorry, but I just think Obama’s Democratic Party is better. And I don’t even care if Sanders is going to just invert what Obama did and make it so social justice is a close second to economic reform. I’ll still choose the former. Every. Single. Time.
    Last edited by TheDarman; 04-05-2020 at 02:49 PM.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  10. #15355
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    This is a massive overgeneralization and still doesn’t get to the heart of the issues most black and brown Americans recognize as their biggest issues. It is the extra scrutiny placed on them by police and the higher the hostility, not the neighborhoods they live in—as even white folks are subject to less scrutiny there. Of course they want those neighborhoods to improve, but the neighborhoods can’t really improve if there aren’t opportunities and opportunities don’t come to places where the reputation of those neighborhoods is defined by their blackness and the police presence there. There has to be real social justice in these areas before we start to lift people up. Because the effect of doing it the other way around is that a) these neighborhoods still get left behind despite economic investments and progressives write black and brown folks as off as not improving their status in these majority-minority neighborhoods, as they have been known to do, and b) when someone does come along and move to address these problems so these folks can share in the prosperity, including these programs, support for these programs plummet, even among those who benefit from it.

    These are real political issues and we need to resolve these social ills at least concurrently. Progressives like Sanders, though, have been more eager to reach out to the white working class voters who are more likely to turn on these programs as soon as black and brown folks share in their prosperity as well. I’m not saying to leave these folks behind as a matter of policy, but we really should be more concerned with addressing real problems with this system and elevating the worst off in the system, as it will, in some way, help everyone. Sanders’ preoccupation with white working class voters is the same preoccupation that got black folks excluded from New Deal programs. People aren’t eager to see a re-run of that. We all know how that movie ends.

    And let’s not pretend Barack Obama’s Democratic Party didn’t care about economic issues. Most of the bills passed by that first Congress under Obama were economic reforms, one of which was to create the Consumer Protection Bureau. They might have been further to the right than maybe people wanted, but they were infinitely further to the left than policies we got since.

    Basically, the political choice is between a return to FDR’s Democratic Party, which got us wonderful programs while selling minorities down the river, most often implicitly, or Barack Obama’s Democratic Party, whose focus was primarily on social justice, with economic proposals for reform in toe. I’m sorry, but I just think Obama’s Democratic Party is better. And I don’t even care if Sanders is going to just invert what Obama did and make it so social justice is a close second to economic reform. I’ll still choose the former. Every. Single. Time.
    The first issue with this is that you are setting up a false choice. The second is that there were a lot of black pepper that didn’t feel like Obama actually made things better for them anyways.

    Also Obama’s term that you debatably describe as better cake after FDR with American in a position of a world leader that it attained under FDR. So they aren’t two binary opposing metrics.

  11. #15356
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    The first issue with this is that you are setting up a false choice. The second is that there were a lot of black pepper that didn’t feel like Obama actually made things better for them anyways.

    Also Obama’s term that you debatably describe as better cake after FDR with American in a position of a world leader that it attained under FDR. So they aren’t two binary opposing metrics.
    Black pepper?

  12. #15357
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    The first issue with this is that you are setting up a false choice.
    Actually, it isn’t. There are often policy prescriptions that put these two coalitions at odds with one another. For example, Obama’s “promise zones” initiative gave businesses massive incentives to create new areas for expansion in poorer and majority-minority areas.

    It is true that we might have a candidate that can one day marry those and consider both to be a priority. But, as has been litigated in this thread (and I think even Sanders fans have conceded that he is primarily concerned with economic injustice with his supporters left to argue he is right to not really be too concerned with social justice policy, because “economic justice is social justice”), Sanders isn’t that candidate. Admittedly, neither is Biden. We had candidates that could do this, but they all flamed out for one reason or another. It is the choice we are now faced with as a result.

    The second is that there were a lot of black pepper that didn’t feel like Obama actually made things better for them anyways.
    I can see that. Actual empirical studies showed Obama talked about solutions for black folks and their social plight less than white Democrats did. However, he also did experience disproportionately worse blowback when he did discuss these issues (see Trayvon Martin) than white presidents did. He also kept a lot of his work, such as the “My Brother’s Keeper” Initiative pretty quiet and had local leaders really take the reins. Still, I think it might’ve been over simplistic to say he didn’t do anything and even more so to say he didn’t try his hardest, but it doesn’t help he was more private about these programs, especially relative to other programs and initiatives he had.

    Also Obama’s term that you debatably describe as better cake after FDR with American in a position of a world leader that it attained under FDR. So they aren’t two binary opposing metrics.
    FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps, sent Jewish folks back to Europe where many of them ended up in concentration camps, and made up regiments of black soldiers who were disproportionately put on the front lines. FDR’s international and wartime policy was far worse than Obama’s too.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  13. #15358
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    Actually, it isn’t. There are often policy prescriptions that put these two coalitions at odds with one another. For example, Obama’s “promise zones” initiative gave businesses massive incentives to create new areas for expansion in poorer and majority-minority areas.

    It is true that we might have a candidate that can one day marry those and consider both to be a priority. But, as has been litigated in this thread (and I think even Sanders fans have conceded that he is primarily concerned with economic injustice with his supporters left to argue he is right to not really be too concerned with social justice policy, because “economic justice is social justice”), Sanders isn’t that candidate. Admittedly, neither is Biden. We had candidates that could do this, but they all flamed out for one reason or another. It is the choice we are now faced with as a result.



    I can see that. Actual empirical studies showed Obama talked about solutions for black folks and their social plight less than white Democrats did. However, he also did experience disproportionately worse blowback when he did discuss these issues (see Trayvon Martin) than white presidents did. He also kept a lot of his work, such as the “My Brother’s Keeper” Initiative pretty quiet and had local leaders really take the reins. Still, I think it might’ve been over simplistic to say he didn’t do anything and even more so to say he didn’t try his hardest, but it doesn’t help he was more private about these programs, especially relative to other programs and initiatives he had.



    FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps, sent Jewish folks back to Europe where many of them ended up in concentration camps, and made up regiments of black soldiers who were disproportionately put on the front lines. FDR’s international and wartime policy was far worse than Obama’s too.
    The first thing I would say (and I dont care to go down the rabbit hole too much because in my mind the primary is over) but it’s highly debatable that Biden is superior on social issues and racial issues. It’s weakness that Bernie focuses less on talking about them in his platform. However record for record they are pretty negligible. Obama did some good things with the economy but in some areas but he had a lot of the same gaps Bill Clinton did

    Also I don’t think anyone is saying go back to the 1930’s and 1940’s sensibilities but more go back to FDR’s economic platform because we know the parts that got through worked and it set up the groundswell for Democratic success and it wasn’t until years of stripping them that we became vulnerable to significant recessions. I don’t think you’ll find many Sanders supporters or progressives in general who are talking about bringing back anything but FDR economic policies. His Japanese internment camps are almost universally viewed as his folly. And nobody is advocating for that.

    However we should probably recognize the fact that either Trump or Biden is going to likely inherit a 30% unemployment, a destroyed economy and a country rocked by a pandemic and they will be judged very harshly by a populace who was completely vulnerable because the current system was not built for this. We did see one successful path out (that led to decades of Democrats owning Congress) and I think we might need to consider if we are going to revisit some of those or stay with a lot of what kinda led us here. Which is where some aversion to Biden is.

  14. #15359
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    The first thing I would say (and I dont care to go down the rabbit hole too much because in my mind the primary is over) but it’s highly debatable that Biden is superior on social issues and racial issues. It’s weakness that Bernie focuses less on talking about them in his platform. However record for record they are pretty negligible. Obama did some good things with the economy but in some areas but he had a lot of the same gaps Bill Clinton did
    Sure, but Obama and Sanders are probably going to be recognized for a long time as the leaders that ultimately reshaped our discussions about public policy away from what the standard of American politics has been coming out of the Reagan era. Obama’s ACA changed the fundamental debate about health care and turned Sanders proposal into something that could be mainstream. Obama also brought social issues to the fore that will make it more difficult for politicians like Sanders to ignore when trying to make these programs that they desperately want and we, frankly, need. That is, of course, if we can make out of the nightmare we have with Trump right now.

    I also think that we don’t give Biden enough credit for actually listening to what activists have to say. No one wants to be told what they should do by a politician. They want to be listened to. Biden has shown more of a propensity to do that. Sanders, meanwhile, has been missing critical anniversary events and continues to insist that economic reforms are what is best coupled with some policies about criminal justice and voting reform. They need more than that. And Sanders has been want to acknowledge that for a while. I think we underestimate how popular Biden has become because of his willingness to listen and advocate for those policies.

    Also I don’t think anyone is saying go back to the 1930’s and 1940’s sensibilities but more go back to FDR’s economic platform because we know the parts that got through worked and it set up the groundswell for Democratic success and it wasn’t until years of stripping them that we became vulnerable to significant recessions. I don’t think you’ll find many Sanders supporters or progressives in general who are talking about bringing back anything but FDR economic policies. His Japanese internment camps are almost universally viewed as his folly. And nobody is advocating for that.
    Times change. But it is what you get with “class over race” politicians like FDR, JFK, or LBJ. The only reason Johnson ended up doing anything was because of enormous pressure to actually deal with these problems. Democrats had too long been subservient to Dixiecrats as a result of compromises FDR made and compromises LBJ was willing to make. This isn’t to say Japanese Internment Camps will come back or anything else. But those are the sacrifices often made by politicians that Sanders has an affinity towards. And that scares me.

    However we should probably recognize the fact that either Trump or Biden is going to likely inherit a 30% unemployment, a destroyed economy and a country rocked by a pandemic and they will be judged very harshly by a populace who was completely vulnerable because the current system was not built for this. We did see one successful path out (that led to decades of Democrats owning Congress) and I think we might need to consider if we are going to revisit some of those or stay with a lot of what kinda led us here. Which is where some aversion to Biden is.
    Except the data demonstrates that, much like the result of COVID-19 (though I doubt that in January 2021, the economic effects of a policy of social distancing (implemented now to prevent more long-term health and economic damage) will be as bad as over 30 percent), we were on our way to a depression after the 2008 financial crisis. Obama and his team didn’t let it bottom out and most economists would credit Congress, but particularly Obama, for stopping the Great Recession from becoming another Depression. Of course, the recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression happened slower than any since the Great Depression as well and it was perceived as a weakness for Obama heading into the 2012 election. He won, but I do think it says a lot about how short-term memory works and how quickly we want things to revert to normal that some punished Obama for that. However, I suspect that a health crisis created recession is a little different than one created by the economy itself. And, even then, I think it is up for debate if Sanders would handle the crisis better than Biden, whose administration will likely be full of Obama veterans.
    Last edited by TheDarman; 04-05-2020 at 04:45 PM.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  15. #15360
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    Basically, the political choice is between a return to FDR’s Democratic Party, which got us wonderful programs while selling minorities down the river, most often implicitly, or Barack Obama’s Democratic Party, whose focus was primarily on social justice, with economic proposals for reform in toe. I’m sorry, but I just think Obama’s Democratic Party is better. And I don’t even care if Sanders is going to just invert what Obama did and make it so social justice is a close second to economic reform. I’ll still choose the former. Every. Single. Time.
    Sanders being compared to FDR is unfair. FDR knew how to get things done, he was the Secretary of the Navy during WWII befogs setting foot in congress. He knew how to build coalitions and break arms to get people to do what he wanted. I agree with your sentiment, however.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •