All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[worstblogever]

Erin Cruz

Welcome to what is the 855th original profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, where we’ll be discussing Erin Cruz, a failed candidate for U.S. Senate in 2018 in California (finishing sixth in the open primary with 4% of the vote), and is currently running to try and win office as the U.S. House Representative from California’s 36th District in the 2020 elections. And among her campaign strategies? To listen to the “legitimate concerns” of Qanon Conspiracy theorists, who believe that Democrats are secretly running subterranean, Devil-worshipping child abuse rings to harvest hormones from their victims. Her personal take on Q amounts to, “WHOA IF TRUE”:

“There is someone out there putting information on the internet as part of QAnon. A conspiracy theory only sounds crazy until it’s proven.”

Wouldn’t you know it, Cruz is a “journalist” working for the new paranoid right-wing “news” site, One America News Network. This would be the same network you may have recently heard about that is noted for having less scruples or shame than Fox News, while promoting conspiracy theories like the Seth Rich Conspiracy theory.

Erin Cruz is going to be a perennial candidate in California politics for some time, as she is already planning a 2022 U.S. Senate campaign challenge to Kamala Harris, and is constantly unsuccessfully trying to get Gov. Gavin Newsom recalled, even though by most measurables, he’s been an outstanding governor so far.

Let’s just hope that this ludicrous troll remains little more than that, and never actually gets elected to office.

[Tendrin]

Not sure how I'm feeling about Biden going full anti-China in his new ad.

https://twitter.com/travisakers/stat...64079359545344

I don't like it. The calculus here behind the ad, I think, is that Biden has to get ahead of Trump's efforts to call him 'Beijing Biden' somehow and go after Trump's image as being 'tough on China'.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I don't like it. The calculus here behind the ad, I think, is that Biden has to get ahead of Trump's efforts to call him 'Beijing Biden' somehow and go after Trump's image as being 'tough on China'.

I’m no fan either. This is no time for the blame game which accomplishes nothing in the greater scheme of things.

[Tami]

Not sure how I'm feeling about Biden going full anti-China in his new ad.

https://twitter.com/travisakers/stat...64079359545344

I actually do like it. Everything in it is factual so far as I can tell. This is how you go after Trump, turning him into his own worse enemy by using facts and his own words.

[jetengine]

I have to heavily disagree with you guys on this. That Ad is pretty damn light on China and heavy on "Trump fucked up" at best it says "China couldnt contain it and lied to the world" which...they did.

[Username taken]

I have to heavily disagree with you guys on this. That Ad is pretty damn light on China and heavy on "Trump fucked up" at best it says "China couldnt contain it and lied to the world" which...they did.

Quoted in agreement.

I don’t know much about International law and that stuff but I won’t be surprised if China’s handling of virus might have violated certain treaties. Lying and forcefully covering up what was clearly a massive outbreak (which probably broke out much earlier than we know) does sound like it violates....something (I’m sound like a conspiracy theory but .

Granted the ad could easily appeal to the racist nuts in the country, the fact is China fucked up and is still fucking up HARD regarding the coronavirus and the US didn’t even respond on time. That’s all pretty factual.

[Gray Lensman]

Quoted in agreement.

I don’t much about International law and that stuff but I won’t be surprised if China’s handling of virus might have violated certain treaties.

Granted the ad could easily appeal to the racist nuts in the country, the fact is China fucked up and is still fucking up HARD regarding the coronavirus and the US didn’t even respond on time. That’s all pretty factual.

It might also be able to undercut Trump's narrative that he is the one standing up to foreign countries that are taking advantage of us - personally I think his weakness to flattery makes it MORE likely those things happen rather than less.

[MiddleMan]

I dont think its harsh at all

and it is more about The Idiot messing up anyway

[Kirby101]

The ad is a preemptive strike at a Trump campaign strategy.

A Key G.O.P. Strategy: Blame China. But Trump Goes Off Message.

Republicans increasingly believe that elevating China’s culpability for spreading the coronavirus may be the best way to improve their difficult election chances. The president is muddying the message.

[JCAll]

The truth of the matter is that American opinions of China have shifted particularly negative. And, this time, it is backed up by the facts. It is clear that China wasn’t being transparent about the danger caused by this virus. And Trump, trying to be inoffensive to them as he was making a new trade deal with them, refused to hold them accountable. But we know that Trump is trying to also obfuscate and pretend it was all the WHO and China that messed up his response. He’s culpable too and it needs to be litigated as well. His lackluster response to China’s misinformation and lack of transparency was bad enough; he made it much worse with persistently bad decisions in the wake of this oncoming pandemic.

China didn't handle the outbreak well. Their obfuscating when it wasn't necessary in a vain attempt to save face should and will bring them nothing but shame in the international community for this whole affair. But the lies the Chinese government told are for the scrubs like us, it wouldn't have fooled the US government. Or intelligence community is so vast they must have known that was a lie as soon as the lie was told. Then the President took that information and made all the same mistakes and more. That's why I blame our own bad politicking for getting us into this.

[Tendrin]

The ad is a preemptive strike at a Trump campaign strategy.

A Key G.O.P. Strategy: Blame China. But Trump Goes Off Message.

Yeah, I've already seen the folks around screaming 'Beijing Biden'. That's the campaign they'll run. Biden's campaign is trying very much to head that attack off at the pass. I don't think they have a choice but I also think it's a short ways from calling it the 'Chinese Virus'.

[Mister Mets]

I guess this leads me to ask the rep from the party of family values/pro-life, what is the number of deaths you’d be comfortable with? Even if you have no one of value in your life that you wouldn’t want to risk “reopening” the economy for, surely you know someone who does, or surely you can imagine there are people who do have someone they value, no?

I really can’t understand that level of selfishness that puts my money over thousands of people’s lives. But then, this is the country that spent $1.9 trillion to liberate the Iraqi oil.

Do you think the US knew how much the Iraq war would cost when it started, and that the main reason was oil? These are different questions than whether it was a good idea, or whether it was implemented well.

Back on the current situation, everyone would be at some risk, but most Americans know some people who qualify as high risk. I'm certainly no different. My dad's a cancer survivor in his early 70s. I have dear family friends in their 80s.

We can't suggest that no risk would be acceptable. If the economy could recover significantly faster with a higher COVID-19 mortality rate, the alternative isn't that no one dies. The longer this goes on, people will die from depression, from delayed medical procedures, from higher rates of spousal abuse, or from having no one to check up on them. Poor economic conditions growing up correlate to significantly higher adult mortality, so if the world economy craters, that is going to have a lot of long-term consequences on public health. No one thinks kids are learning at home as they would otherwise learn at school and that is going to have long-term consequences as well, as the longer this lasts, the further they fall behind.

A common libertarian argument is that the car and the gas stove would not be allowed to be invented today because we are as a society unwilling to accept the associated dangers. We do have to be able to consider tradeoffs, and the discussions on COVID-19 are an example of that. It is one thing to say that the costs of an approach are not worth the benefits. It is another to say that we can not consider the possibility of any risk.

People are not going to be able to reach their full potential when sheltering in place, and that's something else we also have to consider. The average person is giving up months of their life right now, when they can't visit friends or relatives or be productive at work. It would be tremendously advantageous to end this faster.

[jetengine]

China didn't handle the outbreak well. Their obfuscating when it wasn't necessary in a vain attempt to save face should and will bring them nothing but shame in the international community for this whole affair. But the lies the Chinese government told are for the scrubs like us, it wouldn't have fooled the US government. Or intelligence community is so vast they must have known that was a lie as soon as the lie was told. Then the President took that information and made all the same mistakes and more. That's why I blame our own bad politicking for getting us into this.

I mean the Intelligence agencies CAN fuck up, especially when Trump and co have been fucking with them.

[Kirby101]

Do you think the US knew how much the Iraq war would cost when it started, and that the main reason was oil? These are different questions than whether it was a good idea, or whether it was implemented well.

Back on the current situation, everyone would be at some risk, but most Americans know some people who qualify as high risk. I'm certainly no different. My dad's a cancer survivor in his early 70s. I have dear family friends in their 80s.

We can't suggest that no risk would be acceptable. If the economy could recover significantly faster with a higher COVID-19 mortality rate, the alternative isn't that no one dies. The longer this goes on, people will die from depression, from delayed medical procedures, from higher rates of spousal abuse, or from having no one to check up on them. Poor economic conditions growing up correlate to significantly higher adult mortality, so if the world economy craters, that is going to have a lot of long-term consequences on public health. No one thinks kids are learning at home as they would otherwise learn at school and that is going to have long-term consequences as well, as the longer this lasts, the further they fall behind.

A common libertarian argument is that the car and the gas stove would not be allowed to be invented today because we are as a society unwilling to accept the associated dangers. We do have to be able to consider tradeoffs, and the discussions on COVID-19 are an example of that. It is one thing to say that the costs of an approach are not worth the benefits. It is another to say that we can not consider the possibility of any risk.

People are not going to be able to reach their full potential when sheltering in place, and that's something else we also have to consider. The average person is giving up months of their life right now, when they can't visit friends or relatives or be productive at work. It would be tremendously advantageous to end this faster.

Strawman arguments. No one is saying no risks. They are talking about the curve flattening and tripling the current testing level before we open. Do you have an example of Democrats saying to wait until there is no risk (which I guess means a vaccine) before we open? As opposed to the GOP OPEN NOW yahoos? And most Americans are willing to sacrifice "months of their lives" (which they aren't really), for the actual lives of others.

[jetengine]

Do

A common libertarian argument is that the car and the gas stove would not be allowed to be invented today because we are as a society unwilling to accept the associated dangers. We do have to be able to consider tradeoffs, and the discussions on COVID-19 are an example of that. It is one thing to say that the costs of an approach are not worth the benefits. It is another to say that we can not consider the possibility of any risk.

People are not going to be able to reach their full potential when sheltering in place, and that's something else we also have to consider. The average person is giving up months of their life right now, when they can't visit friends or relatives or be productive at work. It would be tremendously advantageous to end this faster.

Why are you listening to Liberterians ? Their idiots !