All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Tami]

Senate coronavirus vote delayed after Rand Paul pushes doomed amendment

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate would move at "warp speed" to pass coronavirus legislation Tuesday, but Sen. Rand Paul, his fellow Kentucky Republican, put a damper on those plans, two leadership sources told NBC News.

Senators were heading toward a vote Tuesday on the package — which would include provisions for free coronavirus testing, secure paid emergency leave, enhance unemployment insurance, strengthen food security initiatives and increase federal Medicaid funding to states — but they had to slam on the brakes because of an amendment Paul proposed.

he sources said Paul is forcing a vote on his amendment, which would "require a social security number for purposes of the child tax credit, and to provide the President the authority to transfer funds as necessary, and to terminate United States military operations and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan."

[Maine Starfish]

How will Biden face the same issues? Misogyny? A private email server? A spouse inappropriate in the #metoo era?

I was specifically talking about his ability to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These are the three states that cost Clinton the election. She never even visited the states during the campaign. Biden could very easily lose these same states, because he’s not proposing anything for the working class people in these states. If he wants to win the election he needs these three states, and he needs the working class people in them to do that.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Not to mention we literally do not know what the after effects of an infection might be...regardless of your age.

It's a very scary situation.

Speaking of age, Millennials and Gen Zers had taken to calling COVID-19 "Boomer Remover" because it had been targeting, and killing people in their 60's and older. But that's a false narrative, what with NBA players in their mid to late 20's contracting the disease (the latest being Brooklyn Nets star Kevin Durant), and here in the Philadelphia area, a grade schooler came down with it. Short and sweet: NOBODY is immune.

[Kirby101]

I was specifically talking about his ability to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These are the three states that cost Clinton the election. She never even visited the states during the campaign. Biden could very easily lose these same states, because he’s not proposing anything for the working class people in these states. If he wants to win the election he needs these three states, and he needs the working class people in them to do that.

Clinton had a massive rally in Philadelphia the right before the election. She also had a big ad campaign in all those States. She did not ignore them. She didn't count on the amount of voter suppression the WI and MI governors would pull. Do you think voters sat there and said "I really like her, but dhe didn't go to Detroit, do I'll vote for Trump."?


https://www.c-span.org/video/?417997...n-philadelphia

[SuperiorIronman]

Speaking of age, Millennials and Gen Zers had taken to calling COVID-19 "Boomer Remover" because it had been targeting, and killing people in their 60's and older. But that's a false narrative, what with NBA players in their mid to late 20's contracting the disease (the latest being Brooklyn Nets star Kevin Durant), and here in the Philadelphia area, a grade schooler came down with it. Short and sweet: NOBODY is immune.

Anybody can become infected with it but it's a threat to older individuals, children who haven't developed their immune systems yet, and those with pre-existing health conditions. You're average joe is probably going to be fine following quarantine. Everyone goes into quarantine because outside of it being the "boomer remover" is that it's highly infectious. So your average joe while probably not going to die is just as easily able to be a carrier. They are affected but it doesn't seem as if the younger crowd is at the same threat level older and significantly younger individuals would be. It's basically a bunch of arrogance brought on by the political environment spurred by a pandemic which is doing their "revolution" for them. Of course forgetting that those in charge have significantly better health-care and stubbornness to just continue working.

[Maine Starfish]

Clinton had a massive rally in Philadelphia the right before the election. She also had a big ad campaign in all those States. She did not ignore them. She didn't count on the amount of voter suppression the WI and MI governors would pull. Do you think voters sat there and said "I really like her, but dhe didn't go to Detroit, do I'll vote for Trump."?


https://www.c-span.org/video/?417997...n-philadelphia

The night before is a little to late don’t you think? But sure voter suppression is a huge issue and comes in a lot of forms.

And no I don’t think voters went to Trump simply because Clinton never went to Detroit, that’s an odd question. I think people stayed home instead, Clinton lost Michigan by ten thousand votes, if she had spent some time campaigning in the state, that definitely could have turned more folks out to vote, giving her the win. It’s no secret that she didn’t run the best campaign.

[TheDarman]

I was specifically talking about his ability to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These are the three states that cost Clinton the election. She never even visited the states during the campaign. Biden could very easily lose these same states, because he’s not proposing anything for the working class people in these states. If he wants to win the election he needs these three states, and he needs the working class people in them to do that.

Except Biden is taking votes back from the white, working class voters that gave Sanders a fighting chance in 2016. He is often credited as the reason Obama was able to shore up support in the Midwest to take the 2008 and 2012 elections. Sanders, meanwhile, seems to flounder when he can’t sell himself as the “not-Clinton” candidate. Maybe that was part of the key to Trump’s success too. Hopefully Biden ends up doing better in November. But I see no reason to buy into the common narrative that Biden is weaker in these states than Sanders. He walloped Sanders in Michigan and will likely be a favorite in Pennsylvania given his long history with the state. Wisconsin is the only one I can see being up in the air, but I don’t think that Sanders would necessarily have done “better” there either. I just don’t see where we are getting this idea from the data. Everything seems to come back to a “feeling” we have about the electorate. But the electorate is showing you who they prefer if you just want to listen. And even white working class voters are going for Biden.

[PwrdOn]

You have a strangely myopic view of what a “centrist” is. And I know that part of comes from watching TYT, which reinforces this brand of hate and resentment towards those who might slightly disagree with you on something as little as approach. I know this doesn’t apply to you, but eventually I realized that they were attacking me. Me—a college student who was taking on mountains of student loan debt to get an education. They were attacking me because I didn’t agree that a revolution was possible or the most practical solution to get us where we needed to go. I felt like it was clear in 2016 what they were willing to sacrifice to get what they wanted. These so-called progressives were actually happy when Trump won—so they could say “I told you so” and hope that, next time around, we’d listen to them then and then they’d get this revolution that instantly fixed our country’s problems.

The problem with your slur is that very few people who prefer Biden—or, heck, are happy to set aside their ego to vote for him over Trump (not begrudgingly, as you are, but legitimately happy to have any opportunity to see Trump go)—are not in the center of the political spectrum. People like me actually agree with Sanders and that we should be working towards universal health care and child care. We should have a more robust safety net. But Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither will these programs. But if we can do some positive good, and if Obama hadn’t been abandoned to fight alone from 2011 on, we would’ve had positive moves towards this goal more consistently. I want to make it there the same as you—I just disagree on the idea that Sanders can get there right now. We need to move this country politically to where it is actually and that means winning at state and local levels. That means making progress where we can right now to alleviate suffering of people and prevent discrimination while that slow crawl towards that slow revolution happens. And, someday, we will get there. But Sanders being in office won’t get us these things. Indeed, I fear it will be counterproductive. No amount of whining will convince actual centrists and moderates, whose jobs depend on not moving too far to the left to cost them their seats in re-election, that they should vote for health care bills that Sanders wants. You can appropriately label them centrists or call them corporatists, but they will be far more concerned with what their constituents call them and it will be more like “socialist” (in a bad way) if they vote for Sanders’ programs. Too many districts are too far to the right to get what Sanders wants right now. But we can make real progress towards these goals. Don’t let the fact that we should be doing better be the enemy of doing something better right NOW.

You have to take a longer term view of the political landscape in this country. The right seized the initiative in the Reagan era and has been steadily implementing its disastrous agenda despite popular opposition, largely due to the support of entrenched interests but also with no small dose of propaganda and race-baiting. While the left has won some victories here and there, like with Clinton or Obama, each time we've sort of had to sell a bit of our soul to get there, because in the name of electability we've had to drop a lot of longstanding policy goals for the sake of futile attempts at compromise with the GOP, which always seem to end with us holding the short end of the stick. The "blue wave" of 2018, if you can even call it that, is proving to be yet another one of those instances. Even if Biden manages to win the election, the Republicans already sense weakness because of how nasty this primary has been, and once he gets pressed about having to balance the budget or secure the border or maintain energy supplies or any of the million things that the Republicans only care about when a Democrat is in office, he'll fold like wet tissue paper.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Senate coronavirus vote delayed after Rand Paul pushes doomed amendment

There should be NO earthly reason to delay such an important piece of legislation which is sorely, if not immediately needed. But, like I said in a previous post, I believe there's some sort of secret deal in GOP circles where one member is required to throw a monkey wrench into the works or, in the case of Paul, add some sort of provision that's so incredibly odious that it stops everything in it's tracks. Republicans shouldn't be so incredibly petty, not when lives are literally on the line, but they are.

[babyblob]

I am so torn on the Dems this year. On one hand you have Biden who if elected wouldnt be the strongest president. I think he would compromise on a lot of issues. On the other hand you have Bernie who is hard nosed enough not to compromise but he also would have very few of his ideas (Even though there are some good ones) passed. So you have a choice between a man who would most likely fold or a man who would get nothing passed. Both are one term guys because of their age. The best thing you can say about both of them right now is that they are not Trump.

[TheDarman]

You have to take a longer term view of the political landscape in this country. The right seized the initiative in the Reagan era and has been steadily implementing its disastrous agenda despite popular opposition, largely due to the support of entrenched interests but also with no small dose of propaganda and race-baiting.

Reagan merely fed off of a perfect cocktail of long-festering opposition to FDR-era programs and married it to long-festering opposition to Civil Rights to create a coalition of white, working class voters, libertarians, and high level executives. This is hardly something that came out of nowhere. It was Reagan who saw two powerful constituencies and married them together through the tactics listed, but I think we are giving it too much credit for being “transformative”. These things had long existed and been litigated as separate things for a long time. Reagan was able to create a narrative that these programs and taxes businesses hated were a liberal plot to give it to black, single mothers who wouldn’t bother working.

While the left has won some victories here and there, like with Clinton or Obama, each time we've sort of had to sell a bit of our soul to get there, because in the name of electability we've had to drop a lot of longstanding policy goals for the sake of futile attempts at compromise with the GOP, which always seem to end with us holding the short end of the stick. The "blue wave" of 2018, if you can even call it that, is proving to be yet another one of those instances. Even if Biden manages to win the election, the Republicans already sense weakness because of how nasty this primary has been, and once he gets pressed about having to balance the budget or secure the border or maintain energy supplies or any of the million things that the Republicans only care about when a Democrat is in office, he'll fold like wet tissue paper.

The reason Obama didn’t get more things like the ACA done was because he had to govern with Republican obstructionists for six out of his eight years in office. You can’t expect that there are no compromises made in that situation. Sanders would likely get even less done with the opposition coming from both Republicans and Democrats who he has not been shy about slamming. He never cared to get the party to fall in love with him. That’s fine for a campaign, but bad for governing. Reagan was able to consolidate the rest of the Southern Dixiecrats to fall in line behind the Republican Party, who now became the bastion of both economic and social conservatism. Sanders isn’t Reagan and he isn’t seeing pre-existing demographics that can form a unique coalition either. He is depending and staking his candidacy, and the White House, on something new. That isn’t bankable.

[Tami]

I am so torn on the Dems this year. On one hand you have Biden who if elected wouldnt be the strongest president. I think he would compromise on a lot of issues. On the other hand you have Bernie who is hard nosed enough not to compromise but he also would have very few of his ideas (Even though there are some good ones) passed. So you have a choice between a man who would most likely fold or a man who would get nothing passed. Both are one term guys because of their age. The best thing you can say about both of them right now is that they are not Trump.

I wouldn't call it folding. I'd call it doing what is needed to get the ball rolling. I doubt Biden would turn the government back over to the Republicans, who screwed the country up badly.

Bottom line, you want Biden to make things happen? Then vote down ticket, help the Democrats take control of both the House and the Senate and keep them in control for at least 4 four years.

No President can't do it without Congress. Obama's best years were the ones when the Dems controlled both houses. After that, McConnell and his ilk made it as hard as they possibly could. Not for any policy reason, but just out of mean spirited spite, power-grabbing, and possible racism.

[babyblob]

I wouldn't call it folding. I'd call it doing what is needed to get the ball rolling. I doubt Biden would turn the government back over to the Republicans, who screwed the country up badly.

Bottom line, you want Biden to make things happen? Then vote down ticket, help the Democrats take control of both the House and the Senate and keep them in control for at least 4 four years.

No President can't do it without Congress. Obama's best years were the ones when the Dems controlled both houses. After that, McConnell and his ilk made it as hard as they possibly could. Not for any policy reason, but just out of mean spirited spite, power-grabbing, and possible racism.

Maybe folding was too strong of a word. I do understand you need compromise but One of the biggest bad things I hear about him is that he will give up too much. I dont know how much that is true but that is what a lot of people on different boards and news shows I am watching are saying.

Bernie wouldnt get very little done.

Like I said before the best thing to say is that they are not Trump and I dont know that that will be enough to carry an election.

[XPac]

I am so torn on the Dems this year. On one hand you have Biden who if elected wouldnt be the strongest president. I think he would compromise on a lot of issues. On the other hand you have Bernie who is hard nosed enough not to compromise but he also would have very few of his ideas (Even though there are some good ones) passed. So you have a choice between a man who would most likely fold or a man who would get nothing passed. Both are one term guys because of their age. The best thing you can say about both of them right now is that they are not Trump.

Yeah, I think that's the issue with a guy like Sanders. Some may imagine him bringing about all sorts of reforms if he becomes president but honestly I imagine he'd get almost NOTHING done. His inability to compromise even with his own party I think gurantees that he'll end up with a single term and not a lot to show for it.

More than anything, it would just give his policies a HUGE platform. Which in and of itself I imagine has great value... he just won't do anywhere near as much as I think some might hope he would.

Not that I think Biden will get a whole lot done either.

[Tami]

Maybe folding was too strong of a word. I do understand you need compromise but One of the biggest bad things I hear about him is that he will give up too much. I dont know how much that is true but that is what a lot of people on different boards and news shows I am watching are saying.

Bernie wouldnt get very little done.

Like I said before the best thing to say is that they are not Trump and I dont know that that will be enough to carry an election.

Biden will be the employees that employers always look for, one experienced enough to hit the ground running. He already knows the workings of the WH and government inside and out.

I trust that he knows how to build back up the parts if the government that Trump decimated.

He knows the programs and polices that Obama put in place that Trump tore apart. In case he can rebuild and repair some of them.

That alone is enough for me.