All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[DrNewGod]

Yeah, this situation had been looming. Not Covid specifically, but a viral pandemic. It does happen, even if it's wildly rare. But we were due, and the people in charge knew this.

Granted, I think we'd still be in deep **** with W. or Obama in charge. No nation, outside of small islands has escaped. I don't think the anti maskers would have behaved any differently if Obama told them to wear masks. Even if it were an enforceable national law.

Still, wouldn't be as bad. The president, whoever it may have been, would actually care. Even W.

I think it likely that W, Obama, or HRC would have listened to their pandemic team and started quarantining travel from various countries, beginning with China, much earlier. I also think it more likely their pandemic team would have implemented a thorough contact tracing program.

Of course, for HRC and Obama, that last would have had the right screaming "The Death Panels Are Coming!"

[Tendrin]

It is not, in fact, legitimate.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ev...2020-election/

[DrNewGod]

Whoever decided to use the term defund the police for police reform sucks at marketing.

It wasn't a marketing generated term, it was an anger generated term. A sensible term, capturing the need to move mental health, addiction aid, and social issues responses to other hands, takes time, discussion, and cool heads.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think it likely that W, Obama, or HRC would have listened to their pandemic team and started quarantining travel from various countries, beginning with China, much earlier. I also think it more likely their pandemic team would have implemented a thorough contact tracing program.

Of course, for HRC and Obama, that last would have had the right screaming "The Death Panels Are Coming!"

The big thing is the Defence Production Act going up quicker, making sure doctors and nurses got the gear in time, stopping the bidding war between states, and basically getting out of Fauci's way. Not having acolytes and others call for his beheading. Trump acted so as to make sure that blue states got the higher death toll at the start and still largely punished blue states over red states throughout the Pandemic. Of course in the end red states got hit hardest and now the two Dakotas are in trouble.

That said I don't think W. would have done a good job. His entire Presidency is one crisis mismanagement after another, including the one (war in Iraq) he directly created -- 9/11, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, the Recession. He was right to prepare and anticipate a pandemic and set the ball rolling but he would still have f--ked up pretty badly, not as much as Trump but still. He's like an Anti-Moses in the sense that it's not sad that he didn't make it to the Promised Land (i.e. the crisis he was preparing and anticipating a starring heroic lead in).

[JCAll]

Is this site legitimate? (I'm guessing the answer is a No looking at the structure of the page and how it has links to twitter posts without much proof)

https://everylegalvote.com/country

I see many Trump Supporters refer to it.

I doubt it. Snopes just put up a pretty lengthy takedown.

I did saw on Twitter people complaining of getting potential malware warnings, so I'm not even clicking it just to be safe.
They were getting bad advise to continue anyway, which makes me trust it even less.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Is this site legitimate? (I'm guessing the answer is a No looking at the structure of the page and how it has links to twitter posts without much proof)

https://everylegalvote.com/country

I see many Trump Supporters refer to it.

Several conservative rags are showing electoral maps with trump winning and trump supporters say this is proof that the media is suppressing trump.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted profiles of Ralph Shortey, of the Oklahoma State Senate, whose highest profile bill that he wrote in his six years on the political scene was a measure inspired by an article Shortey read on a pro-life website (that lies) that would outlaw the potential use of fetuses in food products. That still isn’t a typo, and it’s still irrelevant as far as laws go, because there’s no way the FDA would approve such a product, and there are exactly zero food manufacturers looking to use human embryos in their products. Shortey has also written several obviously unconstitutional laws like ones that ignore the 14th Amendment’s existence or an outright attempt to abolish the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Lastly, Shortey is a big gun enthusiast, who recommends everybody have firearms readily available in case you are suddenly set upon by wild turkeys (which I’m wondering how much of that brand he’s drinking of before he shows up on the job) and bragging that he ignored the ban on carrying firearms in the Oklahoma state capitol. When we last left Ralph Shortey, he was trying to pass a completely insane bill to make it legal for cattle ranchers to shoot down drones flying over their property, and was appearing at some of the earliest campaign appearances of Donald Trump in Oklahoma... so you can thank him for giving the raging Cheeto golem political credibility from the start of his entry into the political race, citing his "excellent record on trade and finance" as all the reason people needed to support him as a candidate, overlooking that Donald Trump is not just a terrible human being, but his record on trade and finance involves bankruptcies and lawsuits and unpaid debtors galore. Our annual look at Ralph Shortey came to an abrupt end in 2017, because guess what? The supposed anti-gay Shortey got arrested for soliciting male child prostitutes, was found guilty, and sent to prison.



On this date in both 2018, as well as 2019, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” published their first profile of Tennessee State Senator Paul Bailey, who has been a member of the Tennessee state legislature since first winning office back in 2014, and he has used that office to go about undertaking the important business of the good people of the Volunteer State to make sure that all of their license plates say “In God We Trust” on them, because we can’t go having automobiles rolling about the state without making sure they somehow acknowledge the existence of the Judeo-Christian deity, right? While he was at it, he also pushed for legislation to slap the same slogan on every school in the state, (which will give kids a sigh of relief that God is watching and they can trust him if their school gets shot up with all the gun control Bailey and Tennessee GOP oppose) and was one of many Tennessee Republicans who voted to make the Bible the state book, which is, y’know… not constitutional.

When he hasn’t been on deranged theocratic quests, Bailey also has been very busy sponsoring important bills like SB 1821, which would have made it legal for people in Tennessee to own pet skunks, and went out of his way to express his distaste with NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem to protest police violence by buying season tickets on the 50-yard line to Titans games and not showing up (they still have your money, moron).

He handles ALL the SERIOUS BUSINESS, YOU GUYS. Just look at some of this voting record:

• March 27th, 2014: Bailey votes for HB 937, a bill to prohibit the Medicaid expansion in Tennessee.
• February 3rd, 2015: Paul Bailey votes for Tennessee’s HB 995, a bill to legalize the concealed carry of firearms in public parks, just in time for Tennessee to host the annual NRA convention.
• February 12th, 2015: Bailey sponsors HB 1023, a bill inspired by the John Birch Society’s paranoia about fluoridated water, and restrict the amount of fluoridation in the drinking water in Tennessee.
• February 22nd, 2016: Paul Bailey votes for HSR 467, to plead with the Attorney General of the state to file a lawsuit over Syrian refugees being allowed to resettle Tennessee.
• April 4th, 2016: Bailey votes for the highly unconstitutional HB 615, a bill created by Tennessee Republicans to try and make the King James Bible the state book.
• April 23rd, 2018: Paul Bailey votes for HB 2381, to create a “monument to the unborn” in the Tennessee State Capitol, which is probably the most presumptuous example of a participation trophy you’ll ever find, giving a statue to anything that’s ever even pulled off gestating in the womb.

Now, we’re going to be frank, here… there are some nutty Republicans throughout the entire Tennessee state legislature, and CSGOPOTD has covered many, while acknowledging that there’s a level of “above and beyond the pale” that it takes to stand out enough to get our attention in the Volunteer State. Paul Bailey managed to make himself a known quantity to us back in early 2017, when shortly after the Trump administration’s first attempt at enacting a Muslim ban in the United States, thousands of protesters showed up in the state capitol to protest at the offices of Gov. Bill Haslam.

And Paul Bailey took to Twitter to claim that the thousands of people were all “paid protesters”. When the local media asked Bailey to back that claim up, he claimed he heard it from a “reliable source” who he could not name because of “security reasons”. Bailey claimed that the real evidence of paid protesters was that they were all shipped to the capitol in buses, but there was just one problem with that theory, as well… the buses he cited were present not to bring in protesters… but legislators. And there was video of them being used as such.

In any event, Paul Bailey won re-election in 2018, and is now in place until 2022. He has continued to submit insanely partisan bills, including SB 2896, an attempt at censoring what kinds of books are available in public libraries (Hint: Many Tennessee Republicans have made efforts to ban books with LGBTQ content, or from gay authors, this would be aimed at that).

It seems highly unlikely that in a conservative district in a red state that a Democrat will unseat Paul Baily in 2022… but keep your fingers crossed that someone who is less of an extreme idiot comes to knock him off in the GOP Primary in about a year and a half.

[PwrdOn]

It wasn't a marketing generated term, it was an anger generated term. A sensible term, capturing the need to move mental health, addiction aid, and social issues responses to other hands, takes time, discussion, and cool heads.

The thing is, coming up with a marketing approved slogan that is acceptable to the opposition is just going to sap all of the remaining energy from the movement, and it would be a shame to see liberals once again selling out their most impassioned voices just to placate the racists on the other side. Obviously there are going to have to be education reform, poverty alleviation, and community outreach programs that need to be implemented, but we won't make any progress at all toward fixing the fundamental issues if we don't recognize that the police as an institution have failed to do their jobs properly and therefore must be punished by at the very least cutting their funding, especially given how bloated many cities' police budgets are these days. The police are already incredibly hostile toward anything that they perceive as reining them in or getting in the way of their important job of harassing and beating up teenagers, and even the lightest reform proposals will set off a wave of cops bitching on Newsmax about the incoming antifa/BLM crime wave, so why not just cut out the tumor entirely instead of trying to treat it?

[DrNewGod]

...That said I don't think W. would have done a good job. His entire Presidency is one crisis mismanagement after another, including the one (war in Iraq) he directly created -- 9/11, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, the Recession. He was right to prepare and anticipate a pandemic and set the ball rolling but he would still have f--ked up pretty badly, not as much as Trump but still. He's like an Anti-Moses in the sense that it's not sad that he didn't make it to the Promised Land (i.e. the crisis he was preparing and anticipating a starring heroic lead in).

A good job? Probably not. A better job? I'd be willing to bet a mortgage payment on it.

[Bruce Wayne]

so why not just cut out the tumor entirely instead of trying to treat it?

Because they are a threat. Cutting them loose them will only drive them further into the arms of the alt-right possibly as warm bodies for right wing militias or possibly as leaders that will further organize these groups into something worse. If the cops go totally in for the far-right, it will only make the current problems worse since it will strengthen the paramilitary aspects of the right, which is something that the Left can't deal with. What needs to happen is a strategy to isolate these problems and deal with them accordingly.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The thing is, coming up with a marketing approved slogan that is acceptable to the opposition is just going to sap all of the remaining energy from the movement, and it would be a shame to see liberals once again selling out their most impassioned voices just to placate the racists on the other side. Obviously there are going to have to be education reform, poverty alleviation, and community outreach programs that need to be implemented, but we won't make any progress at all toward fixing the fundamental issues if we don't recognize that the police as an institution have failed to do their jobs properly and therefore must be punished by at the very least cutting their funding, especially given how bloated many cities' police budgets are these days. The police are already incredibly hostile toward anything that they perceive as reining them in or getting in the way of their important job of harassing and beating up teenagers, and even the lightest reform proposals will set off a wave of cops bitching on Newsmax about the incoming antifa/BLM crime wave, so why not just cut out the tumor entirely instead of trying to treat it?

At the end of the day this debate on whether "Defund the Police" is a good or bad slogan, it's irrelevant.

The Dems don't get to dictate what activists say. And once the slogan catches on and spreads afar what does it matter anyway.

The horse has left the starting point, the ship has sailed, the die is cast, you're in the endgame now...and other metaphors for "no going back now". The genie won't go back in the bottle.

So what's the point of complaining.

[Mister Mets]

The thing is, coming up with a marketing approved slogan that is acceptable to the opposition is just going to sap all of the remaining energy from the movement, and it would be a shame to see liberals once again selling out their most impassioned voices just to placate the racists on the other side. Obviously there are going to have to be education reform, poverty alleviation, and community outreach programs that need to be implemented, but we won't make any progress at all toward fixing the fundamental issues if we don't recognize that the police as an institution have failed to do their jobs properly and therefore must be punished by at the very least cutting their funding, especially given how bloated many cities' police budgets are these days. The police are already incredibly hostile toward anything that they perceive as reining them in or getting in the way of their important job of harassing and beating up teenagers, and even the lightest reform proposals will set off a wave of cops bitching on Newsmax about the incoming antifa/BLM crime wave, so why not just cut out the tumor entirely instead of trying to treat it?

Is it selling anyone out to change the rhetoric and not the substance?

And are racists the only people who would be concerned about the more extreme versions of the "defund the police" argument?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/o...nd-police.html

At the end of the day this debate on whether "Defund the Police" is a good or bad slogan, it's irrelevant.

The Dems don't get to dictate what activists say. And once the slogan catches on and spreads afar what does it matter anyway.

The horse has left the starting point, the ship has sailed, the die is cast, you're in the endgame now...and other metaphors for "no going back now". The genie won't go back in the bottle.

So what's the point of complaining.

One point of complaining is to avoid scenarios where winnable elections are lost partially due to poor messaging.

A few weeks ago, Democrats were heavily favored to take back the Senate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...nate-forecast/

Now it's two runoff Senate elections in Georgia, where Republicans outperformed Democrats in the first rounds when Joe Biden was on the ticket.

[Tami]

I'd say that the Georgia run off races are up-in-the-air, that it could go either way. I doubt there would be many who would change their minds or their votes, but turnout is another issue.

a) Republican voters are discouraged or turned off because Trump lost and has been silent for so long. Democrats, on the other hand, are charged up over how well they did. - In this scenario, one or both Democrats win the sneate race.

b) Republican voters are angry and determined not to hand the senate to the Democrats. Democratic Voters are also still charged up and the voter turnout on both sides is high. - In this scenario, the Republicans stand a slightly better chance of winning, but it will be close.

c) Republican turnout is high (see b), yet for some reason (I can't pinpoint any one reason for that to happen) the Democratic turnout drops. - In this scenario, both Republican candidates win easily.

I can't say if money will play a role in this, except to encourage those who didn't vote the first tiem or those who voted for the 3rd party candidates to vote either Democrat or Republican. If it is a close race, then that could be an issue.

In the end it is still about Trump, and Biden. Those who don't like Trump will want to give the Senate control to the Democrats. Those who don't like or trust Biden will want to keep the Senate control in the hands of the Republicans.

Those who don't care one way or another will just vote the same as they did before or not vote at all.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Is it selling anyone out to change the rhetoric and not the substance?

Aren't you the guy obsessing over people's motivations for wanting to make ED a holiday. Why would someone like you give the Dems a pass for merely changing the rhetoric? If we take you as a sample for the Republican, the question must be asked if you actually buy the substance of "Defund the Police" and merely have issues with the rhetoric.

One point of complaining is to avoid scenarios where winnable elections are lost partially due to poor messaging.

The evidence is that the overwhelming black turnout was driven by the Defund the Police movement. So maybe the Dems don't campaign on "defund the police" and get some House and Senate seats but lose the Presidency? Who knows?

The fact is that "Defund the Police" that's not going away.

A few weeks ago, Democrats were heavily favored to take back the Senate.

HRC was heavily favored to win in 2016, what's your point?

Now it's two runoff Senate elections in Georgia, where Republicans outperformed Democrats in the first rounds when Joe Biden was on the ticket.

Outperformed is a strange definition for Senate races in a heavily Red State. Qanon Kelly Loeffler got fewer votes than Warnock in the open election, maybe the vote-splitting will help her who knows. As for Perdue, GA's own State Sec called him out for having his re-election bid going into runoff and then getting sour grapes asking him to resign.

If it was the Dems in a similar situation, we certainly wouldn't be happy with this going into runoffs.

[BeastieRunner]

I'd say that the Georgia run off races are up-in-the-air, that it could go either way. I doubt there would be many who would change their minds or their votes, but turnout is another issue.

a) Republican voters are discouraged or turned off because Trump lost and has been silent for so long. Democrats, on the other hand, are charged up over how well they did. - In this scenario, one or both Democrats win the sneate race.

b) Republican voters are angry and determined not to hand the senate to the Democrats. Democratic Voters are also still charged up and the voter turnout on both sides is high. - In this scenario, the Republicans stand a slightly better chance of winning, but it will be close.

c) Republican turnout is high (see b), yet for some reason (I can't pinpoint any one reason for that to happen) the Democratic turnout drops. - In this scenario, both Republican candidates win easily.

I can't say if money will play a role in this, except to encourage those who didn't vote the first tiem or those who voted for the 3rd party candidates to vote either Democrat or Republican. If it is a close race, then that could be an issue.

In the end it is still about Trump, and Biden. Those who don't like Trump will want to give the Senate control to the Democrats. Those who don't like or trust Biden will want to keep the Senate control in the hands of the Republicans.

Those who don't care one way or another will just vote the same as they did before or not vote at all.

I think the pastor pulls the upset but Osoff loses a close one.

I really think it will be a split race either way.