No. Not spammy, just a normal, responsible voter who wants to make some reasonably informed choices and discuss those choices in a reasonably informed way. Makes perfect sense. So stop getting all self-righteous about others doing the same.
2020 US Election (Part Two)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
I love you too.
Dirt is dirty. Badness is bad. News at eleven.
Dirt is dirty. Badness is bad. News at eleven.
Last edited:
I alone have specific reasons. I alone can see past solely what the party affiliation is.
Whatever LMFAO
Last edited:
As a reminder... I voted for Bernie Sanders, a non-Democrat, in the primary against two Democrats, including the one who was my first choice. So that was a great example of me being a blind partisan, who only votes based on party affiliation, correct?
So you're wrong, demonstrably so... as usual. But don't let facts get in the way of your animosity.
sophie
Break My Heart
Literal quote from the RNC last night:
"The Democrats love to talk about healthcare being a human right. But a right to what? Well, I'll tell you: it's the right to marijuana, opioids, and the right to die with dignity."
Ah yes, vote for the Republicans and we'll make sure your death will be as undignified as possible. Meagan Day had a good take on why this is in the most recent Ben Burgis episode, but man it is still insane to me how unbelievably cringe both parties are being right now.
"The Democrats love to talk about healthcare being a human right. But a right to what? Well, I'll tell you: it's the right to marijuana, opioids, and the right to die with dignity."
Ah yes, vote for the Republicans and we'll make sure your death will be as undignified as possible. Meagan Day had a good take on why this is in the most recent Ben Burgis episode, but man it is still insane to me how unbelievably cringe both parties are being right now.
Lexicus
Deity
And then the Democrats are like "we can't do any of these things because then these criticisms would be true"
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,270
That's because those words strung together in that crowd mean cost-efficient murder by the state. There are other words that mean the same thing, used by the other group of scum, at the other end. Granted, this is more speculative, while the other is relatively concrete. So by all means, hit them for being histrionic.
sophie
Break My Heart
Another good one:
During a WaPo Live event Monday, Roy Blunt summed up GOP approach to election: "Were you better in January of this year than you were three years ago or four years ago? And almost every American, if they look at that question, would say we absolutely were better off ...we'd like to get back to an America that has that kind of economy and that kind of opportunity," Blunt told me.
During a WaPo Live event Monday, Roy Blunt summed up GOP approach to election: "Were you better in January of this year than you were three years ago or four years ago? And almost every American, if they look at that question, would say we absolutely were better off ...we'd like to get back to an America that has that kind of economy and that kind of opportunity," Blunt told me.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Exactly! Because their message was "Republicans aren't bad, we're actually kinda like them. So much so that an anti-choice deficit hawk like Kasich is totally on board with us."
amadeus
rad thibodeaux-xs
There is a degree of truth to Blunt’s words here; I’m operating under the assumption the intent is to discount the coronavirus crisis. It’s true on these two points: first, I think it would be fair to say that most Americans would have rated their lives as having been better in 2020 than they were in 2016. Whether or not Trump/GOP helmsmanship was responsible for that boost is debatable, but not relevant since we’re politicking.
Second is that given the outcomes thus far relative to demography, the U.S. hasn’t fared much worse than some other major Western countries; that is to say, the U.S. is not an outlier in having an outcome so poor. I’m not supporting Trump over his handling of the whole thing, but America isn’t alone in this disaster and can’t be solely pinned on the Republicans.
Second is that given the outcomes thus far relative to demography, the U.S. hasn’t fared much worse than some other major Western countries; that is to say, the U.S. is not an outlier in having an outcome so poor. I’m not supporting Trump over his handling of the whole thing, but America isn’t alone in this disaster and can’t be solely pinned on the Republicans.
Sure it can. I'm pinning it solely on Republicans, primarily on Trump.
There, see? Its easy.
Imagine, for a moment, the following alternate history:
It is January, and the Wuhan coronavirus starts being taken seriously by WHO, and Taiwan and a couple other East Asian countries.
Trump declares a real travel ban on China. He then expands it as countries like Italy start seeing hotspots, and declares it a major threat to the United States.
He blasts it as the ChinaVirus*, and says that America must mobilize to defeat it, and through February into March he publicly insists on locking things down as much as possible, wearing masks, social distancing, saying doing so is as patriotic as war bonds and rationing in WW2. He recommends to Congress some significant sustained multitrillion spending which will continue until infection rates go below a certain level. He puts the CDC on a "war footing" and redirects Wall money to it, and mobilizes the National Guard for any and all support needed**. He tells everyone that we need to squash the pandemic before school opens so that kids can go to school again in the fall, and the economy can then resume (in October, in time to support his re-election).
How many deaths do you think we'd have in the US to this point?
* - okay that part is not alternate history.
** - not alternate history, except that he largely rescinds NG mobilization after 89 days preventing many Guard troops from qualifying for certain types of pay.
It is January, and the Wuhan coronavirus starts being taken seriously by WHO, and Taiwan and a couple other East Asian countries.
Trump declares a real travel ban on China. He then expands it as countries like Italy start seeing hotspots, and declares it a major threat to the United States.
He blasts it as the ChinaVirus*, and says that America must mobilize to defeat it, and through February into March he publicly insists on locking things down as much as possible, wearing masks, social distancing, saying doing so is as patriotic as war bonds and rationing in WW2. He recommends to Congress some significant sustained multitrillion spending which will continue until infection rates go below a certain level. He puts the CDC on a "war footing" and redirects Wall money to it, and mobilizes the National Guard for any and all support needed**. He tells everyone that we need to squash the pandemic before school opens so that kids can go to school again in the fall, and the economy can then resume (in October, in time to support his re-election).
How many deaths do you think we'd have in the US to this point?
* - okay that part is not alternate history.
** - not alternate history, except that he largely rescinds NG mobilization after 89 days preventing many Guard troops from qualifying for certain types of pay.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,270
Who knows? But if he had pulled it off(not sure he could have) the killbots would be deader than a doornail this November.
Have to consider compound effects tho. Would that have full bore collapsed trade instead of selectively crashing it? With more strenuous lockdowns would there have been more rioting, not less, as enforcing lockdowns - to a certain extent - always takes force?
Spedforce 5, vaccines cause autism* and masks kill people would still be running full speed ahead.
*That link to marijuana use during pregnancy still holding up? That along with better diagnosis might be a causal input, studies being another benefit of legalization where it's happened I suppose.
Have to consider compound effects tho. Would that have full bore collapsed trade instead of selectively crashing it? With more strenuous lockdowns would there have been more rioting, not less, as enforcing lockdowns - to a certain extent - always takes force?
Spedforce 5, vaccines cause autism* and masks kill people would still be running full speed ahead.
*That link to marijuana use during pregnancy still holding up? That along with better diagnosis might be a causal input, studies being another benefit of legalization where it's happened I suppose.
If Trump had done this, we'd be set to fully open in the fall, Coronavirus would be essentially non-existent in the US, the stock market would be down to 2012 levels and Amazon would be the largest corporation in the Universe. Trump would be President, but Bezos would be the Emperor.
Joking aside, yes indeed @Farm Boy , Trump would be getting praised as the second coming, and the Democrats would have no chance to stop him... hell, they still might have no chance as it is. Point is, that if President Ding-Dong hadn't botched the Coronavirus response so badly, been so incredibly myopic, so utterly incompetent... his re-election would have been assured.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,270
I mean, just call it like it is. He **** the bed. Then said he meant to, then kept doing it without getting up or asking for a pan. I'm reminded of Mao. Voting for him is for bed poopers.
He got elected on a largely anti-China riff. Then they autocrat smushed preliminary data and warnings and pooped out a pestilence that's killed over 800,000 people so far. As far as being given a politically unstoppable mandate for a non-bed******, he was handed one.
He got elected on a largely anti-China riff. Then they autocrat smushed preliminary data and warnings and pooped out a pestilence that's killed over 800,000 people so far. As far as being given a politically unstoppable mandate for a non-bed******, he was handed one.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,146
You're in la la land there, because you didn't replace Donald Trump with a stand-in, alternate timeline Republican President to actually make that at all plausible... Someone like Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, or Jeb Bush (or in my opinion, but I seem to get some flack on the matter) Hillary Clinton would be more likely stand-in's for such measures.
- Status
