Politics XXXV (Life in the Vault is about to change)

[ktchong]

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by 213374U
removed duplicate videos

[ktchong]

 

Mother Jones:  Trump Administration Adopts Mini-Universal Health Care for COVID-19

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/04/trump-administration-adopts-mini-universal-health-care-for-covid-19/

 

Counterpunch: FLASH! Trump Just Endorsed Bernie’s Medicare-For-All Health Plan

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/04/07/flash-trump-just-endorsed-bernies-medicare-for-all-health-plan/

 

RT: Isn’t that ‘Medicare for All’? Trump administration rolls out interesting plan for funding Covid-19 treatments in US

https://www.rt.com/usa/484942-trump-coronavirus-medicare-plan/

 

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by 213374U
removed duplicate videos

[ktchong]

Say it once, and I am going to say it again.  I am a self-proclaimed progressive and socialist, a former supporter of Tulsi/Yang/Bernie.  And this is another reason to make me vote for Trump this November -- and all Republicans on the down ballot.  Seems like I have already made up my mind.

After the $1,000 emergency UBI that was first proposed by Mitt Romney, a REPUBLICAN,  supported by TRUMP and other REPUBLICANS, then OPPOSED by Democrats, (because it REPUBLICANS had proposed and supported it,) but ultimately was enacted by the CARE Stimulus that gives: $1,200 + $500 per child + $600 per week, (in the form of expanded, all-inclusive unemployment benefits that practically cover anyone who is not rich -- including self-employed small business owners, independent contractors and the long-term unemployed,) to all low-income and middle-income Americans...

What the US media have again missed — or deliberately hid: Now Republicans are out-flanking establishment Democrats, AGAIN, from the left.  After Dementia Joe had said he would veto Medicare-for-All if he was the president, and now that the Democratic Party is moving towards the platform of OPPOSING single-payer universal healthcare in order to crush Bernie Sanders...

Republicans have just taken the first experimental steps to move towards SINGLE-PAYER healthcare.

I wager we are gonna see another big "surprise" coming in November, when Bernie has dropped out of the race and Dementia Joe is the Democratic nominee... Trump takes the opposite position of the senile grandpa: by proposing a single-payer universal healthcare, Trumpcare for all, to replace Obamacare.  It will be the ultimate slap in Obama's face, another attempt of Trump to erase and wipe out all of Obama's legacies.  It will be Trump's ultimate insult to Obama.  That is what Trump loves to do, right?

What will Dementia Joe and the Democratic Party run on?  Their only play is “Orange Man Bad!”   And identity politics and wokeness.  I don't care nor buy into the Trump Derangement Syndrome.   Don't care about identity politics or being woke.   If Trump and Republicans end up being the one to institute a single-payer healthcare... then Democrats can go **** themselves, and I will vote for Trump for a THIRD TERM.

Not what all the people in here inflicted with Trump Derangement like to hear, but that is how it is.  And I can guarantee you, all the "Bernie Bros" will jump over to vote for Trump for single-payer.  You can despise us as much as you want, but we vote for the policy we want, not for your "Orange Man Bad" derangement, and our votes adding to the Trump base will ultimately help him win the re-election.

Getting outflanked by Trump and Republicans from the left on UBI.  Getting outflanked from the left on Medicare-for-All.  The Democratic Party has turned out to be such a HUGE disappointment.  They have truly become irrelevant.

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by ktchong

[Malcador]

I really miss oby.

[Gfted1]

Spamity spam of the same posts from one page ago.

[Hurlshort]

I've always assume ktchong types this stuff up on an old Microsoft Word document and then blasts it across the internet as a service to mankind or something.

[ktchong]

 

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by ktchong

[Gromnir]

Former watchdog Walpin loses suit over firing

"On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts threw out a lawsuit Walpin brought in an attempt to be restored to his position at the Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs Americorps and other programs. Walpin has claimed that his firing was political retaliation for his opposition to wasteful spending by the agency and for his aggressive investigation of a friend of Obama, Sacramento Mayor and former NBA player Kevin Johnson. The White House stridently denied any such motivation."

reason obama offered for firing in his letter to Congress were lack of confidence.

as the tralfamadorians would say, so it goes.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Bartimaeus]

[ShadySands]

8 hours ago, Gromnir said:

snip

TIL KJ was the mayor of Sacramento

Now I've got to go look up Dan Majerle since Barkley and Ainge are already accounted for.

[rjshae]

[ktchong]

Bloomberg 4/9/2020: Gavin Newsom Declares California a ‘Nation-State’

CalMatters 4/9/2020: #PresentNewsom Trending: As governors step up, CA assumes nation-state status

 

 

[Guard Dog]

Our political leaders are NOT our best and brightest. The "media" (also not our best and brightest) should know better than to jump all over every semantic slip. Especially uttered by someone who is only where they are because they were the least objectionable choice of nothing but objectionable choices on a given election day.

[rjshae]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Our political leaders are NOT our best and brightest. The "media" (also not our best and brightest) should know better than to jump all over every semantic slip. Especially uttered by someone who is only where they are because they were the least objectionable choice of nothing but objectionable choices on a given election day.

A politician is somebody who is intelligent enough to hold office, but not so intelligent that they quickly become bored by it.

[Raithe]

 

[Skarpen]

38 minutes ago, Raithe said:

 

This map is outdated a little.

[ktchong]

It has begun...

Donald Trump's first attack ad on Dementia Joe, and it's pretty devastating:

 

 

Can't wait for the ad of Biden sniffing little girls.

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by ktchong

[Volourn]

If its accurate that's embarrassing.

[Skarpen]

They will not go with Biden. Superdelegates will appoint someone else. My bet is on either Cuomo or Bloomberg. And it will be the perfect point of this long joke called Democratic primaries.

[Zoraptor]

 

5 hours ago, Skarpen said:

This map is outdated a little.

It's also been posted at least three times, and it's reverse ownage anyway since Canada's envoy to fricking NATO forgot that Kaliningrad is part of Russia- rather a large oversight for such an organisation.

[HoonDing]

Königsberg ist Deutsch.

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

They will not go with Biden. Superdelegates will appoint someone else. My bet is on either Cuomo or Bloomberg. And it will be the perfect point of this long joke called Democratic primaries.

The democrats changed the rules a little while back. The superdelegates will only be a factor if no candidate reaches the magic delegate number. In the event of a brokered convention all pledged delegates are free to choose who the wish and the superdelegates come into play. This will probably not happen. The odds of a brokered convention are pretty small.

[ktchong]

The DNC has repeatedly broken and changed its rules to do whatever it pleased during the primaries.  Most recently, the DNC changed the debate rules to include Bloomberg in a debate; and then, after Bloomberg dropped out, it changed the rules again to exclude Tulsi and protect Biden from embarrassing himself in a debate.  Ultimately, the DNC is a private corporation and gets to do what it wants - and chooses whoever it wants to be its nominee; in 2017, the DNC used that very specific argument in a federal court against a class action lawsuit by voters who complained that the DNC had rigged its own rules and denied them a fair and impartial election.  The court recognized that the DNC had treated its primary voters unfairly, but dismissed the lawsuit in the end because the DNC was a private corporation, so it could do whatever it wanted.

The irony is: the primary process of the RNC is way more democratic and transparent than the undemocratic, opaque primary process of the DNC, as the RNC does not have superdelegates who can override and overturn the decisions of its constituents and voters.  (Which is why we have Donald Trump as the President, as the RNC -- which has a more democratic and transparent internal rules and workings -- tried to stop Trump in the primary, but was unable and failed.)

Also ironic: if Bernie Sanders had decided to persist until the DNC convention and challenged Joe Biden, Bernie would have provided a cover for the DNC to broker someone else as the "compromise" candidate between Bernie and Biden.  Now the Bernie has dropped out, the DNC is stuck with Biden -- if the DNC wants to maintain the facade it plays by its own rules, (which it does not.) 

Edited April 10, 2020 by ktchong

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

The odds of a brokered convention are pretty small.

Dunno, Biden is in the susceptible demographic for c19.

1 hour ago, HoonDing said:

Königsberg ist Deutsch.

Doch, ist Prussen. But proper Old Prussian, not those genocidal g*rmanic manlet 'teutons'. Pity the Poles didn't finish the job properly in the 15th century and spare the rest of the world centuries of harm.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, ktchong said:

The DNC has broken rules to do whatever it pleased during the primaries.  Most recently, the DNC changed the debate rules to include Bloomberg in a debate; and then, after Bloomberg dropped out, it changed the rules again to exclude Tulsi and protect Biden from embarrassing himself in a debate. 

one o' the more unreasonable recent arguments we have seen from folks who complain 'bout dnc, and keep in mind Gromnir is one o' the folks who complains. after 2016 is hard not to question every dnc choice, yes?

from start, the democrat debate rules for 2020 were arbitrary.  the changes were rational and reasonable but no less arbitrary. with so many candidates, dnc decided it were not making sense to let everybody on stage during televised debates, so they came up with cutoff points.  original cut-off were 1% in at least three polls. there were also a unique donor prerequisite, but am forgetting the number.  no more than 20 and a tiebreaker were also part o' rules? goal were so there would be no more than 20, but admitted, all the numbers requirements were arbitrary. rules were adjusted many times before bloomberg were added and tulsi were blocked. goal were always to keep pool number smallish and nevertheless provide candidates with a legit chance o' victory the opportunity to speak on a national stage to relevant issues.  

mindless following arbitrary rules is the perverse nature o' bureaucrats and ignoramuses. got some rule which says husband and wife need sign a form for school registration in the event o' married couples but make no provision for same-sex couples even in states which permit such unions? failure to change such a rule or make a workaround is example o' bureaucrat stoopid, and happens all the time. we criticize when no changes is made, and for good reason.

exclude tulsi were not arbitrary. the arbitrary rules for the debates were not penned in the Constitution and had in fact been changing with almost every debate since september o' 2019. exclude tulsi were intentional and rational as 'posed to the arbitrary rules. tulsi had negligible chance o' winning the nomination and keeping her on the debate stage because of the earlier arbitrary rules woulda' been asinine. 1 delegate were a rule, but such ignores fact tulsi had failed to meet polling requirements for multiple previous debates. keep gabbard on a debate stage with biden and sanders woulda' been reflexive bureaucratic stoopid which has persons adhering to arbitrary in the face o' ludicrous results.

alternative, bloomberg were polling better than candidates who would appear on the stage in february, so exclude him 'cause o' those same arbitrary rules were deemed unreasonable. nevertheless, democrats had to make a tough choice as it appeared bloomberg were buying his way into the election which brought a stink to the democrat party as a whole if he should debate on even playing field with those who had been meeting thresholds from day 1. nevertheless, democrats side with the democratic choice and allow a popular candidate to debate.

again, the rules which woulda' allowed tulsi and excluded bloomberg were arbitrary. there weren't some profound civil rights or fundamental fairness issue which were the basis for the dnc rules for debate candidate eligibility. the purpose o' rules were to get relevant candidates on stage for debates. ignore purpose and instead blind follow arbitrary? stoopid, the kinda stoopid most of us justifiable criticize.

now is arguable the dnc rules failed when the result were to exclude viewpoint diversity o' candidates so early in the race, but that is a different and much more serious question.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Gromnir