Politics 2020 - the gift that keeps giving

[Malcador]

3 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I'm not sure that it is a shame though. Your average 12-year old is blessedly naïve about the about the world around them, and I don't know that we need to really rush to crush that with realities of power and manipulation in government.  

The sooner they learn the way the world works, the better, though.  Also we need to start teaching kids mathematics better, like Calculus by Grade 10.

[Guard Dog]

19 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Sorry, I'm old enough to remember when environmentalism was a republican issue.

 

You were around during the Roosevelt admin? The FIRST Roosevelt admin? 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You are working on the assumption that the Libertarianism can be a plank in a Republican platform or the Green's agenda can be a plank in a Democrat platform. That was certainly true forty years ago. Perhaps even 20 years ago. Not now. Not even close. I was a reliable Republican supporter for many yeas. When I got out of the service I even worked on the campaign staff of Don "Big Daddy" Garlits when he ran for Congress. The Republican party of today bears small resemblance of the one then. If Reagan or Goldwater were alive to see it they would be disgusted. They have turned their backs on small government advocacy and small "L" libertarianism. McCain was the last Republican I voted for. And he will be the last unless the ship is somehow righted in the future. I joined the Libertarian Party because it is becoming what the Republican Party should have been. But isn't. Libertarians are not Republicans. Greens are not Democrats. And vice versa. 

I can assure you that I'm not well versed enough in either party to be making the assumption that you assume I'm making

I just know that you can't effect change from outside and that neither one of these parties have any political capital. Not saying that to insult your politics or say that's how I think it should be. It just is what it is.

No one pays attention to what these "fringe" parties are doing.

[BruceVC]

22 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I’m not speaking to what it should be, rather to what it is.

Until the U.S. implements rank voting or something like it, voting outside the two party system is akin to throwing your vote away. The idealistic part of me understands the appeal, but the pragmatic side just kinda shakes its head. 
 

I’m not sure I get people who looked at Trump and looked at Hillary and thought there really was no discernible difference. Same thing goes for Biden in this cycle. One of these two men is going to be president. If you really think that the future looks no different under one than the other, then vote however you want. 

I hear you but something to consider, I think the 2 candidates have vastly different views on many core policies

But I dont see how either candidate winning could fundamentally lead to a collapse or real  harm to the USA because you still have other checks and balances that can prevent real damage done by flawed new laws. You have independent courts, votes in the house and senate and then you can have individual states opposing federal directives 

But both parties offer certain choices that I can agree with both on somethings and disagree with others. But if I could vote I would Democrats because my concern with possible negative outcomes from a Biden victory I dont see as relevant as another 4 years of Trump and this constant and unnecessary rejection of the virus and its influence ....the recovery time for the USA around the virus is a real concern to me 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You were around during the Roosevelt admin? The FIRST Roosevelt admin? 

Yes, because that was the only time in American history that the Republican party had environmentalism as part of their platform. You totally caught me!

Edited September 19, 2020 by Achilles

[Guard Dog]

5 minutes ago, Achilles said:

 

No one pays attention to what these "fringe" parties are doing.

Perhaps they should be:

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I hear you but something to consider, I think the 2 candidates have vastly different views on many core policies

But I dont see how either candidate winning could fundamentally lead to a collapse or real  harm to the USA because you still have other checks and balances that can prevent real damage done by flawed new laws. You have independent courts, votes in the house and senate and then you can have individual states opposing federal directives 

But both parties offer certain choices that I can agree with both on somethings and disagree with others. But if I could vote I would Democrats because my concern with possible negative outcomes from a Biden victory I dont see as relevant as another 4 years of Trump and this constant and unnecessary rejection of the virus and its influence ....the recovery time for the USA around the virus is a real concern to me 

What excellent timing!

Today, one of our Supreme Court Justices has passed away. Under the rules of the Constitution, the current President of the United States (Donald J. Trump) gets to make a lifetime appointment of her replacement. If a citizen of the United States believes that there is literally no difference between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, then the short list of possible replacements should be almost identical and the impact of such an appointment should be negligible. 

Anyone who actually pays attention to U.S. politics should be laughing hysterically at that last part right now.

That's just one example of why the differences matter.

Neither candidate is perfect. No candidate ever is. When we elect a President, we elect a leader. One person is better suited for the job than the other. Neither one will accomplish all the things we want them to, and that should never be the reason why we vote for them. We are hiring for a skill set not an outcome.

[Gromnir]

the reason trump blows this dog whistle is 'cause he wants a quote or a sound bite from a liberal in response. even if trump's proposed 1776 project were other than unconstitutional, there isn't a mechanic for trump to implement. trump's 1776 would need be an act of Congress. as much as trump plays fast and loose with the rule of law, am just not seeing any executive apparatus to achieve what he claims is his desire w/o Congress. but again, trump don't care 'bout 1776 or any other date not direct affecting trump. trump wants liberal rage and indignation.  gets sound bites for fox news and quotes for breitbart stories. see the liberals attacking the patriotism and ideals o' the founders... attacking America. is more proof that for liberals everything is 'bout race; they wanna punish white people for no reason other than that they were born white. appeal to white grievance. 

is a distraction

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

takes a special kinda obtuse to fall for such a distraction but the terrible reality is that near 30% o' the US electorate is that special.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Perhaps they should be:

Totally.

EDIT: That felt dismissive. Look, I've volunteered for campaigns before. Do you know what they care about? Milking votes away from other candidates. If you don't vote, you're not on my list. If it's a primary and you're not a registered member of my party, you're probably not on my list.

Almost 129 million votes were casts for the two major party candidates in 2016. <4.5 million is less than 1%, It's a rounding error. Again, I'm not trying trying to trash your politics, but the tail doesn't wag the dog brother.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Achilles

[Gromnir]

24 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Perhaps they should be:

misleading graph

not this again. 3.5% o' the popular vote, if were all in one state, would be meaningful. it were not. it isn't.

compare: ross perot in 1992 won almost 19% of the popular vote. 

what changed for 3rd party candidates after 1992? well, ross decided not to run 3p in the future. 19% were not near enough and future 3p candidates learned from perot's blunder.

libertarians is doing all wrong. they spend money and effort on national elections when such limited funds is better directed to winning important state and local elections. throw up yet another spectacular unqualified candidate to fail miserable is not creating a positive groundswell o' support. dumb.

oh, and btw, clinton AND trump were Historical unpopular. one reason why 2016 polls were so dodgy is 'cause something like +8% o' voters were still undecided on days immediate before the election. 2020 is different 'cause thanks to polarization trump's base, in spite o' his improbable impotence, has solidified. biden voters is near equal solid. is not a huge number o' undecideds who unable to vote either major ticket will wave the white flag and choose libertarian or green. 

misleading graph which does not prove anything save that both trump and clinton were unpalatable choices.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 19, 2020 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

38 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

not this again. 3.5% o' the popular vote, if were all in one state, would be meaningful. it were not. it isn't.

compare: ross perot in 1992 won almost 19% of the popular vote. 

what changed for 3rd party candidates after 1992? well, ross decided not to run 3p in the future. 19% were not near enough and future 3p candidates learned from perot's blunder.

libertarians is doing all wrong. they spend money and effort on national elections when such limited funds is better directed to winning important state and local elections. throw up yet another spectacular unqualified candidate to fail miserable is not creating a positive groundswell o' support. dumb.

oh, and btw, clinton AND trump were Historical unpopular. one reason why 2016 polls were so dodgy is 'cause something like +8% o' voters were still undecided on days immediate before the election. 2020 is different 'cause thanks to polarization trump's base, in spite o' his improbable impotence, has solidified. biden voters is near equal solid. is not a huge number o' undecideds who unable to vote either major ticket will wave the white flag and choose libertarian or green. 

misleading graph which does not prove anything save that both trump and clinton were unpalatable choices.

HA! Good Fun!

Add to that the fact that Jorgernsen is a career party hack with zero name recognition and there is a recipe for 2020 reversing the trend of the last twenty years where the LP takes a larger percentage of the popular vote than the previous election. If she manages to keep it in the 3% range that would indicate a definite if small voting bloc. 

But, as I have discussed with you numerous times the object isn't to win. The object is to continue to grow. Whatever reasons you assign to the trend it IS a trend and trending upward is never a bad thing. I'm very curious what happens in November. 

Again, as we discussed, the LP has no national office holders and certainly needs them. They have only four statewide office holders but there are over 1000 LP candidates in office. Up from less than 100 in 2004. I think the limited resources we have would be better spent getting a Senator or a few House Reps in office. The novelty of it alone would garner them enough media attention to help. Amash certainly focused attention on the LP in opposing Trump's BS. 

Neither Biden nor Trump deserve our vote. And I am beyond sick of choosing which of the two major party turds I have to swallow. I don't want either of them and I'm sure as hell not going to vote for either. Where is there to go after that but the LP?

Edited September 19, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Orogun01]

59 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

is a distraction

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

takes a special kinda obtuse to fall for such a distraction but the terrible reality is that near 30% o' the US electorate is that special.

HA! Good Fun!

So according to your data only 5% of cases of corona result in death....so Trump needs a distraction from a virus that has the whole country fed up because they can't go on with their regular lives because Democrats want to push for massive unregulated mailing voting? Because lets face it Trumps wants the economy to reopen, his whole deal is "the economy was doing great until Covid"
 

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Hurlshot said:

I'm not sure that it is a shame though. Your average 12-year old is blessedly naïve about the about the world around them, and I don't know that we need to really rush to crush that with realities of power and manipulation in government.  

hmmm. rocky and bullwinkle were, in our opinion, the greatest animated show for kids... evar. the thing is, the fact it were aired with an intent kids would watch (aired 2x a week in the late afternoon and sponsored by general mills) the subject matter were kinda advanced. 

am not thinking kids in the 60s suffered overmuch from being shown mushroom clouds and being confronted with the dark humor o' national government incompetence. 

machiavelli for 12-year olds? maybe wait 'til thirteen and show 'em venture brothers.

aside: am suspecting a few o' our regular maga supporters would especial loathe rocky and bullwinkle as the animation were outsourced to a company in mexico.

HA! Good Fun!

ps "only 5% of cases of corona result in death."

would be a noteworthy point if only a hundred americans had been infected. lethality is inextricably tied to transmissibility and with millions o' infected...

+200k dead and counting.

as we said, "a special kinda obtuse." thanks for illustrating.

btw ~20% o' those cases require hospitalizations. no biggie though.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Gromnir

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

So according to your data only 5% of cases of corona result in death....

Early in the epidemic, experts said that the number would need to approach 1% to be a big ****ing deal.

Keeping in mind that many people who get COVID and survive are ****ed for life. If not by the major cardiovascular changes, then by the debilitating medical bills.

Oh, and I'm assuming that "unregulated" is your attempt at humor?

Edited September 19, 2020 by Achilles

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Neither Biden nor Trump deserve our vote.

Possibly true. But one of them *will* be president. Do you truly not care which? Do you genuinely think there will be no difference going forward?

Quote

And I am beyond sick of choosing which of the two major party turds I have to swallow.

Yes, and I don't want to go to work every day or pay bills at the end of the month.

Quote

I don't want either of them and I'm sure as hell not going to vote for either. Where is there to go after that but the LP?

Take comfort in your righteous anger as you live through the consequences of decisions that others will make for you.

[Orogun01]

18 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Early in the epidemic, experts said that the number would need to approach 1% to be a big ****ing deal.

Keeping in mind that many people who get COVID and survive are ****ed for life. If not by the major cardiovascular changes, then by the debilitating medical bills.

Oh, and I'm assuming that "unregulated" is your attempt at humor?

Not an attempt at humor just the reality of mail in voting is too vulnerable to fraud and states inability to deal with the process. Mail in voting in smaller, state election has proven so. It would be a mess with the numbers of a presidential election. Suffice to say that whomever wins if people don't trust the voting process then the country will likely ignite.
So tell me, what makes mail in voting more secure than ballots?

Met COVID patients  that recovered and some accounts of people that died. However, I live in the most corrupted state in the US, so as long as federal money comes in anyone who coughs before they die, died of COVID. Because of no autopsy requirements, hospitals are just having to rely on Wuhan flu deaths  because people are avoiding hospitals because of the Wuhan Flu.  So I don't trust the numbers (specially the ones from Florida) Short of it is, if you're rewarded financially because of COVID in times where you're struggling, then COVID is the way to go.

Also, how many pre-existing conditions those effed for life people life have? Debilitating medical bills? I'm sure you're happy to know that Trump signed an executive action to lower medical costs: link

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Achilles said:

What excellent timing!

Today, one of our Supreme Court Justices has passed away. Under the rules of the Constitution, the current President of the United States (Donald J. Trump) gets to make a lifetime appointment of her replacement. If a citizen of the United States believes that there is literally no difference between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, then the short list of possible replacements should be almost identical and the impact of such an appointment should be negligible. 

Anyone who actually pays attention to U.S. politics should be laughing hysterically at that last part right now.

That's just one example of why the differences matter.

Neither candidate is perfect. No candidate ever is. When we elect a President, we elect a leader. One person is better suited for the job than the other. Neither one will accomplish all the things we want them to, and that should never be the reason why we vote for them. We are hiring for a skill set not an outcome.

You raise a good point how ideological differences could lead to possible years of a certain influence in the SC and what that could mean for possible changes to laws that most of us support like freedom of choice for abortion  and gay marriage ...this was a valid concern for many considering Trumps populist comments he made 

Also you naturally saw the appointment of people like Kavanaugh which added to this anxiety 

But then recently we has this ruling which was not to Trumps favor, which is a good outcome because it tells me that the SC are making rulings on the law and not person

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/09/politics/supreme-court-trump-financial-records/index.html

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

Not an attempt at humor just the reality of mail in voting is too vulnerable to fraud and states inability to deal with the process. Mail in voting in smaller, state election has proven so. It would be a mess with the numbers of a presidential election. Suffice to say that whomever wins if people don't trust the voting process then the country will likely ignite.
So tell me, what makes mail in voting more secure than ballots?

We've had mail in voting for more than 150 years. The military uses it all the time to account for the ballots of deployed service members. Republicans themselves have pushed mail-in voting for years. But for some strange reason, it's rife with opportunities for corruption *now*.

Here's how the process works:

1. Voter either adds themselves to an early ballot roster or applies for an absentee ballot
2. Voter receives the ballot, completes it, signs the envelope, and mails the ballot back to the state
3. The signature is then checked against the signature on file and then either placed in the "nice" pile if the signature is a match, or placed in the "naughty" list if there is an issue with the signature (either it looks off or is missing or the state requires that a witness signs the envelope as well). Some states do this as soon as the ballot is received. Others wait until election day to start this process. The voter is responsible for following up to see if their ballot is on the "naughty" list and make necessary corrections if applicable.
4. The envelopes in the "nice" list are opened and the ballots within are processed and tabulated on election day.

So in order to commit fraudulent voting, one would have to:

1. Somehow intercept an absentee ballot application or forge an early ballot application (breaking into a mailbox?)
2. Know all the information about the actual voter that would be required to complete said document
3. Somehow intercept the mailed ballot (breaking into a mailbox?)
4. Complete the ballot
5. Match the signature that the state has on file for the voter (could create this themselves in step one, but would raise suspicion if the voter had a signature on file via DMV etc)
6. Mail in the ballot

If someone managed to accomplish all those things, they would have risked federal level fraud charges to pick up one additional vote for their candidate

Which seems like a pretty ****ing stupid thing to do which is probably why all attempts to root out voter fraud have yielded almost zilch (because some people are, apparently, just that ****ing stupid).

Better question might be, how is mail in voting less secure than in-person voting.

(full-disclosure: I live in an early ballot state and have voted by mail for almost all of my adult life)

Quote

Met COVID patients  that recovered and some accounts of people that died. However, I live in the most corrupted state in the US, so as long as federal money comes in anyone who coughs before they die, died of COVID. Because of no autopsy requirements, hospitals are just having to rely on Wuhan flu deaths  because people are avoiding hospitals because of the Wuhan Flu.  So I don't trust the numbers (specially the ones from Florida) Short of it is, if you're rewarded financially because of COVID in times where you're struggling, then COVID is the way to go.

You and I are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My partner works in healthcare and has been neck-deep in the pandemic since this started.

If Person A has a major life threatening illness that requires regular treatment, and is cut off from that treatment due to a pandemic (the illness will surely kill them painfully if they catch it due to co-morbidities, so they'd rather take their chances with what they have over what they might catch), then does their death from lack of treatment count as a COVID death? It sounds like you would argue "no" because that person didn't die from COVID. Some people would argue "yes" because that person died *because* of COVID.

Surely, racking up a death that occurred due to a car accident or shooting would probably qualify as fraud, but I'm not sure what you're referencing specifically.

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Achilles

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Achilles said:

Possibly true. But one of them *will* be president. Do you truly not care which? Do you genuinely think there will be no difference going forward?

Yes, and I don't want to go to work every day or pay bills at the end of the month.

Take comfort in your righteous anger as you live through the consequences of decisions that others will make for you.

Except for the fact that I would rather have whatever judges Trump picks than whatever Biden picks no I really do not give a damn which turd gets flushed and which one stays in the bowl. 

The difference being I DO have acceptable alternatives on my ballot. Paying bills and going to work don't have  acceptable alternatives. 

I am in a position where it really does not matter which turd I picked. Trump is going to win my state. It is a done deal. It is one of the reddest. Voting for Trump or Biden will actually be the wasted vote. Voting for Jorgenson is one more vote closer to the 5% of the popular vote required to secure automatic ballot access for the 2024 candidate. So you see a third party vote is truly the only "productive" vote I can cast.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

You raise a good point how ideological differences could lead to possible years of a certain influence in the SC and what that could mean for possible changes to laws that most of us support like freedom of choice for abortion  and gay marriage ...this was a valid concern for many considering Trumps populist comments he made 

Also you naturally saw the appointment of people like Kavanaugh which added to this anxiety 

But then recently we has this ruling which was not to Trumps favor, which is a good outcome because it tells me that the SC are making rulings on the law and not person

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/09/politics/supreme-court-trump-financial-records/index.html

The point of the argument isn't whether or not the citizens feel as though the decisions made thus far are satisfactory.

The questions are: would the candidates select Justices that are ideologically different from one another and would those those differences be meaningful? And keep in mind this is just one example. Same questions apply to cabinet positions, agency appointments, diplomatic assignments, etc.

To tie this back to the original post(s): believe it or not, Guard Dog and I share a lot of the same concerns re: the state of our democracy. Where he and I differ is on how to fix the problem. I'm resigned to a vision of the future where progress is made incrementally, as voters demand it and hold elected officials accountable for delivering it. My impression of his take is that he's willing to let the chips fall where they may now and retain his ideological purity until a popular candidate emerges who can implement all the changes he would like to see.

In other words, I think the better candidate now is preferable to waiting for a perfect candidate eventually-slash-maybe-never.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Except for the fact that I would rather have whatever judges Trump picks than whatever Biden picks no I really do not give a damn which turd gets flushed and which one stays in the bowl. 

Ok, well there's my answer

Quote

I am in a position where it really does not matter which turd I picked. Trump is going to win my state. It is a done deal. It is one of the reddest. Voting for Trump or Biden will actually be the wasted vote. Voting for Jorgenson is one more vote closer to the 5% of the popular vote required to secure automatic ballot access for the 2024 candidate. So you see a third party vote is truly the only "productive" vote I can cast.

I wish you luck then.

[Guard Dog]

18 minutes ago, Achilles said:

 

I wish you luck then.

The point being there are goals for LP candidates other than actually winning. It's popular to say a vote for a 3rd party candidate is wasted. That is only true if the objective is to win the election. If the objective is to grow the movement then it is far from wasted. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The point being there are goals for LP candidates other than actually winning. It's popular to say a vote for a 3rd party candidate is wasted. That is only true if the objective is to win the election. If the objective is to grow the movement then it is far from wasted. 

I guess it depends on how you define winning an election. There are serious problems that need to be addressed and can't wait another 40 years for a third party to become relevant. "Winning" to me means having someone in the White House who either makes strides toward solving them or doesn't actively seek to make them worse.

I know that you already believe that with the current choices that's literally a coin toss, but I don't share that opinion.

 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Achilles said:

"Winning" to me means having someone in the White House who either makes strides toward solving them or doesn't actively seek to make them worse.

 

 

You are going to be disappointed then.

[Gorth]

2020 just never ends, does it?

 

New thread here