OT: COVID-19 thread #2

[DuckIII]

Yeah, it's a sad choice.

If I can figure out how I can vote for Biden 100 times, I'm going to do it. My dad was a Chicago precinct captain during Richard J (The Boss) Daley's administrations so I have some ideas.

Vote early and vote often.

[Shill]

The point I'm making is that progressives want the output of the Nordic countries without the input.

If you want to fund such a robust social safety net, you need tax receipts.

I’ve heard my entire life that liberals are trying to raise taxes to pay for spending, so this doesn’t match my experience. Look at the tax proposals of every Democratic presidential candidate and tell me they are ignoring tax receipts. On the other side of the aisle, we get proposals of increased spending and LOWER taxes.

I didn't say anything about Democrats ignoring tax receipts.

I said the Nordic countries pay for their robust safety net with a particular set of policies, but progressives in America aren't advocating for those policies.

I thought my argument was pretty clear.

Please name a Nordic system that has collapsed. If you can’t, please provide evidence of the reduced tax returns.

I'm not talking about the current-day Nordic countries.

I mentioned Sweden in the 1970s, and there are other European countries that had stifled economies because of corporate tax rates that were above 40%.

Both parties vote for more spending again and again. I’ve only seen one of those parties propose increased taxes to actually fund the spending. Remind me again which party is trying to have it both ways. The easiest sell of all is, “We’ll lower taxes, increase spending and somehow still lower the deficit.” Somehow, it never seems to develop that way.

You won't get any argument from me on profligate spending.

[Shill]

As for open borders, quibbling over the term is semantics.

You introduce a term, get called out for it being false

How is it false?

Open borders is essentially free movement of people.

Is it your argument that no progressives (or libertarians) have advocated for that?

Even in your fever dream of taking any proposal anyone has ever made and saying “progressives are calling for...” you still didn’t describe open borders. Sounds like we’d still have Visas, border checkpoints, deportations, and homeland security. Doesn’t sound very “open borders” to me.

Maybe someday I’ll understand how taxes and regulation are “authoritarian”, but a militarized immigration enforcement agency isn’t.

I addressed this in another post where I said that border policy was complex, and there was no set of principles even within political factions.

There have been people who have absolutely advocated for no visas, border checkpoints, deportations, or DHS.

[dice]

It seems like the current election (just like the last election), isn't going to be so much about how much you like your nominee. It's going to be about how much you HATE the opposing nominee. I can't tell you how many times I've come across people saying "the lesser of two evils" when it came to Hillary vs Trump.

Couldn't agree more. It's truly unbelievable that when it all comes down to it, the two choices for President of the United States of America is seriously between Donald freaking Trump and Joe "Dementia" Biden. FFS. How is this even possible? The last election was just as bad, if not worse. Never underestimate the idiocy and ignorance of mainstream Americans. Come on everybody...vote! These are your choices. LOL.

hillary was WAY more hated by the opposition than biden

[dice]

As for open borders, quibbling over the term is semantics.

You introduce a term, get called out for it being false

How is it false?

Open borders is essentially free movement of people.

Is it your argument that no progressives (or libertarians) have advocated for that?

Even in your fever dream of taking any proposal anyone has ever made and saying “progressives are calling for...” you still didn’t describe open borders. Sounds like we’d still have Visas, border checkpoints, deportations, and homeland security. Doesn’t sound very “open borders” to me.

Maybe someday I’ll understand how taxes and regulation are “authoritarian”, but a militarized immigration enforcement agency isn’t.

I addressed this in another post where I said that border policy was complex, and there was no set of principles even within political factions.

There have been people who have absolutely advocated for no visas, border checkpoints, deportations, or DHS.

nobody prominent is arguing for open borders. is there a single, say, democratic senator arguing for that? there are probably a few stray house members, but i wouldn't be surprised if even that was not true

[Shill]

nobody prominent is arguing for open borders. is there a single, say, democratic senator arguing for that? there are probably a few stray house members, but i wouldn't be surprised if even that was not true

I guess it depends on how you define prominent and how you define open borders.

For example, is former Deputy DNC chair Keith Ellison prominent? He wore a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders" in Spanish.

Does that mean he's explicitly in favor of open borders? I don't know, but a lot of prominent Democrats have advocated for things like decriminalizing border crossings, abolishing ICE and CBP, expanding sanctuary policies, tearing down existing border barriers, rubber-stamping asylum claims, amnesty, providing healthcare for illegal immigrants, etc...

If that's not open borders, it seems to be approaching it.

[Dresden]

nobody prominent is arguing for open borders. is there a single, say, democratic senator arguing for that? there are probably a few stray house members, but i wouldn't be surprised if even that was not true

I guess it depends on how you define prominent and how you define open borders.

For example, is former Deputy DNC chair Keith Ellison prominent? He wore a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders" in Spanish.

Does that mean he's explicitly in favor of open borders? I don't know, but a lot of prominent Democrats have advocated for things like decriminalizing border crossings, abolishing ICE and CBP, expanding sanctuary policies, tearing down existing border barriers, rubber-stamping asylum claims, amnesty, providing healthcare for illegal immigrants, etc...

If that's not open borders, it seems to be approaching it.

Providing health care for illegal immigrants? Oh, the horror!

[Shill]

It's truly unbelievable that when it all comes down to it, the two choices for President of the United States of America is seriously between Donald freaking Trump and Joe "Dementia" Biden. FFS. How is this even possible? The last election was just as bad, if not worse. Never underestimate the idiocy and ignorance of mainstream Americans. Come on everybody...vote! These are your choices. LOL.

I don't think idiocy and ignorance are necessarily the main problems.

I think the main problem is trying to distill every issue down to two parties is incredibly difficult.

Politicians try to pander to too many factions (understandably) and end up coming off phony or off-putting.

For example, a dyed-in-the-wool progressive isn't going to be enthusiastic about supporting an establishment Democrat and vice versa.

And there wasn't any candidate with enough political talent to square that circle.

[Shill]

nobody prominent is arguing for open borders. is there a single, say, democratic senator arguing for that? there are probably a few stray house members, but i wouldn't be surprised if even that was not true

I guess it depends on how you define prominent and how you define open borders.

For example, is former Deputy DNC chair Keith Ellison prominent? He wore a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders" in Spanish.

Does that mean he's explicitly in favor of open borders? I don't know, but a lot of prominent Democrats have advocated for things like decriminalizing border crossings, abolishing ICE and CBP, expanding sanctuary policies, tearing down existing border barriers, rubber-stamping asylum claims, amnesty, providing healthcare for illegal immigrants, etc...

If that's not open borders, it seems to be approaching it.

Providing health care for illegal immigrants? Oh, the horror!

The merits and demerits of that position are a different issue.

[Red8911]

nobody prominent is arguing for open borders. is there a single, say, democratic senator arguing for that? there are probably a few stray house members, but i wouldn't be surprised if even that was not true

I guess it depends on how you define prominent and how you define open borders.

For example, is former Deputy DNC chair Keith Ellison prominent? He wore a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders" in Spanish.

Does that mean he's explicitly in favor of open borders? I don't know, but a lot of prominent Democrats have advocated for things like decriminalizing border crossings, abolishing ICE and CBP, expanding sanctuary policies, tearing down existing border barriers, rubber-stamping asylum claims, amnesty, providing healthcare for illegal immigrants, etc...

If that's not open borders, it seems to be approaching it.

Providing health care for illegal immigrants? Oh, the horror!

you guys should pay extra taxes to give ILLEGAL immigrants the health care that they need.

[Red8911]

It seems like the current election (just like the last election), isn't going to be so much about how much you like your nominee. It's going to be about how much you HATE the opposing nominee. I can't tell you how many times I've come across people saying "the lesser of two evils" when it came to Hillary vs Trump.

I like trump and will be voting for him but if the Democrats had put someone better Trump would never be president today. Many hated Hilary and now I really can’t believe they chose Biden. I knew he would win the democratic side because of his money and his connections but imo that is the worst choice for them. It’s going to be an easy win for Trump.

[Red8911]

Please stop spreading this discredited BS.

You are dangerous.

Just an FYI for anyone who watched this "Plandemic" video.... this is a hoax and has been proven to be nothing but a trove of misinformation designed to prey on people who are vulnerable to wack-a-do conspiracy theories and the type of people who think Fox News is a real news channel. Believing this nonsense is not only dangerous to yourself but to others as well.

Red8911- I know you believe this crap but please do your own due diligence before you spread this crap around and believe and/or practice any of the bad ideas and misinformation in it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/05/plandemic-video-what-to-say-conspiracy/611464/

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/14/plandemic-movie-discredited-dr-doctor-judy-mikovits-how-debunked-conspiracy-theory-film-went-viral

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/5/12/21254184/how-plandemic-went-viral-facebook-youtube

https://www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/verify/verify-the-plandemic-documentary-is-full-of-misinformation/507-95caed4e-7a95-4452-ba7f-98cd0442c9e9

First of all Fox News is the only news channel that is pro republican / Trump and of course that is not real news but CNN is real?
They do the same exact thing in favor of Democrats.If you don’t see that then idk what to tell you.

only people who believe everything they hear on right wing media think that CNN is the left wing version of fox. it's not remotely true. CNN was widely seen as middle-of-the-road until right wing media started saying effectively "anyone who isn't with us is against us." fox news viewers were told that everyone else was "mainstream media" and thus liberal. and their base, starving for fake news that jived with their world view, ate it right up. then donald trump gets elected, starts lying compulsively on a daily basis, CNN is forced to report on it...on a daily basis, and right wing media's self-fulfilling prophecy became even easier to sell to that incredibly gullible base. the kinds of people who are also willing to believe that competent, experienced "deep staters" like anthony fauci are trying to bring down trump. totally warped

MSNBC is the only mainstream news channel that caters to a left-wing viewership. and they decided to go that route only when fox news became popular and it became profitable to have a counter-point. fox news doofus tucker carlson had a show on MSNBC up until 2008

Cmon do you really believe that? CNN is 100% Democrat and their not even hiding it, it’s not an opinion it’s a fact. Just look at their site daily.

[Shill]

only people who believe everything they hear on right wing media think that CNN is the left wing version of fox. it's not remotely true. CNN was widely seen as middle-of-the-road until right wing media started saying effectively "anyone who isn't with us is against us." fox news viewers were told that everyone else was "mainstream media" and thus liberal. and their base, starving for fake news that jived with their world view, ate it right up. then donald trump gets elected, starts lying compulsively on a daily basis, CNN is forced to report on it...on a daily basis, and right wing media's self-fulfilling prophecy became even easier to sell to that incredibly gullible base. the kinds of people who are also willing to believe that competent, experienced "deep staters" like anthony fauci are trying to bring down trump. totally warped

MSNBC is the only mainstream news channel that caters to a left-wing viewership. and they decided to go that route only when fox news became popular and it became profitable to have a counter-point. fox news doofus tucker carlson had a show on MSNBC up until 2008

And Alan Colmes had a show with Sean Hannity on Fox in 1996.

I don't really watch any of the networks, so I'm not particularly interested in defending any of them, but I'd say your take is less than objective.

I think Charles Krauthammer put it best when he said Fox News discovered a niche audience: half the country.

[dice]

I guess it depends on how you define prominent and how you define open borders.

For example, is former Deputy DNC chair Keith Ellison prominent? He wore a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders" in Spanish.

Does that mean he's explicitly in favor of open borders? I don't know, but a lot of prominent Democrats have advocated for things like decriminalizing border crossings, abolishing ICE and CBP, expanding sanctuary policies, tearing down existing border barriers, rubber-stamping asylum claims, amnesty, providing healthcare for illegal immigrants, etc...

If that's not open borders, it seems to be approaching it.

Providing health care for illegal immigrants? Oh, the horror!

you guys should pay extra taxes to give ILLEGAL immigrants the health care that they need.

he already said 'illegal.' why did you feel the need to emphasize it?

illegal immigrants pay taxes, fella. they deserve medical care. everyone does

the vast majority of illegal immigrants are here out of desperation - often a result of the US creating political chaos in their home countries. many put themselves at great risk to be here. failure to acknowledge that not only reflects a lack of empathy, but is indeed sociopathic

[dice]

only people who believe everything they hear on right wing media think that CNN is the left wing version of fox. it's not remotely true. CNN was widely seen as middle-of-the-road until right wing media started saying effectively "anyone who isn't with us is against us." fox news viewers were told that everyone else was "mainstream media" and thus liberal. and their base, starving for fake news that jived with their world view, ate it right up. then donald trump gets elected, starts lying compulsively on a daily basis, CNN is forced to report on it...on a daily basis, and right wing media's self-fulfilling prophecy became even easier to sell to that incredibly gullible base. the kinds of people who are also willing to believe that competent, experienced "deep staters" like anthony fauci are trying to bring down trump. totally warped

MSNBC is the only mainstream news channel that caters to a left-wing viewership. and they decided to go that route only when fox news became popular and it became profitable to have a counter-point. fox news doofus tucker carlson had a show on MSNBC up until 2008

And Alan Colmes had a show with Sean Hannity on Fox in 1996.

yeah, an effete liberal for hannity to dominate. real great example of the "fair and balanced" fox news. what happened to alan colmes, by the way?

I don't really watch any of the networks, so I'm not particularly interested in defending any of them, but I'd say your take is less than objective.

you haven't pointed out a single thing that was inaccurate about what i said

lulz

I think Charles Krauthammer put it best when he said Fox News discovered a niche audience: half the country.

a fox news contributor put it best, eh? and I'M less than objective?

fox news appeals to far less than half the country. and it didn't "discover" ****. it was created by a republican party strategist as a propaganda arm of the party. it blatantly exploits its viewers by misleading them. there's a reason why the average fox viewer knows LESS about politics than someone who consumes no radio/TV political media at all. MSNBC, while hiring hosts with a liberal viewpoint, at least respects its audience

[dice]

First of all Fox News is the only news channel that is pro republican / Trump and of course that is not real news but CNN is real?
They do the same exact thing in favor of Democrats.If you don’t see that then idk what to tell you.

only people who believe everything they hear on right wing media think that CNN is the left wing version of fox. it's not remotely true. CNN was widely seen as middle-of-the-road until right wing media started saying effectively "anyone who isn't with us is against us." fox news viewers were told that everyone else was "mainstream media" and thus liberal. and their base, starving for fake news that jived with their world view, ate it right up. then donald trump gets elected, starts lying compulsively on a daily basis, CNN is forced to report on it...on a daily basis, and right wing media's self-fulfilling prophecy became even easier to sell to that incredibly gullible base. the kinds of people who are also willing to believe that competent, experienced "deep staters" like anthony fauci are trying to bring down trump. totally warped

MSNBC is the only mainstream news channel that caters to a left-wing viewership. and they decided to go that route only when fox news became popular and it became profitable to have a counter-point. fox news doofus tucker carlson had a show on MSNBC up until 2008

Cmon do you really believe that? CNN is 100% Democrat and their not even hiding it, it’s not an opinion it’s a fact. Just look at their site daily.

now you don't even know the difference between an opinion and a fact?

again, reporting on donald trump's constant lies and mismanagement is something that any unbiased news source does. it's their job

i'm sorry if the truth has a liberal bias. facts matter. even in the age of trump

[Shill]

yeah, an effete liberal for hannity to dominate. real great example of the "fair and balanced" fox news.

Fox News isn't fair and balanced (none of the networks are), but it's not exclusively right-wingers. That was my point.

you haven't pointed out a single thing that was inaccurate about what i said

It's essentially the same argument that was made about Rush Limbaugh when he burst onto the talk radio scene, i.e. everything was fine and balanced until he came along.

Or maybe it wasn't, and a sizeable number of people liked what he had to say.

If you want to argue they're all idiots and dupes, fine, but they weren't being served.

a fox news contributor put it best, eh? and I'M less than objective?

fox news appeals to far less than half the country. and it didn't "discover" ****. it was created by a republican party strategist as a propaganda arm of the party. it blatantly exploits its viewers by misleading them. there's a reason why the average fox viewer knows LESS about politics than someone who consumes no radio/TV political media at all. MSNBC, while hiring hosts with a liberal viewpoint, at least respects its audience

That's a partisan argument. You don't think the DNC coordinates with CNN and MSNBC? The leaked Clinton/Podesta emails prove they do.

There were emails from Clinton encouraging the networks to pump up Trump during the primary because they viewed Jeb as the real threat.

A Fox News viewer could very easily say the same about the average MSNBC viewer. At the height of Russiagate, Rachel Maddow argued that Putin might shut down the U.S. power grid during a cold snap and kill millions. That's just as bad as any crap you'll see on Fox.

There are progressives and libertarians that rag on both networks with good reason.

As far as public appeal, I believe Hannity and Carlson consistently lead in cable news ratings.

[Dresden]

I guess it depends on how you define prominent and how you define open borders.

For example, is former Deputy DNC chair Keith Ellison prominent? He wore a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders" in Spanish.

Does that mean he's explicitly in favor of open borders? I don't know, but a lot of prominent Democrats have advocated for things like decriminalizing border crossings, abolishing ICE and CBP, expanding sanctuary policies, tearing down existing border barriers, rubber-stamping asylum claims, amnesty, providing healthcare for illegal immigrants, etc...

If that's not open borders, it seems to be approaching it.

Providing health care for illegal immigrants? Oh, the horror!

you guys should pay extra taxes to give ILLEGAL immigrants the health care that they need.

It's mind blowing- this nation calls itself a Christian nation, and one of the key teachings of Jesus was to love your neighbor as yourself, and to care for the less fortunate. I don't think he ever said that only applies if they are properly documented.

[Jimako10]

It seems like the current election (just like the last election), isn't going to be so much about how much you like your nominee. It's going to be about how much you HATE the opposing nominee. I can't tell you how many times I've come across people saying "the lesser of two evils" when it came to Hillary vs Trump.

Couldn't agree more. It's truly unbelievable that when it all comes down to it, the two choices for President of the United States of America is seriously between Donald freaking Trump and Joe "Dementia" Biden. FFS. How is this even possible? The last election was just as bad, if not worse. Never underestimate the idiocy and ignorance of mainstream Americans. Come on everybody...vote! These are your choices. LOL.

hillary was WAY more hated by the opposition than biden

Everyone and their mother knew that Hillary was running again after Obama was sworn in. The GOP had an 8 year head start to trash her as much as possible along the way. That created a lot of hate on the right, but also created a lot of apathy on the left. Nobody was excited to vote for Hillary, and like I said earlier, it was more so about voting against Trump.

This time around though, I agree with you, the hate scale on Biden isn't nearly what it was with Hillary, though the GOP is trying like hell to stir that up right now. We've also had 4 years of Trump where he's created a ridiculous amount of anger and hate for at least half the country, especially now while we have a once in a lifetime pandemic that is directly affecting everyone. I would have to think the hate meter on Trump is near the max right now, or at least I hope it is, to the point where the roles are reversed from 4 years ago and that the left will come out to vote against him, while the moderate right will stay home.

[johnnyvann840]

what happened to alan colmes, by the way?

Died a couple of years ago of cancer I believe.