Political Roundtable Part XXVIII

[doclinkin]

This! There are approximate 16M healthcare workers alone that need to be tested weekly (at a minimum, my guess is 2x/wk).

They missed the math class. We aren't even close to those numbers now. He wants to get to 35M/wk. But even that doesn't get us there.

This is both depressing and fascinating in terms of macro economics. It's all about who pays for it, basically, and the fight is on and most people don't seem to be aware of it. Right now the push is on for the costs to be disproportionately borne by the poorer economic demographics, and it sure seems to me like the idea is to honestly increase those costs so long as the poorer economic demographics are the ones paying for them.

Hair, nails, tattoo parlors and bowling alleys.

A friend forwarded a message from a friend of hers who lives in Georgia. She called up the Governors mansion asking for a tour. It's a public building, and if things are opening up then hey. Naturally the woman on the other end was aghast: "We aren't giving tours because of the virus" "But the governor says it's safe for me to get my nails done, so why not? Can you put him on the line to explain?" The lady on the other end got very angry and hung up.

[dckingsfan]

This! There are approximate 16M healthcare workers alone that need to be tested weekly (at a minimum, my guess is 2x/wk).

They missed the math class. We aren't even close to those numbers now. He wants to get to 35M/wk. But even that doesn't get us there.

This is both depressing and fascinating in terms of macro economics. It's all about who pays for it, basically, and the fight is on and most people don't seem to be aware of it. Right now the push is on for the costs to be disproportionately borne by the poorer economic demographics, and it sure seems to me like the idea is to honestly increase those costs so long as the poorer economic demographics are the ones paying for them.

I missed this - how is that being done?

[I_Like_Dirt]

I see costs beyond immediately financial. If it's average citizens going out there getting sick and dying, that's paying a cost. To say nothing of who is paying insurance. More money for corporate bailouts without oversight than for actual people. This can go multiple ways at the same time as the scales shift from side to side. I suspect vulture capitalists are licking their chops about now.

If this winds up shifting towards M4A or UBI and regulatory enforcement for environmental/labor/etc. practices then suddenly the costs shift towards wealthier demographics. Where is the balance of power? If you look around the world at what's happening, you get a pretty clear picture of how that balance is struck in any given country and the countries suffering the most are the ones where it's most out of line.

[pancakes3]

I'm wondering if there's a way to drum up enough #NeverBiden support to force the DNC to nom Bernie.

I don't even know where to start.

[DCZards]

I'm wondering if there's a way to drum up enough #NeverBiden support to force the DNC to nom Bernie.

I don't even know where to start.

That ain’t happening. Bernie couldn’t win it at the polls and no amount of #NeverBiden momentum is going to result in him being the nominee.

If Biden is not the nominee for some reason, most Dems I speak to would want to draft Gov. Cuomo.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I'm wondering if there's a way to drum up enough #NeverBiden support to force the DNC to nom Bernie.

I don't even know where to start.

There isn't. Biden has te target on his back now. Once Bernie's name comes into the equation, there aren't enough people who actually want him to win more than Biden even now. The "never Biden" chance was always a lower held by Bernie and his supporters. They chose to ignore it and instead brand everyone else as the enemy and now they have Biden and are going to have to live with it.

The sad part of it all is that it's that very inflexibility that makes Bernie a non-starter for any but his actual supporters. If he showed more flexibility over the decades, he'd have been way better positioned to actually win but he also wouldn't be able to take on that inflexibility of his supprters. They seem to be starting to become more flexible now, but largely only to the point of things that won't actually happen rather than taking what they can change and instead watching it slowly slip away.

I'm so glad a lot of the younger progressives seem to be learning a bit from Warren now. Once Bernie is done, we may actually see a legitimate chance of a unified progressive movement within the Democratic Party (i.e. one that has a chance of actually winning elections and making significant positive change. Hopefully it doesn't cannibalize itself. The environment will be ripe after all these current political cut and run shenanigans.

[Ruzious]

I'm wondering if there's a way to drum up enough #NeverBiden support to force the DNC to nom Bernie.

I don't even know where to start.

That ain’t happening. Bernie couldn’t win it at the polls and no amount of #NeverBiden momentum is going to result in him being the nominee.

If Biden is not the nominee for some reason, most Dems I speak to would want to draft Gov. Cuomo.

How about both parties agree to a compromise and go with Hogan. Seriously, who would be unhappy with Hogan? The guy even wins in Maryland!

[pancakes3]

i'd rather hogan than biden outright.

[dobrojim]

If there was a plausible movement to draft someone other than Biden...

Cuomo,
Inslee (also did a favorable job in response to COVID),
Warren (my fav in the primary but not confident she would win and don't understand why she floundered).

But it ain't happening so I'm not sure why I'm musing about it.

I just hope Biden only serves one term and hands it off to someone younger and more progressive.

[pancakes3]

i'm just wondering why collectively we know "it ain't happening."

is our democracy a sham or are we just lazy?

[I_Like_Dirt]

i'd rather hogan than biden outright.

I think the idea should really be to push Biden more info figurehead status. He's far more moveable on the issues than he gets credit for as evidenced by all that old stuff that can be dug up on him. He can be president but get him to agree to a bunch of progressive advisors and such. Weird as it feels, Biden may be the best person to win this thing so don't fight that battle and help him do it while instead finding a different battle and get him to go along with it. And I don't mean get him to immediately support a bunc of progressive positions; that's actively campaigning against him, too. It's time to Trojan Horse this thing.

You mention lazy, I'd suggest that applies even more to those looking to brute force their candidate in by any means necessary but aren't willing to try to achieve their stated goals through other means that require more active and consistent participation.

[dobrojim]

i'm just wondering why collectively we know "it ain't happening."

is our democracy a sham or are we just lazy?

Do I really *know* it ain't happening? No.

As much as Dems know and wish perhaps they had known more about this story in January,
barring pretty clear cut evidence that confirms Reade's allegation, to force a change now
(they believe) would be more damaging to their chances. That's just my opinion. My other opinion is
that when people, women especially think about Biden, rapist probably isn't the first
thing that comes in their head, unless they already had a negative opinion of him.

I don't think our democracy is a sham based on this. There are sham like
aspects of it. But yeah, a lot of Americans are lazy as far as being informed.
They are often willfully lazy especially in regards to information that challenges
already held beliefs.

[DCZards]

i'm just wondering why collectively we know "it ain't happening."

is our democracy a sham or are we just lazy?

Seems to me democracy has spoken. Dems went to the polls and, for the most part, overwhelmingly chose Biden over Bernie as their party's nominee. A #NeverBiden petition of some sort that's designed to push Joe out in favor of Sanders would be undemocratic...and a sham.

[dckingsfan]

i'm just wondering why collectively we know "it ain't happening."

is our democracy a sham or are we just lazy?

Seems to me democracy has spoken. Dems went to the polls and, for the most part, overwhelmingly chose Biden over Bernie as their party's nominee. A #NeverBiden petition of some sort that's designed to push Joe out in favor of Sanders would be undemocratic...and a sham.

To me the winner is Biden. So, if we are going to change horses it should be decided at a contested convention. Everyone is back in play. It shouldn't be Bernie if Biden steps down. It should be whoever the Ds nominate at the caucus (and Bernie would be in play as well.

One more thing. The Ds should set-up a #metoo rule for all national candidates - a vetting if you want to run and have the D stamp on the ballot. #metoo is new - Biden should be considered a grandfathered exception (damn, he is old enough for that) not the rule.

Okay, two more things on this - I sure hope that the Ds have a fallback plan on this...

[I_Like_Dirt]

One more thing. The Ds should set-up a #metoo rule for all national candidates - a vetting if you want to run and have the D stamp on the ballot. #metoo is new - Biden should be considered a grandfathered exception (damn, he is old enough for that) not the rule.

I find it weird that something like that should require a rule. Fair or not, Democrats have their own issues with misogyny but they skate by since they clear the inordinately low bar set by the Republicans. Bernie took his fair share of criticism on that front, in large part owing to the supporters he chose to embrace and I'd suggest a significant amount of that is legitimate. Biden has his own issues and they're pretty obvious. The reality is, though, that Democrats found their way to narrowing the race down to the oldest, heterosexualest, malest and whitest candidates of the lot. Beto is probably feeling left out but I guess he's too young, plus he skateboards. This isn't awful or anything. Both Biden and Bernie have their positive qualities. Neither of them were the strongest candidates in terms of actually doing the president's job but they might be the "most electable" - particularly Biden - and we all know that line covers all manner of sins. Hillary was hated because... of a lot of made up excuses, really but really, on average, men weren't interested in voting for a woman. They won't say it out loud, and they might even believe that's not true, but the bias was loud and clear and plain as day when put together collectively. Women turned out for Hillary but men weren't nearly so reliable and itw as just enough to allow racism to win out.

So to make a #metoo rule official, I actually think you're going to turn off a lot of voters who can't quite explain why, but feel like they're being belittled by being forced to vote in any particular way. What really needs to happen is voters need to wake up and start consistently voting for those kinds of candidates. Canada and the US like to frame themselves as leaders for women's rights but they're two of the worst when it comes to actually electing women as heads of state. Technically Canada had one for a month or two but she wasn't elected and lost in a landslide election that drowned her party for quite some time afterwards shortly after being appointed.

[dckingsfan]

One more thing. The Ds should set-up a #metoo rule for all national candidates - a vetting if you want to run and have the D stamp on the ballot. #metoo is new - Biden should be considered a grandfathered exception (damn, he is old enough for that) not the rule.

I find it weird that something like that should require a rule. Fair or not, Democrats have their own issues with misogyny but they skate by since they clear the inordinately low bar set by the Republicans. Bernie took his fair share of criticism on that front, in large part owing to the supporters he chose to embrace and I'd suggest a significant amount of that is legitimate. Biden has his own issues and they're pretty obvious. The reality is, though, that Democrats found their way to narrowing the race down to the oldest, heterosexualest, malest and whitest candidates of the lot. Beto is probably feeling left out but I guess he's too young, plus he skateboards. This isn't awful or anything. Both Biden and Bernie have their positive qualities. Neither of them were the strongest candidates in terms of actually doing the president's job but they might be the "most electable" - particularly Biden - and we all know that line covers all manner of sins. Hillary was hated because... of a lot of made up excuses, really but really, on average, men weren't interested in voting for a woman. They won't say it out loud, and they might even believe that's not true, but the bias was loud and clear and plain as day when put together collectively. Women turned out for Hillary but men weren't nearly so reliable and itw as just enough to allow racism to win out.

So to make a #metoo rule official, I actually think you're going to turn off a lot of voters who can't quite explain why, but feel like they're being belittled by being forced to vote in any particular way. What really needs to happen is voters need to wake up and start consistently voting for those kinds of candidates. Canada and the US like to frame themselves as leaders for women's rights but they're two of the worst when it comes to actually electing women as heads of state. Technically Canada had one for a month or two but she wasn't elected and lost in a landslide election that drowned her party for quite some time afterwards shortly after being appointed.

Why not both? Support women's candidates and have #metoo vetting? And reminder, the Ds and Biden were the ones supporting Title IX.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[queridiculo]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

It's worth checking out the entire segment.

Refreshing to see somebody attempt to put partisanship aside to deal with this issue.

Pure lunacy what's going on here, the lack of leadership from the white house is appalling.

[Ruzious]

Replying to @AP

"During one of the April 2019 interviews with the AP... She said of Biden: 'I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.'" This statement is incompatible with her current allegation of sexual assault.

So... Fox was ready to go on the air without doing any due diligence. An entire year ago, AP concluded her story was complete bullshyt.