OT: COVID-19 thread #3

[Ben Wilson25]

If that's directed at me, I grew up in 'developed democratic socialism'. For me socialism is not just a pretty theory, my family had to live it for decades. The very early militant 'communists' threw my grandpa in a concentration camp just because he was college educated... can't have educated non-indoctrinated people running their mouths. They also nationalized (stole) everything my family had, under the barrel of a gun, on both sides of my family. Then I had to live through the decade of depression after socialism collapsed my country's economy. By the way, we also built a wall (as well as mine fields)... to keep people in.

Most people's imaginations are not big enough to even believe some of the absurdities socialism brought about in Eastern Europe over its 45 year trial run.

And communism is just an extreme version of socialism, where there is NO private property allowed. Even the Soviet communists went away from that extreme after it starved their country. Fascism, in its implementation, was not that far off from authoritarian socialism either. The only difference is fascists allowed private profits, albeit under government directives. Fascists and Nazis were also nationalist, where Soviet-style socialists and communist are by definition internationalists.

Anyways, we're not changing each others' views on a random ball forum online. Anybody should be free to believe whatever they feel like, so long as it's not hurting others.

To each their own.

It wasn’t directed at you, just an observation about these types of discussions. I don’t think the majority of conservatives OR liberals could give you an accurate definition of socialism and studies have borne that out. I just think nuance is completely absent from current discourse and there is definitely a reflex in certain quarters of the right to throw out socialism without either acknowledging the difference between pure socialism and democratic socialism or that no mainstream democratic politician that I’m aware of is anywhere near advocating pure socialism.

About the lack if discourse-- I agree. It kills me, personally, that people refuse to listen to each other.

On the nuances, I honestly tried to figure out what putting 'democratic' in front of everything changes. It still talks of state control of resources, and I don't know how 'democratic' changes that. I'm open to suggestions, but I read the entire platform, and listened to Bernie quite a bit (BTW, he is less extreme that the platform, as written) and I still can't figure out how one gets to the end point without forceful seizure or destruction of private property, which so long as there is a Constitution in the US, would be deemed illegal and immoral.

BTW, this comes from somebody who can live with single payer healthcare, even if it's not my first choice, so long as it is not half-assed, like the current system which somehow manages to get the worst of both monopolistic capitalism and socialism in a single system.

Well, this is kind of what I’m talking about with nuance. You’re spouting the US Socialist Party platform and somehow conflating it with the Democratic Party platform which is radically different.

[MrSparkle]

The scare-tactic idea of America becoming ‘socialist’ is comical. There’s 1 Bernie, a few AOC-esque House members, and otherwise a government comprised if wealthy corporatists. Any lofty plan to tax the rich by a socialist leader would be overturned by Congress and lobbyists.

[Ice Man]

The Democratic party has also become the champion of cancel culture (which I detest) and recently what I view as race-baiting for political gain.

I like large parts of your long answer above, even if I don't fully agree with those points (which I don't) they are reasonable. But not tis bit -

1) Donald Trump ejects people from his rallies simply for wearing BLM gear. And go try to present a leftish viewpoint at Liberty University. Those are only two examples -- the point being that so-called "cancel culture" is prevalent everywhere, and is far from merely a Democratic thing. Neither political side wishes to hear opposing views.

2) Donald Trump, quite literally, has settled on "if you elect the Democrats, they will let Negroes move into your suburbs" as his closing campaign theme.

[chefo]

The Democratic party has also become the champion of cancel culture (which I detest) and recently what I view as race-baiting for political gain.

I like large parts of your long answer above, even if I don't fully agree with those points (which I don't) they are reasonable. But not tis bit -

1) Donald Trump ejects people from his rallies simply for wearing BLM gear. And go try to present a leftish viewpoint at Liberty University. Those are only two examples -- the point being that so-called "cancel culture" is prevalent everywhere, and is far from merely a Democratic thing. Neither political side wishes to hear opposing views.

2) Donald Trump, quite literally, has settled on "if you elect the Democrats, they will let Negroes move into your suburbs" as his closing campaign theme.

Just to point out what I probably should have made clear--to me it's not Either OR. Just because I don't like what the Democrats are doing, it doesn't mean that I support Trump or his populism and rhetoric. Not one bit.

As a matter of fact, I hate the lack of civility he has exacerbated. Trumps treats life as though it's a reality show and wants more clicks. That works in TV and online, but is a horrible way to set an example for the nation.

[dougthonus]

I just feel that a single payer, without other reforms, will bankrupt both the 'single payer' and the hospitals in this country.

Agreed. Of course a massive amount of the cost is created just for insurance companies, so a huge part would go away, but there would need to be other reforms, which also all would likely be reasonable and make sense whether we go single payer or not.

Single payer also almost always results in a deficit of services and options.

Would be interesting to see how it would impact people, you'd have a ton of people whom can't afford anything now that would be able to afford it and get much better care and others whom can afford anything now and would get worse care. My guess is the aggregate level of care would increase though. In the end, there are only so many doctors and so much care available, so the supply of care isn't changing meaningfully, just the cost and recipients.

If people are OK with that, great. The odds are the Feds will tax me less than what I'm currently paying. I just happen to believe that if you open up the health insurance companies as federally-chartered mutuals and not as shareholder entities, and remove the middlemen between pharmacies and drug companies, and reform hospital and drug pricing, you'd get a vastly superior outcome. Simple as that.

I agree that you need these reforms. My assumption is that these reforms would be mandated as part of this plan and that once the government is paying, we would stop allowing people to price gauge in the medical field.

I also realize that all these reforms will not happen because the interested parties leech hundreds of billions from the system every year.

I think they won't come without this type of plan for the above reason.

As I wrote above--in many regards, I am as liberal as they come, because I grew up in an oppressive regime where personal freedom, the right to speak up and the opportunity to make your own choices were non-existent. I also saw how that whole experiment ended.

Where did you grow up if you don't mind me asking?

I would hate to have spent my entire adult existence trying to make something of my life, only to witness a repeat of that--and in that way, I'm very selfish and probably a quite irrational. Trends in society continue unless they are reversed. And some of current trends are cringe-worthy to me.

Our politics in the US have become so polarized that almost all trends are cringe worthy to me.

[chefo]

It wasn’t directed at you, just an observation about these types of discussions. I don’t think the majority of conservatives OR liberals could give you an accurate definition of socialism and studies have borne that out. I just think nuance is completely absent from current discourse and there is definitely a reflex in certain quarters of the right to throw out socialism without either acknowledging the difference between pure socialism and democratic socialism or that no mainstream democratic politician that I’m aware of is anywhere near advocating pure socialism.

About the lack if discourse-- I agree. It kills me, personally, that people refuse to listen to each other.

On the nuances, I honestly tried to figure out what putting 'democratic' in front of everything changes. It still talks of state control of resources, and I don't know how 'democratic' changes that. I'm open to suggestions, but I read the entire platform, and listened to Bernie quite a bit (BTW, he is less extreme that the platform, as written) and I still can't figure out how one gets to the end point without forceful seizure or destruction of private property, which so long as there is a Constitution in the US, would be deemed illegal and immoral.

BTW, this comes from somebody who can live with single payer healthcare, even if it's not my first choice, so long as it is not half-assed, like the current system which somehow manages to get the worst of both monopolistic capitalism and socialism in a single system.

Well, this is kind of what I’m talking about with nuance. You’re spouting the US Socialist Party platform and somehow conflating it with the Democratic Party platform which is radically different.

Ok, please do explain. I'm not being facetious.

I watched the Democratic primaries. Everybody in favor of the Green New Deal. Check. The person who co-sponsored it is about to be VP of this country.

The progressive 5, or whatever they're called, are straight up bullying Nanci Pelosi on most issues.

I actually read the Democratic party platform and apart from a ton of vague promises to fix everything the "Orange Man" broke, I honestly don't see how they are going to accomplish what they are promising. By the way, big portions of it read like the transcript of a Trump rally, the most fiscally irresponsible President ever--spend huge money on infrastructure, rebuild the ports, highways, airports; trade deals that favor US workers; don't touch or reform social security and Medicare, although everybody who's cleared 2nd grade math knows they're both about to be bankrupt.

Then, they also go further. Have the government supplant the energy sector, with some portions straight out of the GND. Then it's direct Federal involvement in the housing sector. Then there is government healthcare. It's more and more government, everywhere, in all aspects of life.

I'll even leave aside the idiotic idea to let Federal employees unionize, as though all the states with busted pension systems are not a huge warning about what happens when you have government employees negotiate contracts with politicians.

I mean, I understand that they want to help people, especially what they view as disadvantaged people. But seriously, is there anybody who honestly believes they can pull it off?

The Pentagon--fails it annual audit, and has misplaced trillions of $
Social Security--broke
Medicare--broke
Public state pension funds--underfunded, in their vast majority
Federal pensions and benefits--funded with future IOUs from the Federal government
Student loans--managed to put an entire generation in crushing debt in less than 15 years

Do you honestly believe that we need the government to have a major direct control of healthcare, housing, and energy?

In essence, the Democratic platform is a mixture of Trumpisms and 'Green New Deal'-lite. The jump to the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America from here is just a hop, IMO.

[Ben Wilson25]

Well, this is kind of what I’m talking about with nuance. You’re spouting the US Socialist Party platform and somehow conflating it with the Democratic Party platform which is radically different.

Ok, please do explain. I'm not being facetious.

I watched the Democratic primaries. Everybody in favor of the green new deal.

Um, except the actual nominee Joe Biden.

[quote=“chefo”]Do you honestly believe that we need the government to have a major direct control of healthcare, housing, and energy?

In essence, the Democratic platform is a mixture of Trumpisms and 'Green New Deal'-lite. The jump to the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America from here is just a hop, IMO.[/quote]

This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re taking existing policy points and extrapolating them to the extreme, not what actually exists. Sounds like you grew up in a place where things did go to the extreme so I can empathize where you are probably coming from even if I disagree.

[chefo]

Ok, please do explain. I'm not being facetious.

I watched the Democratic primaries. Everybody in favor of the green new deal.

Um, except the actual nominee Joe Biden.

[quote=“chefo”]Do you honestly believe that we need the government to have a major direct control of healthcare, housing, and energy?

In essence, the Democratic platform is a mixture of Trumpisms and 'Green New Deal'-lite. The jump to the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America from here is just a hop, IMO.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re taking existing policy points and extrapolating them to the extreme, not what actually exists. Sounds like you grew up in a place where things did go to the extreme so I can empathize where you are probably coming from even if I disagree.

If I'm understanding correctly what you're trying to say is that even if the Democrats sweep Congress and the White House, they won't actually do what they are promising? It's valid argument, albeit one with which I disagree.

I don't think they'll have much of a choice to at least try. It will be the 'progressives' who carried them to power, and they'll have to feed that dog to keep it happy.

On another note, because of a certain aspect of my work, I get to see the raw findings of very expansive studies on culture and society in the US and where said trends are headed, quite a bit before they are published and discussed both in academia and in the general public. I'm not talking these small studies that people can read about online where they asked 300 people and drew overarching conclusions from a tiny sample size with simplistic questions. I'm talking studies that can take up to half-a-decade and tens of thousands of data points to structure properly and execute.

The results of the last one, which will be discussed in a dedicated book sometime in the future, are straight up depressing when it comes to the young US demographic groups, and probably a lot of my pessimism comes from seeing them. I can't discuss in detail, even anonymously, but I'll just leave it at that--I believe that the Democratic party will be headed toward the ideas of more authoritarian socialism, not because they want to, but because their electorate will demand it of them over the next decade.

[Ben Wilson25]

If I'm understanding correctly what you're trying to say is that even if the Democrats sweep Congress and the White House, they won't actually do what they are promising? It's valid argument, albeit one with which I disagree.

I don't think they'll have much of a choice to at least try. It will be the 'progressives' who carried them to power, and they'll have to feed that dog to keep it happy.

On another note, because of a certain aspect of my work, I get to see the raw findings of very expansive studies on culture and society in the US and where said trends are headed, quite a bit before they are published and discussed both in academia and in the general public. I'm not talking these small studies that people can read about online where they asked 300 people and drew overarching conclusions from a tiny sample size with simplistic questions. I'm talking studies that can take up to half-a-decade and tens of thousands of data points to structure properly and execute.

The results of the last one, which will be discussed in a dedicated book sometime in the future, are straight up depressing when it comes to the young US demographic groups, and probably a lot of my pessimism comes from seeing them. I can't discuss in detail, even anonymously, but I'll just leave it at that--I believe that the Democratic party will be headed toward the ideas of more authoritarian socialism, not because they want to, but because their electorate will demand it of them over the next decade.

No, I’m saying you’re misrepresenting the Democratic platform.

As far as this secret study, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[dougthonus]

I don't like that the Democratic party endorses some of the utter absurdities on the BLM platform like bringing down the patriarchy and dismantling the nuclear family. I don't like that the first reaction to the violence, looting and rioting was to say it was justified.

I don't really follow politics much, but I haven't seen the democratic party endorse bringing down the nuclear family or saying looting and rioting was justified.

While I absolutely support social justice/equity for all, I don't care for the BLM organization at all for the reasons you stated (also don't agree with defunding the police).

[chefo]

If I'm understanding correctly what you're trying to say is that even if the Democrats sweep Congress and the White House, they won't actually do what they are promising? It's valid argument, albeit one with which I disagree.

I don't think they'll have much of a choice to at least try. It will be the 'progressives' who carried them to power, and they'll have to feed that dog to keep it happy.

On another note, because of a certain aspect of my work, I get to see the raw findings of very expansive studies on culture and society in the US and where said trends are headed, quite a bit before they are published and discussed both in academia and in the general public. I'm not talking these small studies that people can read about online where they asked 300 people and drew overarching conclusions from a tiny sample size with simplistic questions. I'm talking studies that can take up to half-a-decade and tens of thousands of data points to structure properly and execute.

The results of the last one, which will be discussed in a dedicated book sometime in the future, are straight up depressing when it comes to the young US demographic groups, and probably a lot of my pessimism comes from seeing them. I can't discuss in detail, even anonymously, but I'll just leave it at that--I believe that the Democratic party will be headed toward the ideas of more authoritarian socialism, not because they want to, but because their electorate will demand it of them over the next decade.

No, I’m saying you’re misrepresenting the Democratic platform.

As far as this secret study, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

No need for the mockery tone. It's not secret, it's just not published, and it's not my place to steal the authors' thunder, given that they've spent an enormous amount of work on it. Not in the newsletter business or any other media, sorry to disappoint.

As interesting as it is to discuss current affairs with you ladies and gents, that'll be my final post in this thread. Back to talking ball for me.

[PlayerUp]

The scare-tactic idea of America becoming ‘socialist’ is comical. There’s 1 Bernie, a few AOC-esque House members, and otherwise a government comprised if wealthy corporatists. Any lofty plan to tax the rich by a socialist leader would be overturned by Congress and lobbyists.

In the rare case this ever did happen and radical changes are made, it would lead to a political civil war. It's good that the bulk of us here are at least not for this radical far left movement and hopefully we can find a way to meet in the middle and bring this country back together in the months to come.

[MrSparkle]

The scare-tactic idea of America becoming ‘socialist’ is comical. There’s 1 Bernie, a few AOC-esque House members, and otherwise a government comprised if wealthy corporatists. Any lofty plan to tax the rich by a socialist leader would be overturned by Congress and lobbyists.

In the rare case this ever did happen and radical changes are made, it would lead to a political civil war. It's good that the bulk of us here are at least not for this radical far left movement and hopefully we can find a way to meet in the middle and bring this country back together in the months to come.

I think the far left movement has long been overblown. Students under 24yo all around the world are enticed by the fairness of a socialist ideology. Most eventually realize sooner or later that there is “no free lunch.” If socialism was that popular in America, Bernie would’ve had no problem winning either of the last 2 primaries, and he might’ve come close, but it didn’t happen.

Frankly, IMO, economic policy needs some regulation, because somewhere along the line, a lot of American institutions have actually fallen apart due to consolidation and monopolization.

As bad as the income disparity has become, I think the biggest problem was FCC deregulation. Our radio and TV networks were ruined by the 90s. With the internet, local newspapers were ruined. Network news and press are owned by a handful of massive centralized firms. Fox is particularly outrageously out of control with its agenda. Citizens United is out of control - they weaseled an entire pivotal SC case in their favor so that they could use fictional propaganda for political campaigning. Clear Channel is overbearing, influential and agenda driven. Its all of DC’s fault for deregulating and allowing these super monopolies take over our media and press (not just Republicans).

Homogenization of the population is what ruined one half of the two-party system. A two-party system is good when there are strong disagreements within the parties. When you have a super coalition with 3 talking points (today’s GOP - abortion, guns, illegal immigration), you have yourself a problem.

Socialists are a minority in 1 party.

[dice]

that we will pick a better leader in November.

Weakest presidential candidates in history?

Both are awful candidates. Good news is both parties likely will redeem themselves and have better candidates in 2024/2028

don't rule out the possibility that trump loses and runs again in 2024. it is, after all, his birther party now. and he's gonna be looking for ways to avoid criminal prosecution for the remainder of his time on this earth

[dice]

The scare-tactic idea of America becoming ‘socialist’ is comical. There’s 1 Bernie, a few AOC-esque House members, and otherwise a government comprised if wealthy corporatists. Any lofty plan to tax the rich by a socialist leader would be overturned by Congress and lobbyists.

yep. hell, DEMOCRATS rejected bernie in a relative landslide in favor of a guy who is pretty universally seen as a poor candidate

joe biden will cling to the meaty policy center of the democratic party. he has his entire career. that's nearly half a century. and that meaty center has only been marginally pulled to the left by the recent influx of "radicals." there is absolutely nothing radical about the democratic party as a whole. it is firmly center-left. there are scant few prominent individuals in the party who want anything beyond "scandanavian socialism" (bernie clearly would like to go further, though he has talked up the nordic model as well). so what do they have that we don't?

-highest worker union density in the world - the increasing wealth gap in the US over the past 40+ years is tied strongly to shrinking union participation
-a relatively highly taxed MARKET economy to pay for a generous welfare state
-private health insurance to supplement or compliment a government system

none of these things approach actual socialism. limited government control over industry

[dice]

About the lack if discourse-- I agree. It kills me, personally, that people refuse to listen to each other.

On the nuances, I honestly tried to figure out what putting 'democratic' in front of everything changes. It still talks of state control of resources, and I don't know how 'democratic' changes that. I'm open to suggestions, but I read the entire platform, and listened to Bernie quite a bit (BTW, he is less extreme that the platform, as written) and I still can't figure out how one gets to the end point without forceful seizure or destruction of private property, which so long as there is a Constitution in the US, would be deemed illegal and immoral.

BTW, this comes from somebody who can live with single payer healthcare, even if it's not my first choice, so long as it is not half-assed, like the current system which somehow manages to get the worst of both monopolistic capitalism and socialism in a single system.

Well, this is kind of what I’m talking about with nuance. You’re spouting the US Socialist Party platform and somehow conflating it with the Democratic Party platform which is radically different.

Ok, please do explain. I'm not being facetious.

I watched the Democratic primaries. Everybody in favor of the Green New Deal. Check. The person who co-sponsored it is about to be VP of this country.

the planet is burning to a crisp. the green new deal is hardly steeped in traditional socialism. it is in response to an existential crisis

The progressive 5, or whatever they're called, are straight up bullying Nanci Pelosi on most issues.

pelosi can't be bullied. just one example:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amid-race-card-allegations-pelosi-teaches-ocasio-cortez-math-lesson-n1029536

I actually read the Democratic party platform and apart from a ton of vague promises to fix everything the "Orange Man" broke, I honestly don't see how they are going to accomplish what they are promising. By the way, big portions of it read like the transcript of a Trump rally, the most fiscally irresponsible President ever--spend huge money on infrastructure, rebuild the ports, highways, airports; trade deals that favor US workers; don't touch or reform social security and Medicare, although everybody who's cleared 2nd grade math knows they're both about to be bankrupt.

Then, they also go further. Have the government supplant the energy sector, with some portions straight out of the GND. Then it's direct Federal involvement in the housing sector. Then there is government healthcare. It's more and more government, everywhere, in all aspects of life.

I'll even leave aside the idiotic idea to let Federal employees unionize, as though all the states with busted pension systems are not a huge warning about what happens when you have government employees negotiate contracts with politicians.

I mean, I understand that they want to help people, especially what they view as disadvantaged people. But seriously, is there anybody who honestly believes they can pull it off?

i don't think that anybody thinks that all of that can actually happen. including those espousing it. ask for $1, be thrilled with 50 cents

Social Security--broke
Medicare--broke

nonsense

both are fully funded for the next 15 years or so. in the case of social security, IF nothing changes in terms of funding (and you can bet your ass something will change if there's any looming threat of benefit cuts), there would then be a 20% benefits cut going forward

having benefits cut when a surplus is drained and costs begin to exceed income is not the picture you're painting when you say that the system is "broke"

"i don't mean to alarm you, grandma, but social security and medicare have gone broke"
"i won't be getting them anymore?!"
"well, you will for the next 15 years, but then there's a CHANCE you'll see a reduction in benefits"
"are you sure that your mother didn't sleep with the milkman? get lost, sonny"

Public state pension funds--underfunded, in their vast majority
Federal pensions and benefits--funded with future IOUs from the Federal government

issues that can be addressed with temporary tax hikes and less generous benefits going forward

and by the way, those pension issues are in large part due to the cost of private health insurance. it's not like federal and state employees are getting medicare

Student loans--managed to put an entire generation in crushing debt in less than 15 years

do you seriously believe that it's the availability of federal loans that is creating that issue? of course not. the issue is the out of control cost of higher education. sure, colleges are able to raise costs if they know that students will just borrow more money, but the same concept applies to private loans, which would be even more exploitative without a government option for students

Do you honestly believe that we need the government to have a major direct control of healthcare, housing, and energy?

health care? absolutely. the others? we certainly don't need "major direct control", but some government involvement can certainly reasonably have its place

[MrSparkle]

Well as this list of West Wing covid infected grows... get your popcorn out. Sadly I think it’s a lose-lose road, with more conspiracies and anger and tragedy coming shortly.

I do genuinely wish for their recoveries, because it’s sick to wish harm to others, but I also genuinely believe they should face dire legal consequences for their terrible practice.

I really hope that Chris Wallace and Biden are ok next week. They tested negative but there’s an incubation period. They don’t deserve this risk.

[Dresden]

The scare-tactic idea of America becoming ‘socialist’ is comical. There’s 1 Bernie, a few AOC-esque House members, and otherwise a government comprised if wealthy corporatists. Any lofty plan to tax the rich by a socialist leader would be overturned by Congress and lobbyists.

In the rare case this ever did happen and radical changes are made, it would lead to a political civil war. It's good that the bulk of us here are at least not for this radical far left movement and hopefully we can find a way to meet in the middle and bring this country back together in the months to come.

Is the "far left" really so scary? Are ideas like instituting a health system where everyone has access to care so terrible? Where the tax code gets restructured so the wealthiest 1% don't own 50% of the wealth in the country? Or where we shift the economy away from depending so heavily on fossil fuels, which we all know are limited, and are destroying the planet, to something more sustainable? Because that's what "the far left" is really pushing for. That and an end to discrimination in all it's forms.

[Dresden]

Well as this list of West Wing covid infected grows... get your popcorn out. Sadly I think it’s a lose-lose road, with more conspiracies and anger and tragedy coming shortly.

I do genuinely wish for their recoveries, because it’s sick to wish harm to others, but I also genuinely believe they should face dire legal consequences for their terrible practice.

I really hope that Chris Wallace and Biden are ok next week. They tested negative but there’s an incubation period. They don’t deserve this risk.

"The president’s infection thrust the pandemic front and center at a time when Republicans would rather be talking about Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, law enforcement or the economy as early voting is underway in most states. They include Iowa and North Carolina, states that Republicans must win to maintain their three-vote edge in the Senate.

As Trump headed to Walter Reed military hospital for quarantine, the virus seemed to spill into every corner of the party. Tests came back positive for Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien, Republican Party Chair Ronna McDaniel and for Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. One vulnerable incumbent, North Carolina's Thom Tillis, announced Friday night that he had also tested positive for the virus and that he would quarantine for 10 days at the peak of election season."

This article goes on to say that this is going to force a reckoning within the GOP- they have tied their fates to Trump and his ridiculous bravado in the face of a severe pandemic, and now the accounting is coming due. If the death of RBG was a blow to democrats with it's timing, this surely is an even more ill-timed catastrophe for the political future of the GOP.

[Ice Man]

GOP leadership acted like Rudy Gobert, mocking the idea that people should protect against the virus. Only Rudy is just a basketball player, not a political figure, and he made his mistake in March, when almost nobody in the U.S. had contracted the virus.

At least they mostly seem to have infected themselves, rather than innocent parties, but there is still additional danger from the additional infections. Plus a cost. You know how is paying for Donald Trump's treatment? Yep. We are. Our tax dollars at work, bailing out his rash decision. Which shows just how far the concept of "I don't need to follow the rules, I am a free person" extends -- it operates until that person needs help, in which case he then expects society to cover for him, just as it covers for those who did follow the rules.