Political Roundtable Part XXIX

[Zonkerbl]

I don't see what the problem is? They're social distancing, there's good ventilation, doctors have signed off on it. What's the problem?

[dckingsfan]

I don't see what the problem is? They're social distancing, there's good ventilation, doctors have signed off on it. What's the problem?

Seriously? If not, green font is your friend

[Zonkerbl]

I don't see what the problem is? They're social distancing, there's good ventilation, doctors have signed off on it. What's the problem?

Seriously? If not, green font is your friend

Seriously. I need the joke explained to me because as far as I can tell she's taking precautions like she's supposed to. What precaution is she dismissing?

[dckingsfan]

I don't see what the problem is? They're social distancing, there's good ventilation, doctors have signed off on it. What's the problem?

Seriously? If not, green font is your friend

Seriously. I need the joke explained to me because as far as I can tell she's taking precautions like she's supposed to. What precaution is she dismissing?

1) it is an indoor eating event
2) it is shared ventilation
3) it is a bunch of folks in one room with their mask off - ignoring science
4) it sets a horrible example when we are saying folks shouldn't have large gatherings for Thanksgiving (example)
5) it is dismissive - like Trump has been

So, its a bad idea not just from a COVIDIOT standpoint but an optics standpoint.

[Ruzious]

Seriously? If not, green font is your friend

Seriously. I need the joke explained to me because as far as I can tell she's taking precautions like she's supposed to. What precaution is she dismissing?

1) it is an indoor eating event
2) it is shared ventilation
3) it is a bunch of folks in one room with their mask off - ignoring science
4) it sets a horrible example when we are saying folks shouldn't have large gatherings for Thanksgiving (example)
5) it is dismissive - like Trump has been

So, its a bad idea not just from a COVIDIOT standpoint but an optics standpoint.

The 4th one is what got me - she's setting herself and other Democrats up for ridicule - while sending the wrong message.

[TGW]

After her hairdresser nonsense and this, it's clear that Pelosi is a hypocrite when it comes to the pandemic.

And Pelosi has to throw this party. Has to. The extravagant private parties, shindigs, and corporate events are the only reason she's still speaker of the house. She's the best Dem party thrower on top of her being the best at dolling out the corporate cash. It's definitely not because she's a good legislator lol.

[Zonkerbl]

You can't eat with a mask on. You're not ignoring science to eat with a mask off. If you have modern ventilation with social distancing it's fine. It's setting a great example - if you're going to have an indoor eating event, take all the precautions science recommends.

The Dem/science side of this argument is not "omg don't ever go outside again ever" It's "you can do things as long as you take precautions. Wear a mask if you can, social distance if you can, if you're indoors make sure you have good ventilation."

This is terrific messaging. They went with what their doctors recommended. Trump is the one who wants you to think there's a tradeoff between opening up and fighting covid. If you use science you can do both. If you don't use science you'll accomplish neither. *That's* the message.

[Zonkerbl]

This is what the Trump administration will be remembered for the most - its relentless pilfering of government coffers.

Most criminal administration ever.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/11/16/arctic-refuge-drilling-trump/

[dckingsfan]

You can't eat with a mask on. You're not ignoring science to eat with a mask off. If you have modern ventilation with social distancing it's fine. It's setting a great example - if you're going to have an indoor eating event, take all the precautions science recommends.

The Dem/science side of this argument is not "omg don't ever go outside again ever" It's "you can do things as long as you take precautions. Wear a mask if you can, social distance if you can, if you're indoors make sure you have good ventilation."

This is terrific messaging. They went with what their doctors recommended. Trump is the one who wants you to think there's a tradeoff between opening up and fighting covid. If you use science you can do both. If you don't use science you'll accomplish neither. *That's* the message.

What we know. Restaurants and bars are really good superspreader event possibilities. Why? Because they are indoors and are generally not short events. This is no different even if you have a hospital grade ventilation system (which I doubt).

That isn't a don't go outside statement. It is a "if you eat in indoor restaurants you are putting yourself at risk" statement. You are helping propagate the virus. Are they going to sit one to a table 30' from each other, of course not.

The proper thing to have done is have a mask only event with no dining. Well, if they wanted to send the right message. And not be hypocritical.

[Zonkerbl]

I am driving to Ohio to see my Moms for Thanksgiving, who apparently had a mild heart attack recently. Got a covid test today, will get the results in 3-4 days. Will bring lots of freshly cleaned masks with me, and a gallon of hand sanitizer. Will also get to see my sister and her kids and maybe my dad if his psycho girlfriend will let me.

[doclinkin]

I am driving to Ohio to see my Moms for Thanksgiving, who apparently had a mild heart attack recently. Got a covid test today, will get the results in 3-4 days. Will bring lots of freshly cleaned masks with me, and a gallon of hand sanitizer. Will also get to see my sister and her kids and maybe my dad if his psycho girlfriend will let me.

Bring a portable pee jug sorta thing for the drive as well. I got to figure roadside bathrooms are superspreaders on their own.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Ruzious]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

This is one of the few articles out there that I believe in the writer. It's time for Trump and Graham to go down - they crossed a line in the sand.

[dobrojim]

well regardless of the imperfections of the Dems, and there are plenty, they're
not the Pubs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/16/republican-party-is-much-worse-off-than-we-thought/

The 2020 election aftermath reveals that on one side of the party stands a handful of conservatives and moderates who willingly recognize objective reality. They defend democracy and the sanctity of elections. They believe Republicans’ grievances are heartfelt and reasonable, amenable to rational solutions. They think of government as a defender of liberty, which is one side of a transactional relationship with its citizens. By its very nature, conservatism imagines that government does not subsume civil society nor define one’s identity. Their diagnosis of America’s ills might be off-base and even tone-deaf, neglecting the legacy of racism and clinging to the fallacy of supply-side economics, but these are well-meaning and generally sincere figures.

However, the election reveals that a far greater number of Republican elected officials, the right-wing media, a good number of previously respectable think tanks and millions of Americans are no longer willing to operate within the confines of democracy, which demands recognition of easily ascertained facts. They seem to think of politics as either cynical entertainment or group therapy, in which the leaders and their media consorts orchestrate rage, resentment and paranoia. Politics is about identity, mostly negative (not socialist, not multiracial, not secular), and hence about their followers’ survival.

more good stuff in the link but I didn't want to quote too much. For someone who was a pretty
staunch conservative a decade ago, I really appreciate her writings in opposition to tRump and
tRumpism.

[Pointgod]

well regardless of the imperfections of the Dems, and there are plenty, they're
not the Pubs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/16/republican-party-is-much-worse-off-than-we-thought/

The 2020 election aftermath reveals that on one side of the party stands a handful of conservatives and moderates who willingly recognize objective reality. They defend democracy and the sanctity of elections. They believe Republicans’ grievances are heartfelt and reasonable, amenable to rational solutions. They think of government as a defender of liberty, which is one side of a transactional relationship with its citizens. By its very nature, conservatism imagines that government does not subsume civil society nor define one’s identity. Their diagnosis of America’s ills might be off-base and even tone-deaf, neglecting the legacy of racism and clinging to the fallacy of supply-side economics, but these are well-meaning and generally sincere figures.

However, the election reveals that a far greater number of Republican elected officials, the right-wing media, a good number of previously respectable think tanks and millions of Americans are no longer willing to operate within the confines of democracy, which demands recognition of easily ascertained facts. They seem to think of politics as either cynical entertainment or group therapy, in which the leaders and their media consorts orchestrate rage, resentment and paranoia. Politics is about identity, mostly negative (not socialist, not multiracial, not secular), and hence about their followers’ survival.

more good stuff in the link but I didn't want to quote too much. For someone who was a pretty
staunch conservative a decade ago, I really appreciate her writings in opposition to tRump and
tRumpism.

I knew it was Rubin before I opened the linked lol. David Frum predicted this over 2 years ago. This was inevitable for anyone who’s been paying attention:

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

well regardless of the imperfections of the Dems, and there are plenty, they're
not the Pubs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/16/republican-party-is-much-worse-off-than-we-thought/

The 2020 election aftermath reveals that on one side of the party stands a handful of conservatives and moderates who willingly recognize objective reality. They defend democracy and the sanctity of elections. They believe Republicans’ grievances are heartfelt and reasonable, amenable to rational solutions. They think of government as a defender of liberty, which is one side of a transactional relationship with its citizens. By its very nature, conservatism imagines that government does not subsume civil society nor define one’s identity. Their diagnosis of America’s ills might be off-base and even tone-deaf, neglecting the legacy of racism and clinging to the fallacy of supply-side economics, but these are well-meaning and generally sincere figures.

However, the election reveals that a far greater number of Republican elected officials, the right-wing media, a good number of previously respectable think tanks and millions of Americans are no longer willing to operate within the confines of democracy, which demands recognition of easily ascertained facts. They seem to think of politics as either cynical entertainment or group therapy, in which the leaders and their media consorts orchestrate rage, resentment and paranoia. Politics is about identity, mostly negative (not socialist, not multiracial, not secular), and hence about their followers’ survival.

more good stuff in the link but I didn't want to quote too much. For someone who was a pretty
staunch conservative a decade ago, I really appreciate her writings in opposition to tRump and
tRumpism.

Whoever's the next AG should prioritize investigating the real election abuses. Republicans like Trump and Graham have mastered the art of getting people to do their bidding without actually giving them direct orders - but they're implied. That's gotta stop. And the only way to stop it is to prosecute it.

There also needs to be far greater penalties for frivolous lawsuits such as the one's by Trump. I know of some federal courts that have a maximum penalty of $10,000. That's far too low. The courts themselves charge that. Have a much larger penalty that's imposed federally - but not necessarily by the court itself - perhaps by the GAO or GSA. And also penalize the lawyers that bring those cases to court.

[doclinkin]

Governor Hogan being a grown up. Seeing an uptick, he puts some reasonable restrictions on bars and restaurants: closed after 10 pm since stats show people behave less responsibly the later it gets. Cancels in person attendance to sporting events. All businesses cut back again to 50% capacity. Leans on the science and statistics, and says don't cave to stupidity of facebook memes and people shouting "fake news" about something that already has killed more Marylanders than car accidents, the flu, and cancer combined in a year. That's what a responsible republican looks like.

[dobrojim]

[snip]

Whoever's the next AG should prioritize investigating the real election abuses. Republicans like Trump and Graham have mastered the art of getting people to do their bidding without actually giving them direct orders - but they're implied. That's gotta stop. And the only way to stop it is to prosecute it.

There also needs to be far greater penalties for frivolous lawsuits such as the one's by Trump. I know of some federal courts that have a maximum penalty of $10,000. That's far too low. The courts themselves charge that. Have a much larger penalty that's imposed federally - but not necessarily by the court itself - perhaps by the GAO or GSA. And also penalize the lawyers that bring those cases to court.

Or perhaps the rampant criminality of the last 4 years, and previously in Golfy McBonespurs case as well.

I've not read this yet but am much interested. I felt that Obama and Holder's decision to let bygones
be bygones in 2009 was a big mistake. Crimes are crimes, assuming a jury agrees which could be
a significant problem, jury nullification that is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/magazine/trump-investigations-criminal-prosecutions.html

long read. Interesting and I would say balanced.

here's the concluding paragraph of the piece.

In that sense, the problem that Trump poses for Biden may also present an opportunity, a chance to repair more than just the damage of the last four years. To begin with, this may require recognizing that when a president brazenly flouts the law, electoral defeat might not be enough of a punishment. “There’s a mind-set that we need to reset,” Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas, told me. “Breaking the law is not a political difference.” It might also require recognizing that to really move on from Trump, “healing” may have to mean something fundamentally different from what it has in the past — and that without accountability, it may in fact be impossible.

[pancakes3]

biden and leading dems have already signalled that they don't want to investigate Trump as an olive branch to the Right, which is just dumb.

[dobrojim]

at a minimum they ought to have a Truth commission and reform (in the
laws governing presidential conduct) investigation.

tRump has shown that there is far too much room for a nefarious person to do damage.