• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

JO_75

Hall of Famer
are you suggesting that the only thing stopping the pandemic ending in the USA is the lack of a stimulus package?

No, I'm saying the only thing stopping the pandemic ending in the USA is the government wanting to use it as a political weapon for votes during an election year. I'm frustrated with both parties for going about this the way they have, sure the democrats are to blame for delaying the stimulus checks but the way both parties have handled this is ridiculous. They should have never passed the first bill of the stimulus package without it being a bill that covered 2-4 months of checks going to the American people. You wouldn't need a second bill, or a third bill, or a fourth bill.

Also the Democrats are trying to use this second stimulus package to BAN VOTER ID in every state, BAN SIGNATURE VERIFICATION. They also want UNIVERSAL MAIL IN VOTING for every state, checks would go out to illegal citizens in the US. Mass release of illegals from detention. They talk about Russia interfering and collusion but yet all those things lead to um.... ELECTION INTERFERENCE. The thing they have been crying about for 4 years, now it's ok for them to do it but not Trump. The Democrats motto is, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."
 
Last edited:

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
No, I'm saying the only thing stopping the pandemic ending in the USA is the government wanting to use it as a political weapon for votes during an election year. I'm frustrated with both parties for going about this the way they have, sure the democrats are to blame for delaying the stimulus checks but the way both parties have handled this is ridiculous. They should have never passed the first bill of the stimulus package without it being a bill that covered 2-4 months of checks going to the American people. You wouldn't need a second bill, or a third bill, or a fourth bill.

Also the Democrats are trying to use this second stimulus package to BAN VOTER ID in every state, BAN SIGNATURE VERIFICATION. They also want UNIVERSAL MAIL IN VOTING for every state, checks would go out to illegal citizens in the US. Mass release of illegals from detention. They talk about Russia interfering and collusion but yet all those things lead to um.... ELECTION INTERFERENCE. The thing they have been crying about for 4 years, now it's ok for them to do it but not Trump. The Democrats motto is, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."

just so you are aware - voter id (beyond name and address) are not required in many other countries and dont lead to rife electoral fraud because the punishment for electoral fraud is so massively punitive (for that very reason)

while it's odd to put those things into a stimulus package - that's probably the only way to get republicans to even cede anything with regards to voter laws (in a pandemic)

in a pandemic universal mail in voting should be the standard option

and again in a pandemic - it's bad to have anyone in enclosed spaces with each other - detaining illegal immigrants simply because they entered a country via non-legal means doesnt mean they are dangerous criminals who shouldnt be able to escape a pandemic - that's a health and safety issue for fellow human beings that's been completely ignored until now
 

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
No, I'm saying the only thing stopping the pandemic ending in the USA is the government wanting to use it as a political weapon for votes during an election year. I'm frustrated with both parties for going about this the way they have, sure the democrats are to blame for delaying the stimulus checks but the way both parties have handled this is ridiculous. They should have never passed the first bill of the stimulus package without it being a bill that covered 2-4 months of checks going to the American people. You wouldn't need a second bill, or a third bill, or a fourth bill.

Also the Democrats are trying to use this second stimulus package to BAN VOTER ID in every state, BAN SIGNATURE VERIFICATION. They also want UNIVERSAL MAIL IN VOTING for every state, checks would go out to illegal citizens in the US. Mass release of illegals from detention. They talk about Russia interfering and collusion but yet all those things lead to um.... ELECTION INTERFERENCE. The thing they have been crying about for 4 years, now it's ok for them to do it but not Trump. The Democrats motto is, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."

Not only that but they want to bail out blue states that have fallen into deep debt thru bad management to fund pensions. No way Jose!!

Only way I would possibly buy on to mail in is if the ballot was postmarked at least 5 days before election day and received with sig verification. The Dems want it postmarked day of Election day which means you wont find out for several days which makes it ripe for fraud. Hell a postmark could be fraudently made ferchrissakes. If you request an absentee ballot it is fine by me cuz you're willfully giving your information which is the ONLY precedent there is coming to mail in voting. Never has there been millions of ballots mailed out willy nilly. Only a fool would think there's not going to be any problems. Just look at the primaries and look at all the issues that have already happened. The chain of command IS NOT secure.

The first corona package had additional pork from the democrats and now they're trying to do the same thing again and then they gonna say "Look at the debt being driven up by the president". Same problem I had with the tax cut package when they snuck Anwar into it. This should only be a coronavirus package

Also your last sentence is so spot on.
 

Sami84

Ravens Ring of Honor
bad comedy
 

Attachments

  • badcomedy.jpg
    badcomedy.jpg
    73.4 KB · Views: 222

JoeyFlex5

Hall of Famer
just so you are aware - voter id (beyond name and address) are not required in many other countries and dont lead to rife electoral fraud because the punishment for electoral fraud is so massively punitive (for that very reason)

while it's odd to put those things into a stimulus package - that's probably the only way to get republicans to even cede anything with regards to voter laws (in a pandemic)

in a pandemic universal mail in voting should be the standard option

and again in a pandemic - it's bad to have anyone in enclosed spaces with each other - detaining illegal immigrants simply because they entered a country via non-legal means doesnt mean they are dangerous criminals who shouldnt be able to escape a pandemic - that's a health and safety issue for fellow human beings that's been completely ignored until now
You have to understand the difference between the US and literally every other sovereign nation in the world when it comes to this issue... no other country has immigrants pouring over their borders undocumented the way the US has had for decades, and the relationship between the Democratic Party and these same immigrants is an extremely immoral one and is a pandering-for-votes relationship.

Note that every democrat president wanted to be hard and tough on illegal immigration, until 2016 when the democrats were all out of viable candidates and they brought out desperate tactics to grab votes. They are doing everything in their power to get votes from undocumented people living in the US, people who pay no income tax, people who are voting despite being at risk of being sent home any day leaving a huge swath of votes unrepresented.

I had to discuss the sinister truth behind “affordable housing” to someone who isn’t from the US and doesn’t understand how harmful it’s current iteration is to society. Mail in voting and lack of voter id for the us specifically is extremely troubling. Votes were being counted from dead people in 2016, all for one side of ballot, can you guess which side? If anybody in DC suggests something that sounds great and common sense and charitable or whatever, just assume it’s the complete opposite and a totally fucked idea, because it is, literally always. US politicians are quite different it seems from politicians anywhere else. Nothing should be taken at face value because they’ve proven time and time again that they deserve to have every claim researched because they’re sinister fucks, both sides, however at the moment, the democrats are aiming to rig the elections with mail in voting and it’s incredibly obvious

It’s very simple at this point, Joe Biden is an unmitigated disaster, the single worst presidential candidate there’s ever been, even dem voters acknowledge this, nothing the democrat party is doing at the moment is for any reason other than “were fucked, we can’t win with this senile idiot, we gotta find a way to rig this” and it’s hilarious considering they’ve spent 4 years and hundreds of millions in taxpayers dollars investigating a complete fallacy of trumps election interference.

this election is at VERY high stake of being massively interfered with to the point of it being entirely invalid.
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
You have to understand the difference between the US and literally every other sovereign nation in the world when it comes to this issue... no other country has immigrants pouring over their borders undocumented the way the US has had for decades, and the relationship between the Democratic Party and these same immigrants is an extremely immoral one and is a pandering-for-votes relationship.

Note that every democrat president wanted to be hard and tough on illegal immigration, until 2016 when the democrats were all out of viable candidates and they brought out desperate tactics to grab votes. They are doing everything in their power to get votes from undocumented people living in the US, people who pay no income tax, people who are voting despite being at risk of being sent home any day leaving a huge swath of votes unrepresented.

I had to discuss the sinister truth behind “affordable housing” to someone who isn’t from the US and doesn’t understand how harmful it’s current iteration is to society. Mail in voting and lack of voter id for the us specifically is extremely troubling. Votes were being counted from dead people in 2016, all for one side of ballot, can you guess which side? If anybody in DC suggests something that sounds great and common sense and charitable or whatever, just assume it’s the complete opposite and a totally fucked idea, because it is, literally always. US politicians are quite different it seems from politicians anywhere else. Nothing should be taken at face value because they’ve proven time and time again that they deserve to have every claim researched because they’re sinister fucks, both sides, however at the moment, the democrats are aiming to rig the elections with mail in voting and it’s incredibly obvious

It’s very simple at this point, Joe Biden is an unmitigated disaster, the single worst presidential candidate there’s ever been, even dem voters acknowledge this, nothing the democrat party is doing at the moment is for any reason other than “were fucked, we can’t win with this senile idiot, we gotta find a way to rig this” and it’s hilarious considering they’ve spent 4 years and hundreds of millions in taxpayers dollars investigating a complete fallacy of trumps election interference.

this election is at VERY high stake of being massively interfered with to the point of it being entirely invalid.

why would the democrats do that given that those undocumented immigrants cannot actually vote (and voting fraud stats say they dont either...)
and it's pretty naive of you to assume the US is the only country that has a flow of illegal immigrants into their territories - it's been one of the most contentious issues throughout Europe (and the UK) for decades

immigrants are always the scapegoats in discussions like these especially when they make up a very small minority of the population

i literally see no evidence of the democrats aiming to 'rig' elections with mail in voting
statistically the more people who vote the more likely it is the democrats win
statistically the majority of people who vote by mail vote for the democrats

that's why the democrats want people to have access to votes (including mail-in voting) because those voters are more likely to vote democrat - it's as simple as that - there's no higher conspiracy it's just about getting out the vote

and with regards to trump's election interference let's not forget that the Mueller report did conclude and find evidence of russian intervention in the 2016 election, what he did not find was evidence that the Trump campaign deliberately solicited it - but did find evidence they welcomed the interference because it was likely to help them (that's not to say trump wouldnt win without russian interference because its hard to understand what effect that interference had but it is undeniable that the interference happened and it's wild that AG Barr buried the report and took no further action)

and with regards to the election already being interfered with - it is being interfered with already by the republican dismantling of the USPS to stymy the mail-in vote during a pandemic when people are less inclined to vote in person, not to mention the deliberate voter suppression techniques that have been used by the republicans in multiple states in 2016 and the 2018 mid-terms especially in Georgia and Florida but not limited to those 2 places (techniques like reducing polling stations in low-income areas, gerrymandering districts to reduce the value of votes in democrat leaning areas, unregistering voters, tampering with voting machines, not allowing paper ballots etc. etc.)

the idea that the democrats are attempting to rig this election is dumbfounding given the evidence that's actually in front of you all
 

JO_75

Hall of Famer
Trump announced earlier in the week that he helped negotiate a peace treaty in the middle east between Israel & UAE.

This is the second peace treaty he has overseen as President especially one as big as the middle east. If Trump was just a negotiator for the US, he'd be fine in that role.

I like how in one of Biden's ads, they say Trump didn't act on the virus but yet he and all the democrats called Trump xenophobic for banning travel, which was acting on the virus. Nationwide mask mandate? So the states that didn't require a shutdown, didn't close down businesses and kept the virus under control have to do it? The lockdown was an overreaction to the virus, plain and simple.
 

Ellicottraven

Ravens Ring of Honor
Trump announced earlier in the week that he helped negotiate a peace treaty in the middle east between Israel & UAE.

This is the second peace treaty he has overseen as President especially one as big as the middle east. If Trump was just a negotiator for the US, he'd be fine in that role.

I like how in one of Biden's ads, they say Trump didn't act on the virus but yet he and all the democrats called Trump xenophobic for banning travel, which was acting on the virus. Nationwide mask mandate? So the states that didn't require a shutdown, didn't close down businesses and kept the virus under control have to do it? The lockdown was an overreaction to the virus, plain and simple.
165K dead and counting... are you serious @JO_75? Are we so tone deaf that our politics compels us to ignore facts staring us in the face? How do you account for the incessant lying by our President? Who lies so much and for what? Unless it is meant to deceive. I have voted Republican many times in the past. I voted for McCain against my better judgment regarding his VP choice. I did vote for Obama the second time, but seriously where is that conservative Republican party today? Gone! It's been co-opted by ultra right wing forces that see nothing but race and color. This is getting to the point where we are basically 2 distinct countries within one and that wasn't Trump's doing surely, but one that he accelerated to the point of no return it seems like. We're all Americans and would die for it I'm sure. But, this vitriol is uncalled for. Let's call a spade a spade and understand that it isn't about politics anymore. It is about one thousand dying Americans every single day, everyone of those preventable with competent governance. Trump is a cancer to America, a malignant one, that's damaging vital organs like the Constitution, equality of all Americans with an unConstitutional police rule and frivolous Executive orders like churning out fries from McDonalds!
 

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
why would the democrats do that given that those undocumented immigrants cannot actually vote (and voting fraud stats say they dont either...)
and it's pretty naive of you to assume the US is the only country that has a flow of illegal immigrants into their territories - it's been one of the most contentious issues throughout Europe (and the UK) for decades

immigrants are always the scapegoats in discussions like these especially when they make up a very small minority of the population

i literally see no evidence of the democrats aiming to 'rig' elections with mail in voting
statistically the more people who vote the more likely it is the democrats win
statistically the majority of people who vote by mail vote for the democrats

that's why the democrats want people to have access to votes (including mail-in voting) because those voters are more likely to vote democrat - it's as simple as that - there's no higher conspiracy it's just about getting out the vote

and with regards to trump's election interference let's not forget that the Mueller report did conclude and find evidence of russian intervention in the 2016 election, what he did not find was evidence that the Trump campaign deliberately solicited it - but did find evidence they welcomed the interference because it was likely to help them (that's not to say trump wouldnt win without russian interference because its hard to understand what effect that interference had but it is undeniable that the interference happened and it's wild that AG Barr buried the report and took no further action)

and with regards to the election already being interfered with - it is being interfered with already by the republican dismantling of the USPS to stymy the mail-in vote during a pandemic when people are less inclined to vote in person, not to mention the deliberate voter suppression techniques that have been used by the republicans in multiple states in 2016 and the 2018 mid-terms especially in Georgia and Florida but not limited to those 2 places (techniques like reducing polling stations in low-income areas, gerrymandering districts to reduce the value of votes in democrat leaning areas, unregistering voters, tampering with voting machines, not allowing paper ballots etc. etc.)

the idea that the democrats are attempting to rig this election is dumbfounding given the evidence that's actually in front of you all

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-costs.aspx

The stuff you're saying is about half crazy. The above link tells you exactly how state elections are run. It clearly shows the counties and local municipalities run the elections and I can see by your post you clearly think the state does when it comes to the polling stations especially when you say this (techniques like reducing polling stations in low-income areas, gerrymandering districts to reduce the value of votes in democrat leaning areas, unregistering voters, tampering with voting machines, not allowing paper ballots etc. etc.). With all due respect make sure you read the link.

Other stuff. Russia always interferes in our elections. Whats new? But to say its been proven "he welcomed it" is false. You gotta learn sarcasm.

As for mail in voting. We gotta dem houserep wanting people out en masse to protest the USPS situation. So I'm looking at this as you can protest but I'm too scared to go out and vote. Really!?! You gotta be kidding. So much things you can do. Buy groceries. Clothes. Beer. Come on man. These voting places will be so sanitized with all kinds of social distancing rules and mask wearing the shit will be sparkling like a Mr Clean commercial. Also it would be mostly rural areas that would be effected by lack of mail in and they generally vote red. They got further to travel and lack of public transport. What kind of guarantees are you gonna get with voter intimidation? In a voting booth you have no idea who anybody is voting for. Talk about voter suppression. People can be forced to vote a certain way. Dont think that cant happen cuz it can. What if a wife wants to vote a certain way but her husband is giving her a look. Know what I'm saying. Not only all this but you have early voting and can ask for absentee balloting to alleviate any long lines. I know in Georgia and here in MD they send all this information to ALL registered voters. If a voter chooses to wait until election day whose fault is that?

Also we have another problem. The Lettercarriers Union just endorsed Biden. Now we're supposed to trust them with ballots?
 

rmcjacket23

Ravens Ring of Honor
165K dead and counting... are you serious @JO_75? Are we so tone deaf that our politics compels us to ignore facts staring us in the face? How do you account for the incessant lying by our President? Who lies so much and for what? Unless it is meant to deceive. I have voted Republican many times in the past. I voted for McCain against my better judgment regarding his VP choice. I did vote for Obama the second time, but seriously where is that conservative Republican party today? Gone! It's been co-opted by ultra right wing forces that see nothing but race and color. This is getting to the point where we are basically 2 distinct countries within one and that wasn't Trump's doing surely, but one that he accelerated to the point of no return it seems like. We're all Americans and would die for it I'm sure. But, this vitriol is uncalled for. Let's call a spade a spade and understand that it isn't about politics anymore. It is about one thousand dying Americans every single day, everyone of those preventable with competent governance. Trump is a cancer to America, a malignant one, that's damaging vital organs like the Constitution, equality of all Americans with an unConstitutional police rule and frivolous Executive orders like churning out fries from McDonalds!
I mean, while I agree with the shit-show that is the Republican party, you would have a nearly impossible time (as pretty much everyone else has) actually compiling a list of things that a Federal government could do to stop $165K people from dying. We literally have laws with harsh punishments in this Country to deter certain outcomes, and still tens of thousands of people die in this Country every year from murders, DUIs, etc.

I mean go through the Liberal list of things to do if you want:
1. A national mask mandate. There is precisely zero evidence this will accomplish much, if anything, in the U.S. Everybody who thinks it works point to other Countries, who operate under different laws, different freedoms, and don't have nearly the arrogance that Americans do. You can make it a law to wear masks, and millions still won't. That's America.

And in the grandest irony of them all... the only way to properly enforce a national mask mandate is through the use of law enforcement. And right now, liberals are making their living bashing law enforcement for doing their jobs poorly, and campaigning on "defunding" police. So they want stricter restrictions on Americans and stricter enforcement of it, but they're campaigning to discredit and "defund" the people they need to enforce it. THAT is liberal politics, at its finest, right there.

2. Higher volume of testing. While I'll concede its laughable how poorly we're doing on testing compared to other countries, this notion that liberals are somehow going to take over office and all of the sudden the market will be flooded with tens of millions of at-home test kits (which is the only thing that really matters) is naive, at best. The reality is its just a partisan divide of who's going to pay for it. Liberals think the Federal government should be responsible for paying for all of it, and putting the bill on a credit card that will likely never be paid, and Conservatives want to see States pay for it. Politics 101.

Like you can pretty much line up the things that Liberals "would have done differently", and I've yet to see any that would have had a material impact on lives saved. The only thing liberals would have done differently, and what they will do differently come January, is borrow more money to give to the unemployed for as long as they need it until job stability comes back, which will likely never happen at nearly the levels before. That's all this is really about. Deep down, liberals know a federal mask mandate or any testing program that doesn't involve rapid, in-home screening is just kicking the can down the road.

I'll put wagers down on it right now... come January, when Biden is sworn in, you will NOT see any dramatic changes in the Federal government's plans to fight COVID. You'll see unemployed workers getting more money, which doesn't fight COVID. Everything else will be window dressing. They'll just wait for the vaccine to come out, then take credit for the recovery. Politics 101.
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
I mean, while I agree with the shit-show that is the Republican party, you would have a nearly impossible time (as pretty much everyone else has) actually compiling a list of things that a Federal government could do to stop $165K people from dying. We literally have laws with harsh punishments in this Country to deter certain outcomes, and still tens of thousands of people die in this Country every year from murders, DUIs, etc.

I mean go through the Liberal list of things to do if you want:
1. A national mask mandate. There is precisely zero evidence this will accomplish much, if anything, in the U.S. Everybody who thinks it works point to other Countries, who operate under different laws, different freedoms, and don't have nearly the arrogance that Americans do. You can make it a law to wear masks, and millions still won't. That's America.

And in the grandest irony of them all... the only way to properly enforce a national mask mandate is through the use of law enforcement. And right now, liberals are making their living bashing law enforcement for doing their jobs poorly, and campaigning on "defunding" police. So they want stricter restrictions on Americans and stricter enforcement of it, but they're campaigning to discredit and "defund" the people they need to enforce it. THAT is liberal politics, at its finest, right there.

2. Higher volume of testing. While I'll concede its laughable how poorly we're doing on testing compared to other countries, this notion that liberals are somehow going to take over office and all of the sudden the market will be flooded with tens of millions of at-home test kits (which is the only thing that really matters) is naive, at best. The reality is its just a partisan divide of who's going to pay for it. Liberals think the Federal government should be responsible for paying for all of it, and putting the bill on a credit card that will likely never be paid, and Conservatives want to see States pay for it. Politics 101.

Like you can pretty much line up the things that Liberals "would have done differently", and I've yet to see any that would have had a material impact on lives saved. The only thing liberals would have done differently, and what they will do differently come January, is borrow more money to give to the unemployed for as long as they need it until job stability comes back, which will likely never happen at nearly the levels before. That's all this is really about. Deep down, liberals know a federal mask mandate or any testing program that doesn't involve rapid, in-home screening is just kicking the can down the road.

I'll put wagers down on it right now... come January, when Biden is sworn in, you will NOT see any dramatic changes in the Federal government's plans to fight COVID. You'll see unemployed workers getting more money, which doesn't fight COVID. Everything else will be window dressing. They'll just wait for the vaccine to come out, then take credit for the recovery. Politics 101.

you can see it in other countries in the world what needs to be done - you needed lockdowns - first nation-wide to control spread early in the pandemic and then moving to local lockdowns to deal with local outbreaks as test and trace systems and better therapeutic treatments come into play

alongside those lockdowns you need to incentivise people to stay home which means you need stimulus (and more than just a 1 time paycheck but an actual monthly or weekly sum of money to tide over those who cannot afford not to be in work and cannot work from home) - combined with lockdowns containing spread it likely means that the period of lockdown is shorter than it would otherwise be which allows the economy to reopen earlier - a recession is going to happen whatever happens but you can limit the impacts of that by shortening the duration of time that requires strict measures - this can only happen by going hard on lockdowns early and introducing fines for breaking lockdown

you publicly market the idea of wearing masks as saving peoples lives - at the moment part of the reason it doesnt work is because it's alien and people think it makes you look weak so you actively market the idea that it's a heroic gesture to wear a mask

slogans work and the US has not had one

Testing is THE most important thing that can and should be done - in all the countries that have done well in their response to the pandemic, there has been high testing numbers early into the lockdowns with quick turnarounds and that infrastructure has allowed for targeted responses to local outbreaks and better security for the economy

the US has failed at the 2 most important tools they had available to control the pandemic: Testing and Lockdowns
 

rmcjacket23

Ravens Ring of Honor
you can see it in other countries in the world what needs to be done - you needed lockdowns - first nation-wide to control spread early in the pandemic and then moving to local lockdowns to deal with local outbreaks as test and trace systems and better therapeutic treatments come into play

alongside those lockdowns you need to incentivise people to stay home which means you need stimulus (and more than just a 1 time paycheck but an actual monthly or weekly sum of money to tide over those who cannot afford not to be in work and cannot work from home) - combined with lockdowns containing spread it likely means that the period of lockdown is shorter than it would otherwise be which allows the economy to reopen earlier - a recession is going to happen whatever happens but you can limit the impacts of that by shortening the duration of time that requires strict measures - this can only happen by going hard on lockdowns early and introducing fines for breaking lockdown

you publicly market the idea of wearing masks as saving peoples lives - at the moment part of the reason it doesnt work is because it's alien and people think it makes you look weak so you actively market the idea that it's a heroic gesture to wear a mask

slogans work and the US has not had one

Testing is THE most important thing that can and should be done - in all the countries that have done well in their response to the pandemic, there has been high testing numbers early into the lockdowns with quick turnarounds and that infrastructure has allowed for targeted responses to local outbreaks and better security for the economy

the US has failed at the 2 most important tools they had available to control the pandemic: Testing and Lockdowns
I generally agree. A couple points I would make:

1. Much of this is hindsight analysis, knowing what you know now. Even our most liberal "specialists" weren't advocating for nationwide lockdowns in the early going. That being said, a nationwide lockdown is no longer feasible for a variety of reasons, which is why its useless to discuss. Its purely just doing the same BS analysis that both sides of the aisle does, which is wait until you see the outcome, then publicly say what you would have done differently. Its irrelevant for a go-forward approach.

2. I think a "stimulus" type concept has merit, but the problem for me is pretty simple...compared to other countries, Americans are stereotypically lazy. A stimulus from a nationwide lockdown will last years, not months or weeks, because the recovery for a large segment of the population that need to return to jobs that may no longer be available (through business closures, industry shifts, etc.) isn't something that's achieved in weeks or months. Liberals would never, in a million years, sign off on a stimulus package that only encompasses a short period of time that covers a lockdown period. It will 100% exist through a vaccination period, which is largely unattainable with an economy of our size.

3. Testing has been a failure in the past and a failure current. No real counter-argument there.

In terms of mask-wearing and the general US response, I'd say this...

Since just after Memorial Day, so roughly 2.5 months now, 100% of the people in this Country have known precisely what they need to do to help greatly reduce the spread of this virus. Wear a mask in public places, avoid large public gatherings (especially indoors), reasonable social distancing, and proper hygiene.

If 100% of people obeyed this, we'd be in a much, much, much better place than we are now. But they're not. And as I indicated above, there's really no Federal level intervention that's going to change that, outside of stringent enforcement and strict punishment, which requires INCREASED law enforcement usage (basically against what liberals want right now).
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
I generally agree. A couple points I would make:

1. Much of this is hindsight analysis, knowing what you know now. Even our most liberal "specialists" weren't advocating for nationwide lockdowns in the early going. That being said, a nationwide lockdown is no longer feasible for a variety of reasons, which is why its useless to discuss. Its purely just doing the same BS analysis that both sides of the aisle does, which is wait until you see the outcome, then publicly say what you would have done differently. Its irrelevant for a go-forward approach.

2. I think a "stimulus" type concept has merit, but the problem for me is pretty simple...compared to other countries, Americans are stereotypically lazy. A stimulus from a nationwide lockdown will last years, not months or weeks, because the recovery for a large segment of the population that need to return to jobs that may no longer be available (through business closures, industry shifts, etc.) isn't something that's achieved in weeks or months. Liberals would never, in a million years, sign off on a stimulus package that only encompasses a short period of time that covers a lockdown period. It will 100% exist through a vaccination period, which is largely unattainable with an economy of our size.

3. Testing has been a failure in the past and a failure current. No real counter-argument there.

In terms of mask-wearing and the general US response, I'd say this...

Since just after Memorial Day, so roughly 2.5 months now, 100% of the people in this Country have known precisely what they need to do to help greatly reduce the spread of this virus. Wear a mask in public places, avoid large public gatherings (especially indoors), reasonable social distancing, and proper hygiene.

If 100% of people obeyed this, we'd be in a much, much, much better place than we are now. But they're not. And as I indicated above, there's really no Federal level intervention that's going to change that, outside of stringent enforcement and strict punishment, which requires INCREASED law enforcement usage (basically against what liberals want right now).

i think the problem with calling it just hindsight is that i as a layperson (from the UK) was watching epidemiologists take the research that had been done and advocate for those 2 measures lockdowns and prolific testing from before the pandemic properly hit the US (and UK even) - it's something that's part of basic epidemic responses that have been honed in asia over the last 2 decades so it's hard to say that nobody was advocating for those sorts of measures

i think it would be more accurate that there were very few politicians advocating for those measures but the science early on was very clear that lockdowns would be the best defence against the spread and that testing measures would be the best attack and that a combination of both would be required to return to some form of normality as soon as possible

i think the thing about the US with regards to stimulus is that its overton window is so far to the right that the idea of a welfare state is expensive rather than just a part of the infrastructure as it is in much of oceania, asia and europe - in many countries they just had to up the amounts of benefits and the quantity to whom but the systems are there to take on the future burden of people being out of work due to future recession because of the pandemic - the stimulus is an investment towards a longterm recovery - id say it's wrong to think its not achievable with an economy the size of the US more that the political establishment in the US has never had the will to ever think in those sorts of economic terms

and with regards to people not following lockdown, those sorts of ideas were widely suggested in the UK, but it was remarkable how much more effective the lockdown was when it was legally mandated and messaged about (and somewhat enforced) vs when the messaging changed to a more opt-in type of lockdown

it's amazing just how people's attitudes change when something is actually illegal
 

rmcjacket23

Ravens Ring of Honor
i think the problem with calling it just hindsight is that i as a layperson (from the UK) was watching epidemiologists take the research that had been done and advocate for those 2 measures lockdowns and prolific testing from before the pandemic properly hit the US (and UK even) - it's something that's part of basic epidemic responses that have been honed in asia over the last 2 decades so it's hard to say that nobody was advocating for those sorts of measures

i think it would be more accurate that there were very few politicians advocating for those measures but the science early on was very clear that lockdowns would be the best defence against the spread and that testing measures would be the best attack and that a combination of both would be required to return to some form of normality as soon as possible

i think the thing about the US with regards to stimulus is that its overton window is so far to the right that the idea of a welfare state is expensive rather than just a part of the infrastructure as it is in much of oceania, asia and europe - in many countries they just had to up the amounts of benefits and the quantity to whom but the systems are there to take on the future burden of people being out of work due to future recession because of the pandemic - the stimulus is an investment towards a longterm recovery - id say it's wrong to think its not achievable with an economy the size of the US more that the political establishment in the US has never had the will to ever think in those sorts of economic terms

and with regards to people not following lockdown, those sorts of ideas were widely suggested in the UK, but it was remarkable how much more effective the lockdown was when it was legally mandated and messaged about (and somewhat enforced) vs when the messaging changed to a more opt-in type of lockdown

it's amazing just how people's attitudes change when something is actually illegal
And I can probably summarize this thinking with one phrase... different cultures.

Americans don't like their freedoms being taken away for pretty much any reason. Still too "new" of a Country, still too much distrust about the ideas from the rest of the world. You can see it in literally dozens of items.

Many countries in this World have banned weapons from being accessed by the general public. In the US, we largely won't even entertain the idea of a civilian not being able to own an arsenal of mililtary-designed assault weapons, despite there being no earthly practical application for their usage by a civilian. Why? Because we don't like being told what to do.

We're not going to take what China or Russia or even Europe does in response to a pandemic at face value, because we simply don't trust some of those leaders or Countries to be transparent and do what's in their own Countries best interest, let alone World leadership. China especially, which is essentially the source point.

From an economic standpoint, its capitalism. That's why it won't happen. I could argue both sides of whether it should or shouldn't happen. I think there are ways you can provide "stimulus" without putting direct cash in their pockets from government loans or tax deferrals. And some of those things we did, and some of them we didn't.

There's three challenges the US has with the pandemic:
1. Liberals spend 100% of their time telling Conservatives how badly they've screwed up the last six months, and spend 0% of their time proposing any legitimate, reasonable, enforceable solutions to the problem. Their only responsibility, in their eyes, is to tell people who's to blame for their problem and why they should be afraid of it. They are the party of precisely zero actual ideas. They label themselves as the "progressive" party. They're not. They're the "reactionary" party.
2. Conservatives spend 100% of their time defending their own bad decisions, and are taking the widest, macro-based-solution possible to fighting the pandemic, with very little regard for short-term assistance. They are the party of precisely bad ideas.
3. The single biggest problem, without question, is purely just people. People are stupid. They'll believe anything anybody tells them. We have people killing themselves by drinking bleach because the President made an off-hand, joking comment about how maybe people should drink bleach to kill the virus, since it kills the virus on surfaces.

Americans do want they want to do, and they deal with the consequences that come from them. That's what we do. Its great when its great, but when its bad, its really bad. And when its bad, a lot of people come looking for help from a government that it largely ignored.

I leave this here as a the perfect example of how American's react to this pandemic...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/us/politics/kristin-urquiza-dad-covid-trump.html

This woman claims that her father died because the President told him it was OK to continue doing whatever he wanted during a pandemic. She's an idiot. Her father didn't die because Trump killed her. Her father died because when the Governor of his State loosened lockdown restrictions, he, at 65, went out to a crowded bar to do Karaoke with his friends. No mask, no social distancing, basically no precautions.

And his daughter uses his death to politicize the idea that he had no choice. That he was simply "doing what he was told to do". THAT is American politics. One side blaming the other for a bad decision that they made themselves.

THAT is why Americans are struggling with the pandemic. Its arrogance and stupidity.
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
And I can probably summarize this thinking with one phrase... different cultures.

Americans don't like their freedoms being taken away for pretty much any reason. Still too "new" of a Country, still too much distrust about the ideas from the rest of the world. You can see it in literally dozens of items.

Many countries in this World have banned weapons from being accessed by the general public. In the US, we largely won't even entertain the idea of a civilian not being able to own an arsenal of mililtary-designed assault weapons, despite there being no earthly practical application for their usage by a civilian. Why? Because we don't like being told what to do.

We're not going to take what China or Russia or even Europe does in response to a pandemic at face value, because we simply don't trust some of those leaders or Countries to be transparent and do what's in their own Countries best interest, let alone World leadership. China especially, which is essentially the source point.

From an economic standpoint, its capitalism. That's why it won't happen. I could argue both sides of whether it should or shouldn't happen. I think there are ways you can provide "stimulus" without putting direct cash in their pockets from government loans or tax deferrals. And some of those things we did, and some of them we didn't.

There's three challenges the US has with the pandemic:
1. Liberals spend 100% of their time telling Conservatives how badly they've screwed up the last six months, and spend 0% of their time proposing any legitimate, reasonable, enforceable solutions to the problem. Their only responsibility, in their eyes, is to tell people who's to blame for their problem and why they should be afraid of it. They are the party of precisely zero actual ideas. They label themselves as the "progressive" party. They're not. They're the "reactionary" party.
2. Conservatives spend 100% of their time defending their own bad decisions, and are taking the widest, macro-based-solution possible to fighting the pandemic, with very little regard for short-term assistance. They are the party of precisely bad ideas.
3. The single biggest problem, without question, is purely just people. People are stupid. They'll believe anything anybody tells them. We have people killing themselves by drinking bleach because the President made an off-hand, joking comment about how maybe people should drink bleach to kill the virus, since it kills the virus on surfaces.

Americans do want they want to do, and they deal with the consequences that come from them. That's what we do. Its great when its great, but when its bad, its really bad. And when its bad, a lot of people come looking for help from a government that it largely ignored.

I leave this here as a the perfect example of how American's react to this pandemic...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/us/politics/kristin-urquiza-dad-covid-trump.html

This woman claims that her father died because the President told him it was OK to continue doing whatever he wanted during a pandemic. She's an idiot. Her father didn't die because Trump killed her. Her father died because when the Governor of his State loosened lockdown restrictions, he, at 65, went out to a crowded bar to do Karaoke with his friends. No mask, no social distancing, basically no precautions.

And his daughter uses his death to politicize the idea that he had no choice. That he was simply "doing what he was told to do". THAT is American politics. One side blaming the other for a bad decision that they made themselves.

THAT is why Americans are struggling with the pandemic. Its arrogance and stupidity.

i think its wrong to say there havent been proposed ideas, its just that with the US overton window where it is those ideas were never realistic options because of who's governing in the US right now...

i think its also important to differentiate the democrats and the left and liberals - liberals and the left arent necessarily the same thing and i agree that you'll see a lot of pooh-poohing from liberals and democrats about how badly the republicans have handled this in government but without offering solutions (which is a symptom of much of the establishment both democrat and republican)

but there have been solutions offered from the left of politics but with the overton window where it is those reasonable ideas are not entertained

the narrative mistake with the pandemic was not treating it like a war because the US and its citizens idealise war and veterans and soldiers and here was a chance to market the solutions to this problem in the same way the US reacted to world war 2 nearly 80 years ago with a massive government led response

if i know anything about the US it's that you love jingoism and yet no one has effectively used that strategy in any non-political theatre regarding this crisis
 

JO_75

Hall of Famer
NBA players boycotting their games due to what happened in Wisconsin with Jacob Blake. The Bears and Lions also cancelled practice the other day for him.

The people saying he was resisting are annoying. Like yes he was resisting and yes he had a warrant out for sexual assault of a minor but getting shot 7 times in the back is absolutely uncalled for regardless of the situation. That is poor police training... plain and simple.

We need to start training cops in olympic wrestling and how to do takedowns and what not to deescalate the situation, not firing their guns.
 

rmcjacket23

Ravens Ring of Honor
NBA players boycotting their games due to what happened in Wisconsin with Jacob Blake. The Bears and Lions also cancelled practice the other day for him.

The people saying he was resisting are annoying. Like yes he was resisting and yes he had a warrant out for sexual assault of a minor but getting shot 7 times in the back is absolutely uncalled for regardless of the situation. That is poor police training... plain and simple.

We need to start training cops in olympic wrestling and how to do takedowns and what not to deescalate the situation, not firing their guns.
The flip side, of course, is that attempting wrestling moves on somebody who is non-compliant and may be armed is likely only going to lead to the officer being killed instead of the civilian. Its certainly not uncommon for that to happen.

We are a long way from being able to bridge this divide. Cops don't trust civilians to follow instructions, obey orders, and not become aggressive, combative, or non-compliant. And simultaneously, civilians don't trust cops to not escalate aggressiveness where its unwarranted.

Its going to require a change in thought process and societal norms on BOTH sides, not just one side.
 

Simba

Staff Member
Moderator
The sports boycotts are certainly an interesting choice and I'm really wondering what they're hoping to gain by doing this. You can't just boycott one game and then go back to it. There's no value in doing that. I think the Bucks were on the right path - they boycotted and used their time last night to speak publicly, and then they went back inside and made efforts to have conversations with people in high positions. But it can't stop there if they want to use their platform and make change. I don't think it's a surprise that a lot of these efforts are completely misaligned and there's almost this sense that big change can happen overnight. But as rmcjacket mentioned above, this is a much bigger quest and it's going to require conversation and a mindset shift from both sides.

Human rights issues should not be so rooted in politics, but that's our reality. We've never been so divided as a country so far as the unwillingness to work together from a political standpoint. All conversations are a pissing match and it's become an all or nothing proposal now - no one is willing to concede a little bit in the other direction to make this country better. There used to be a time that you could have differing thoughts but that didn't make you an evil person. You thought differently, you had conversations, you came to an understanding, and you leave with no animosity. But our "leaders" have changed that narrative to where there's only a right and wrong, no in between.

And there's one of the big problems with the latest situation. Jacob Blake is not absolved completely from his role in this, but that also doesn't mean he deserved 7 shots in his back. No one is willing to have the conversation that change is needed on both sides. Policing procedures need reform but so does society as a whole. The longer we continue to sit on one side or the other without realizing that this is an effort that we all need to take, the longer the divide continues and the longer the country spirals. It starts from the top, and we're the ones that can influence that change. Politics have become much more about attacking the opposition than presenting any sort of actual platform for change. That's on us - find the right people that want to have these conversations instead of making it a red vs. blue debate.
 
Last edited:

rmcjacket23

Ravens Ring of Honor
The sports boycotts are certainly an interesting choice and I'm really wondering what they're hoping to gain by doing this. You can't just boycott one game and then go back to it. There's no value in doing that. I think the Bucks were on the right path - they boycotted and used their time last night to speak publicly, and then they went back inside and made efforts to have conversations with people in high positions. But it can't stop there if they want to use their platform and make change. I don't think it's a surprise that a lot of these efforts are completely misaligned and there's almost this sense that big change can happen overnight. But as rmcjacket mentioned above, this is a much bigger quest and it's going to require conversation and a mindset shift from both sides.

Human rights issues should not be so rooted in politics, but that's our reality. We've never been so divided as a country so far as the unwillingness to work together from a political standpoint. All conversations are a pissing match and it's become an all or nothing proposal now - no one is willing to concede a little bit in the other direction to make this country better. There used to be a time that you could have differing thoughts but that didn't make you an evil person. You thought differently, you had conversations, you came to an understanding, and you leave with no animosity. But our "leaders" have changed that narrative to where there's only a right and wrong, no in between.

And there's one of the big problems with the latest situation. Jacob Scott is not absolved completely from his role in this, but that also doesn't mean he deserved 7 shots in his back. No one is willing to have the conversation that change is needed on both sides. Policing procedures need reform but so does society as a whole. The longer we continue to sit on one side or the other without realizing that this is an effort that we all need to take, the longer the divide continues and the longer the country spirals. It starts from the top, and we're the ones that can influence that change. Politics have become much more about attacking the opposition than presenting any sort of actual platform for change. That's on us - find the right people that want to have these conversations instead of making it a red vs. blue debate.
1. I liked what Jaylen Brown did, and apparently, it partially divided the NBA players. He basically asked the players "OK, you're thinking about boycotting the rest of the season. What are you going to do when you're not playing ball". It seemed at least some players hadn't thought this through. The act of merely not playing and going home is something, but its not nearly enough to warrant any actual change they seek.
2. I guess the ultimate "benefit" of a boycott like this would be IF you decide not to return to basketball this year, and they cancel the rest of the season, that's impact straight to the pockets of Ownership. Ownership that is almost exclusively rich, white billionaires. The thought there would be if you hit them in their wallets, they will band with the black players and use their much more powerful status in society to push for even further change. That could come in the form of campaign funding/support, pressure on political figures, etc.

In terms of the political impact, I think many of these athletes and activists are greatly over-thinking this idea that "change" will come in the form of putting more liberal/democrat officials in power. I think you've got decades of evidence of how that's not true, and so I'm not sure why they think that's going to drive significant change. I understand the desire to get Trump out of office for a variety of reasons, but as others have pointed out, it by no means guarantees anything in regards to social change.

People point to Baltimore City as an example. Upwards of 55-60 consecutive years of Mayoral Democrat leadership, I'm not sure anybody really thinks the City of Baltimore is a significantly better, safer, more economically advance city than it was 50 years ago, especially compared to its other larger city peers in this Country. Changes in political leadership is merely a sliver of change that's required to remedy these issues.

But you hit the nail on the head. Boycotting one game, and resuming it again a few days later, really doesn't achieve much. It sparks conversation, but doesn't really drive change.
 
Last edited:

Simba

Staff Member
Moderator
1. I liked what Jaylen Brown did, and apparently, it partially divided the NBA players. He basically asked the players "OK, you're thinking about boycotting the rest of the season. What are you going to do when you're not playing ball". It seemed at least some players hadn't thought this through. The act of merely not playing and going home is something, but its not nearly enough to warrant any actual change they seek.
2. I guess the ultimate "benefit" of a boycott like this would be IF you decide not to return to basketball this year, and they cancel the rest of the season, that's impact straight to the pockets of Ownership. Ownership that is almost exclusively rich, white billionaires. The thought there would be if you hit them in their wallets, they will band with the black players and use their much more powerful status in society to push for even further change. That could come in the form of campaign funding/support, pressure on political figures, etc.

In terms of the political impact, I think many of these athletes and activists are greatly over-thinking this idea that "change" will come in the form of putting more liberal/democrat officials in power. I think you've got decades of evidence of how that's not true, and so I'm not sure why they think that's going to drive significant change. I understand the desire to get Trump out of office for a variety of reasons, but as others have pointed out, it by no means guarantees anything in regards to social change.

People point to Baltimore City as an example. Upwards of 55-60 consecutive years of Mayoral Democrat leadership, I'm not sure anybody really thinks the City of Baltimore is a significantly better, safer, more economically advance city than it was 50 years ago, especially compared to its other larger city peers in this Country. Changes in political leadership is merely a sliver of change that's required to remedy these issues.

But you hit the nail on the head. Boycotting one game, and resuming it again a few days later, really doesn't achieve much. It sparks conversation, but doesn't really drive change.

Agreed on the sports aspects. I get the sense that some of them are on the right path and understand it's more than a one night thing, but many think their voice and power is enough. It's not. I'm also sure many athletes overrate their voice and think they have capacity to drive change alone, but at least if you think that... commit to it. Don't boycott and then go back in your room and watch TV. If you think your voice has power, prove it and go out there and do what you can to make that change.

And to the other points, I don't disagree there either but I will say that goes both ways. I can't tell you how many people I've heard say "I don't care who is president, senator, etc. but it can't be a republican/democrat." That is not how you get change. That's just adding hypocrisy and furthering the divide (red vs. blue/black vs. white). There are always going to be extremists in both directions and there's not much that can be done about that. But it's our job to find the "leaders" that don't think that way and are willing to have those tough conversations and make concessions in order to create change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top