BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1108 Pages +
  • « First
  • 822
  • 823
  • 824
  • 825
  • 826
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#16461 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-October-07, 23:08

What is Latin for "We salute you who are about to die. You will always be in our hearts and prayers”.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#16462 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,228
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2020-October-08, 05:31

The debate started with covid and first impressions are important. Pence attempted to defend the indefensible. game over.


I think KH might have put more emphasis on now rather than January. She talked about what they knew in January. Of course in January there is uncertainty. Fauci has said as much. But this is October. Last week DT was still talking derisively about JB's mask. Since then DT and a large and growing number of those around him have come down with covid. DT says covid is nothing to be afraid of, the Pence team was slow to agree to the protecting plexiglass for last night's debate. In short, many months into this they are still acting like idiots. I doubt Pence is actually that stupid but DT is, and MP lacks this courage or lacks the ability to contest him. Party loyalty is perhaps a good trait sometimes but not at this point.

And, of course, Pence was, I guess is, the person that is nominally in charge of the administrations response.

All of this is known to everyone, it simply cannot be dismissed as fake news. The administrations response was and continues to be incompetent in the extreme. Pence explained what a great job DT has done. That's quite a corner for him to find himself in.
Ken
0

#16463 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-October-08, 08:02

David Leonhardt at NYT said:

Holding an in-person debate during a pandemic creates risks, no matter how many precautions the debate’s organizers take. And the precautions for last night’s debate were pretty weak, as experts told my colleague Apoorva Mandavilli.

But American history offers an alternative to in-person debates — from the first year of televised presidential debates, no less. As Frank Donatelli, a former aide to Ronald Reagan, writes in RealClearPolitics:

Quote

On Oct. 13, 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon and Sen. John Kennedy debated for a third time, this time a continent apart. Nixon was in a Los Angeles studio, Kennedy was in an identical studio in New York, and a panel of four questioners and moderator Jack Shadel of ABC were in a third location in Los Angeles.

Posted Image
Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy debated remotely in 1960.Associated Press

This remote format has some advantages, Donatelli noted. There is no audience to interrupt. The candidates can’t engage in stunts, like walking over to their opponent. And the debate moderator can control the microphones if one candidate keeps interrupting the other.

Donatelli wrote his article in May, even before the coronavirus infected Trump and parts of his inner circle. Donatelli’s conclusion: “Let the virtual debates of 2020 begin.”

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#16464 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,228
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2020-October-08, 09:55

And, if Trump does not want to show up then, well, he is not required to. The Twon Hall audience can remotely submit their questions, Biden can remotely respond, and Trump can go... well go do whatever .


Maybe Trump is tired of being president and so is making it completely clear that no one should vote for him. I was watching a math lecture yesterday and it was really nice to be able to say "I'm retired, I don't have to watch this". Happy golfing, buddy.
Ken
0

#16465 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-October-08, 10:31

Nancy Pelosi said:

There is not going to be any stand-alone bill [for airlines] unless there is a bigger bill and it can be part of that, or it could be in addition to it.

Good move.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#16466 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-October-08, 11:16

Kidnappers stand by.

https://www.nytimes....an-militia.html
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#16467 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,287
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-October-08, 11:35

If you don't think something ugly will occur Nov 3, you're simply not paying attention: first, a crazed Trump



Quote

Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes," declared the president, "the greatest political crime in the history of our country, then we're gonna get little satisfaction unless I win. Because I won't forget it. But these people should be indicted, this was the greatest political crime in the history of our country. And that includes Obama, and that includes Biden; these are people that spied on my campaign, and we have everything.

"Now they say they have much more, and I say Bill, you got plenty. You don't need any more."

Comparing Mr Barr unflatteringly to former acting director of national intelligence Richard Grennell and successor John Ratcliffe, both of whom have released documents related to the Russia investigation, Mr Trump gave his attorney general a warning.

"To be honest, Bill Barr's gonna go down either as the greatest attorney general in the history of the country or he's gonna go down as a very sad, sad situation. I mean, I'll be honest with you. He's got all the information he needs. They wanna get more, more, more, they keep getting more, I say: 'You don't need any more. You got more stuff than anybody's ever had.'"



Then a calculating Barr:

Quote

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has advised U.S. Attorneys' Offices that a longstanding policy prohibiting the department from interfering in U.S. elections will no longer preclude prosecutors who suspect election fraud from taking public investigative steps, even in the hours before polls close on Nov. 3, ProPublica reported Wednesday.




"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#16468 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,613
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-October-08, 11:39

View PostWinstonm, on 2020-October-03, 17:06, said:

I didn't insinuate Roe was a moral decision. But using the SCOTUS to try to change laws is the wrong way to go. Laws can be challenged, but the correct way to change laws is legislative.

SCOTUS doesn't change the law, they determine that the law is unconstitutional. After the decision, we proceed as if the law doesn't exist at all.

The legislature can then pass a new law that would pass constitutional muster. The SCOTUS decision usually includes details about the problems in the original law that made it unconstitutional, so the legislature can try to avoid those problems. For instance, I think SCOTUS determined that government interest outweighs personal privacy when the fetus becomes viable in the third trimester, so it's still constitutional to prohibit late-term abortions.

Since then, a number of states have passed additional laws that try to find other ways around the Roe decision. Like adding requirements on the doctors performing the abortion.

#16469 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,613
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-October-08, 11:54

View Postkenberg, on 2020-October-08, 05:31, said:

The debate started with covid and first impressions are important. Pence attempted to defend the indefensible. game over.


I think KH might have put more emphasis on now rather than January. She talked about what they knew in January. Of course in January there is uncertainty. Fauci has said as much. But this is October. Last week DT was still talking derisively about JB's mask. Since then DT and a large and growing number of those around him have come down with covid. DT says covid is nothing to be afraid of, the Pence team was slow to agree to the protecting plexiglass for last night's debate. In short, many months into this they are still acting like idiots. I doubt Pence is actually that stupid but DT is, and MP lacks this courage or lacks the ability to contest him. Party loyalty is perhaps a good trait sometimes but not at this point.

And, of course, Pence was, I guess is, the person that is nominally in charge of the administrations response.

All of this is known to everyone, it simply cannot be dismissed as fake news. The administrations response was and continues to be incompetent in the extreme. Pence explained what a great job DT has done. That's quite a corner for him to find himself in.

Remember, the election is for President, not Vice President. The job of the candidates last night was primarily to support their POTUS candidates, promoting themselves was secondary.

As John Adams wrote, the Vice Presidency is "the most insignificant Office that ever the Invention of Man contrived or his imagination conceived".

#16470 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,287
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-October-08, 12:10

View Postkenberg, on 2020-October-08, 05:31, said:

The debate started with covid and first impressions are important. Pence attempted to defend the indefensible. game over.


I think KH might have put more emphasis on now rather than January. She talked about what they knew in January. Of course in January there is uncertainty. Fauci has said as much. But this is October. Last week DT was still talking derisively about JB's mask. Since then DT and a large and growing number of those around him have come down with covid. DT says covid is nothing to be afraid of, the Pence team was slow to agree to the protecting plexiglass for last night's debate. In short, many months into this they are still acting like idiots. I doubt Pence is actually that stupid but DT is, and MP lacks this courage or lacks the ability to contest him. Party loyalty is perhaps a good trait sometimes but not at this point.

And, of course, Pence was, I guess is, the person that is nominally in charge of the administrations response.

All of this is known to everyone, it simply cannot be dismissed as fake news. The administrations response was and continues to be incompetent in the extreme. Pence explained what a great job DT has done. That's quite a corner for him to find himself in.


The only thing I wish KH had done is when Pence attacked her for disparaging the vaccine she should have responded" "I'm not disparaging the vaccine. What I said is Donald Trump cannot be trusted."
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#16471 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,287
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-October-08, 12:15

View Postbarmar, on 2020-October-08, 11:39, said:

SCOTUS doesn't change the law, they determine that the law is unconstitutional. After the decision, we proceed as if the law doesn't exist at all.

The legislature can then pass a new law that would pass constitutional muster. The SCOTUS decision usually includes details about the problems in the original law that made it unconstitutional, so the legislature can try to avoid those problems. For instance, I think SCOTUS determined that government interest outweighs personal privacy when the fetus becomes viable in the third trimester, so it's still constitutional to prohibit late-term abortions.

Since then, a number of states have passed additional laws that try to find other ways around the Roe decision. Like adding requirements on the doctors performing the abortion.


You're being naive if you think the makeup of the court can't alter laws - Plessy v Ferguson (1896) and Brown v Board of Education (1954).
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
1

#16472 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,287
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-October-08, 12:28

Quote




Of course, there is no connection between a leader's words and his followers actions.



Quote

LANSING, Mich. – A team of militia operatives is charged with conspiring to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in a plot in which they considered storming the state Capitol in a commando raid that would use Molotov cocktails to keep police cars at bay, according to newly unsealed court records.

Members of a militia group purchased weapons, conducted surveillance and held training and planning meetings, but they were foiled in part because the FBI infiltrated the group with informants, according to a criminal complaint.

The FBI became aware early in 2020, through social media, that a militia group was "discussing the violent overthrow of certain government and law enforcement components" and "agreed to take violent action," according to a sworn affidavit.

Members of the group talked about "murdering ... tyrants" or "taking" a sitting governor, according to the affidavit. The FBI monitored a meeting June 20 in Grand Rapids, the affidavit says.

Discussions included using 200 men to "storm" the Capitol Building in Lansing, kidnap hostages including Whitmer and try the governor for treason, according to the affidavit.

The group met for field exercises and training this year and conducted surveillance of the governor's vacation home on at least two occasions in late August and September, the affidavit alleges. They purchased an 800,000-volt Taser and night goggles for use in the kidnapping plot, according to court records. Members of the plot said they wanted to complete the kidnapping before the election Nov. 3, according to the affidavit.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#16473 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-October-08, 13:19

This probably belongs on the pet peeve thread. Why are people saying that the wheels are coming off the Trump campaign? I mean, how can something that was never on come off? Pre-offed?
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#16474 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-October-08, 13:42

Social distancing is good.

Felicia Sonmez at WaPo said:

At an event in Kentucky today, McConnell also said: “If any of you have been around me since May the 1st, I’ve said, ‘Wear your mask. Practice social distancing.’ ... Now, you’ve heard of other places that have had a different view, and they are, you know, paying the price for it.”

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
1

#16475 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-October-08, 13:57

How Joe Biden can rescue the economy in the face of Republican obstruction by Matt Yglesias at Vox

Quote

... What an emergency reconciliation bill could achieve

Reconciliation does, of course, have very real limits. It’s hard to use it to ban fossil fuel extraction, to legalize undocumented immigrants, or to alter labor law. But from the right point of view, these are the virtues of reconciliation. The topics it won’t let Democrats touch are precisely the areas where moderates have the most qualms about a majority rules Senate. What top Democrats need to do is convince nervous moderates that a very aggressive reconciliation strategy is the key to getting the left off their back.

Consider the following ideas Biden has embraced:

  • Creating a new universal child allowance to help parents and slash child poverty.
  • Creating a fully funded rental housing voucher program to ensure that every family that needs help gets it.
  • Expanding the Affordable Care Act to cover millions more and make coverage more generous for those who get it.
  • A climate plan that centers investments in clean energy, rather than taxes on dirty energy.
  • A huge increase in funding to low-income school districts.

Biden does not need to treat these ideas as separate from the short-term need to stimulate the economy. He can simply do all five of them, and throw in a short-term boost to unemployment insurance and state/local budgets and some cash for specific public health interventions. Then the long-term increases in spending can be offset by enacting his proposed tax increases on the rich. That will ensure the deficit falls over the long run. But since the short-term deficit is not a problem and the whole idea is to stimulate the economy, the tax cuts can be delayed until 2023.

Legislating in this manner would cut against a lot of congressional traditions. The budget would need to get written quickly, with most of the work effectively done in the lame-duck period. And a sprawling piece of legislation that touches on the jurisdictions of many committees would need to be written via a centralized process.

But this is how Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell handled the ACA repeal and tax cut battles of 2017 and 2018 when they controlled both chambers of Congress — sharply curtailing the committee process in the name of speed.

To get it done, Biden needs to convince members of Congress that it’s in their collective interest for him to have a successful presidency with a roaring economy and real accomplishments. And if they don’t want to curb the filibuster, they need to get the job done with a massive reconciliation bill. Once that’s done, Biden can pivot to the filibuster.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#16476 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,228
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2020-October-08, 15:40

View Postbarmar, on 2020-October-08, 11:54, said:

Remember, the election is for President, not Vice President. The job of the candidates last night was primarily to support their POTUS candidates, promoting themselves was secondary.

As John Adams wrote, the Vice Presidency is "the most insignificant Office that ever the Invention of Man contrived or his imagination conceived".



A one word rebuttal: Sarah Palin
Sure, I voted for Biden/Harris because I want Joe Biden to be president. But I am relieved to note that there is no similarity between Kamala Harris and Sarah Palin. Any president might die in office but surely with someone well into his seventies this possibility is more on the minds of voters.

So the question "If JB dies in office are we comfortable with KH taking over?" is on the minds of voters. I think that she did a lot to dispel any worries on that score. Maybe we should all be thoroughly familiar with her record but I am not as up on it as I should be, and I am pretty certain I pay more attention to such things than a single parent with four kids and a mortgage has time to do. So for many voters, this was their main chance to look her over and see what they think. Sure, now they can go to her record and, perhaps, be further pleased.

So: Yes we vote for a president. But realism suggests we give some thought to what might happen down the line. I think that voters, some of them, do that. And I think she looked very go good. And Pence did not look very good.

Of course we are now watching a president in complete meltdown, so ...
Well, I will not even try to say where this is going. Not for the moment anyway.


Ken
1

#16477 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-October-08, 16:21

I still can't get over this...
All year we have been making these jokes on how the 2020 screenwriters are really overdoing it, it's all just toooo dramatic. And THEN the ACB rose garden ceremony turns into the highest profile superspreading event we had all year.

I guess the good news is this can only mean we have just been through the penultimate episode, so we can all relax now as we await the denouement.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
1

#16478 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,732
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2020-October-08, 16:27

I have to say I see the VP debate a little differently. My view is that both candidates appealed pretty well to their bases. Given the material they each had to work with, MP did better. But it is relative. In bridge terms, MP was declaring 1NT with a combined 14hcp and scrambled together 6 tricks. So, generally, if you watch the debate with a liberal mentality you will tend to think KH won it and with a conservative mentality that MP was the winner. The real question though is what the few undecided voters thought and whether it made any difference. And in this I think KH essentially did her job of "do no harm". Right now JB is going to win absent some turning point in the last 3.5 weeks. Each debate is an opportunity for that and she essentially kept the election on the same course. She did not need to do more, so from that point of view she "won". But that is also relative.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#16479 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,732
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2020-October-08, 16:32

View Postcherdano, on 2020-October-08, 16:21, said:

I still can't get over this...
All year we have been making these jokes on how the 2020 screenwriters are really overdoing it, it's all just toooo dramatic. And THEN the ACB rose garden ceremony turns into the highest profile superspreading event we had all year.

I guess the good news is this can only mean we have just been through the penultimate episode, so we can all relax now as we await the denouement.

Nah this was episode 8. Episode 9 is the one where everyone dies. Then we can have a series finale that wraps everything up and teases the next series/administration.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#16480 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,228
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2020-October-08, 18:31

View PostZelandakh, on 2020-October-08, 16:27, said:

I have to say I see the VP debate a little differently. My view is that both candidates appealed pretty well to their bases. Given the material they each had to work with, MP did better. But it is relative. In bridge terms, MP was declaring 1NT with a combined 14hcp and scrambled together 6 tricks. So, generally, if you watch the debate with a liberal mentality you will tend to think KH won it and with a conservative mentality that MP was the winner. The real question though is what the few undecided voters thought and whether it made any difference. And in this I think KH essentially did her job of "do no harm". Right now JB is going to win absent some turning point in the last 3.5 weeks. Each debate is an opportunity for that and she essentially kept the election on the same course. She did not need to do more, so from that point of view she "won". But that is also relative.


Yes, I largely see it this same way, it's a matter of degree.
After the first debate. I was disappointed that Biden did not do a better job. After this last debate, I thought KH did quite well. A couple of things.

After Pence explained what a wonderful job Trump had done with the virus, she started he reply saying that he might call it wonderful but it just isn't so, briefly citing statistics. So she rebutted a two minute rambling argument in about three sentences and fifteen seconds. Moreover, importantly, just about everyone understood exactly what she was saying and, I expect, agreed that it was so. This is useful when speaking about voters hose minds might still be swayed.

Another point was when he kept talking over her. I have seen some criticism of her not being forceful enough but I think she was just right. She said, and repeated "I am talking". Susan Page intervened and Pence finally shut up. Then, when she was running overtime, she said "He interrupted me, I want to finish". She was effective both in getting her thoughts out and in not losing her cool. Pence looked like a Trump protégé in rudeness, she looked calm and effective.

We do not really learn policy details in events like this, we learn about how the person handles herself/himself and I thought she looked very good.

One word about policy. She said that Biden has promised that no one who makes less than 400K a year will have a tax increase. I hope that this is not so. We have things that need doing, they have to be paid for, and I am fine with doing my part. I really do not like this idea that the rich can pay for everything. Let's not put it all on me, but also let's not exempt me from paying money to do worthwhile things. I am sure there is much that can be done to stop the wealthy from ducking a fair share and sure, let's do it. But if there is a worthy project, I do not expect the cost to be solely borne by others. Among other things, if I and others see a tax increase to pay for something, we are more likely to insist that it be doe right. Otherwise put: The first Bush said no new taxes and then had to back off on that. I felt he deserved credit for backing off.
Ken
2

  • 1108 Pages +
  • « First
  • 822
  • 823
  • 824
  • 825
  • 826
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

344 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 344 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google