To a degree that's unavoidable it would seem, you pull troops out of a live conflict and they struggle with a return to domestic setting and hate group membership blooms. Though of course the President of the USA validating them is of both striking and damning consequencecashead wrote:And bringing it back to Trump, just a reminder:
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/02/ ... ecord-high
Trump
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Trump
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Trump
Why for me? Or are we simply glossing over the best candidate on policy for me is Warren?Stom wrote:Mainly for Digby, but also for others:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other
- Stom
- Posts: 5828
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am
Re: Trump
About the need for drastic change, not “incremental”Digby wrote:Why for me? Or are we simply glossing over the best candidate on policy for me is Warren?Stom wrote:Mainly for Digby, but also for others:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Trump
If you can deliver drastic change then fine, I suspect in advance it's a waste of time and effort and practically to actually deliver change and get it to stick revolution isn't a good idea. If one were starting with a blank piece of paper I'd be far more adventurous, but given the reality I tend to lean on the idea that politics is the art of the possible. And some of the more 'progressive' ideas to have large and powerful vested interests set against them, and aren't popular with a huge number of the electorate.Stom wrote:About the need for drastic change, not “incremental”Digby wrote:Why for me? Or are we simply glossing over the best candidate on policy for me is Warren?Stom wrote:Mainly for Digby, but also for others:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other
Not even all Democrats agree with Bernie never mind the Republicans, and the GOP might well still control the Senate aft
- Stom
- Posts: 5828
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am
Re: Trump
You get nothing if you don’t try. The worst case scenario for Bernie is the same as the best case for Biden. No changeDigby wrote:If you can deliver drastic change then fine, I suspect in advance it's a waste of time and effort and practically to actually deliver change and get it to stick revolution isn't a good idea. If one were starting with a blank piece of paper I'd be far more adventurous, but given the reality I tend to lean on the idea that politics is the art of the possible. And some of the more 'progressive' ideas to have large and powerful vested interests set against them, and aren't popular with a huge number of the electorate.Stom wrote:About the need for drastic change, not “incremental”Digby wrote:
Why for me? Or are we simply glossing over the best candidate on policy for me is Warren?
Not even all Democrats agree with Bernie never mind the Republicans, and the GOP might well still control the Senate aft
- morepork
- Posts: 7520
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Trump
Stupin old men #10127
“I like this stuff. I really get it,” Trump boasted to reporters during a tour of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, where he met with actual doctors and scientists who are feverishly scrambling to contain and combat the deadly illness. Citing a “great, super-genius uncle” who taught at MIT, Trump professed that it must run in the family genes.
“People are really surprised I understand this stuff,” he said. “Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.”
“I like this stuff. I really get it,” Trump boasted to reporters during a tour of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, where he met with actual doctors and scientists who are feverishly scrambling to contain and combat the deadly illness. Citing a “great, super-genius uncle” who taught at MIT, Trump professed that it must run in the family genes.
“People are really surprised I understand this stuff,” he said. “Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.”
-
- Posts: 12018
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Trump
Stom wrote:You get nothing if you don’t try. The worst case scenario for Bernie is the same as the best case for Biden. No changeDigby wrote:If you can deliver drastic change then fine, I suspect in advance it's a waste of time and effort and practically to actually deliver change and get it to stick revolution isn't a good idea. If one were starting with a blank piece of paper I'd be far more adventurous, but given the reality I tend to lean on the idea that politics is the art of the possible. And some of the more 'progressive' ideas to have large and powerful vested interests set against them, and aren't popular with a huge number of the electorate.Stom wrote:
About the need for drastic change, not “incremental”
Not even all Democrats agree with Bernie never mind the Republicans, and the GOP might well still control the Senate aft
That’s a good way of putting it.
It’s just such a mess that if a guy like Biden (and to call him a moderate would be very generous) gets in office and is a shambles that will be seen by many as the result of electing another Democratic/left-wing president. It’s either that or he appeals enough to the right and may as well have run as a republican. To see if a Sanders, or even Warren, Presidency could actually work would be very interesting.
That’s not saying the failings of Obama etc. are down to them not being left wing enough, but does America actually have any idea of what a President enacting more progressive policies might look like? Is it even possible?
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Trump
So what, just because you can't get everything you want right away it's not good enough? Ignoring the practical problems of vast shifts in policy and that not everyone agrees with you? Also what happens if the other side wins the next election, can they simply switch everything back, or back further?Mikey Brown wrote:Stom wrote:You get nothing if you don’t try. The worst case scenario for Bernie is the same as the best case for Biden. No changeDigby wrote:
If you can deliver drastic change then fine, I suspect in advance it's a waste of time and effort and practically to actually deliver change and get it to stick revolution isn't a good idea. If one were starting with a blank piece of paper I'd be far more adventurous, but given the reality I tend to lean on the idea that politics is the art of the possible. And some of the more 'progressive' ideas to have large and powerful vested interests set against them, and aren't popular with a huge number of the electorate.
Not even all Democrats agree with Bernie never mind the Republicans, and the GOP might well still control the Senate aft
That’s a good way of putting it.
I noted the quote from Max Weber about the need to have patience and a work ethic in delivering change, but to expand further than that first line:
“Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth - that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today.”
― Max Weber
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:24 pm
Re: Trump
I would like to remind everyone that president Sanders will not achieve anything without a majority in Congress. You saw it with Obama too, I hope.
So change, or revolution, has to come from a majority. If Sanders struggles to get a majority in the Democratic Party, most likely he won’t have one in Congress.
So far the turnout of those segments of population that Sanders is supposed to dominate has been inferior to the turnout of the moderate segments. And the overall turnout is significantly up.
I would say that so far, Democrats do not want a revolution, just a regime change...
So change, or revolution, has to come from a majority. If Sanders struggles to get a majority in the Democratic Party, most likely he won’t have one in Congress.
So far the turnout of those segments of population that Sanders is supposed to dominate has been inferior to the turnout of the moderate segments. And the overall turnout is significantly up.
I would say that so far, Democrats do not want a revolution, just a regime change...
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Trump
Even if the Rep.s have 100% of Congress, President Sanders wil achieve a lack of President Trump - which is far from "nothing"gransoporro wrote:I would like to remind everyone that president Sanders will not achieve anything without a majority in Congress. You saw it with Obama too, I hope.
So change, or revolution, has to come from a majority. If Sanders struggles to get a majority in the Democratic Party, most likely he won’t have one in Congress.
So far the turnout of those segments of population that Sanders is supposed to dominate has been inferior to the turnout of the moderate segments. And the overall turnout is significantly up.
I would say that so far, Democrats do not want a revolution, just a regime change...
Last edited by Which Tyler on Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:24 pm
Re: Trump
I already expressed my agreement on this subject. That is a regime change.
- Sandydragon
- Posts: 10473
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Trump
Looking at Bidens recent speeches I’d be particularly interested in who his running mate will be.Digby wrote:Any of the candidates will not be Trump. I think Biden comes across as a cardboard cutout of a person, and that's just as much better for not being Trump
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Trump
Anyone with a pulse will have more personality than Pence, and someone more likely to have a pulse than Biden in 4 years time will be useful too. 3 out of the 4 candidates for President and VP look very weak, so this might at least throw up one name which suggests competencySandydragon wrote:Looking at Bidens recent speeches I’d be particularly interested in who his running mate will be.Digby wrote:Any of the candidates will not be Trump. I think Biden comes across as a cardboard cutout of a person, and that's just as much better for not being Trump
- Puja
- Posts: 17517
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Trump
If Biden's got half a brain, then he'd try and tap up Bernie as his running mate to try and keep the fanatics on his side.Sandydragon wrote:Looking at Bidens recent speeches I’d be particularly interested in who his running mate will be.Digby wrote:Any of the candidates will not be Trump. I think Biden comes across as a cardboard cutout of a person, and that's just as much better for not being Trump
Puja
Backist Monk
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Trump
Other than they'd both be actuarially very likely to die in office in the same term, or maybe that's what you meant by half a brain. Also Biden needs help to speak to multiple groups, Latino votes, blue collar workers, moderate republicans and more progressive democrats, I don't know the best way to get them all is to put a Bernie on the bottom half of the ticket, or even a Warren if either were willing to do it for a chunk of portfolioPuja wrote:If Biden's got half a brain, then he'd try and tap up Bernie as his running mate to try and keep the fanatics on his side.Sandydragon wrote:Looking at Bidens recent speeches I’d be particularly interested in who his running mate will be.Digby wrote:Any of the candidates will not be Trump. I think Biden comes across as a cardboard cutout of a person, and that's just as much better for not being Trump
Puja
It's easy to recall lots of Bernie supporters stayed at home or voted for Stein last time around, but she wasn't the only smaller party candidate so there are lots of other voters up for grabs, and I don't really have a sense of how that breaks down by state in way that will allow for electoral college success
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:24 pm
Re: Trump
If I get the COVID-19, my mortality rate is pretty high: 1.4% according to the CDC. But I will not let the hysterical media take down TGPT (The Great President Trump). Nor I will start the revolution while sick: everybody knows you have to be in good health to partecipate in a revolution. Starving helps too.morepork wrote:gransoporro wrote:I already expressed my agreement on this subject. That is a regime change.
You are far too reasonable to argue with. I banish you to a cruise ship on the Adriatic sea with coughing tourists.
- Buggaluggs
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:50 pm
Re: Trump
If you're healthy, the death rate is far lower. About he same as the flu. It is killing folks (typically) with existing issues; heart conditions, respiratory problems. Some of these folks could well die on any given year if they caught the flu.
- morepork
- Posts: 7520
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Trump
Buggs mate, not only are there seasonal vaccines against influenza A and B, but there are some proven effective (and safe) anti-viral drugs for acute treatment of influenza. Neither of these things exist for Covid 19, so the potential to overwhelm health services is quite real. The thing has only just been sequenced and it will take years before the necessary structural information is available for targeting seasonal antigenic shift, which is a pain in the arse feature of most rapidly replicating RNA viruses. Are you volunteering an immunocompromised friend or relative to get out there and show this low death rate thing is no big deal? Mortality from influenza is less than 1%. Covid 19 mortality is around 3%. That's around 30-fold higher, and you can expect this rate to rise if health services get overwhelmed.
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Trump
What is the basis of a mortality rate, or at least of this mortality rate under discussion? I assume it'd be based on case fatality rates and accounts for, amongst other things, the notion that not all of those going to die have yet actually died, but if many people don't show symptoms or symptoms are mild and aren't reported is it based on something other than case fertality rates?
- morepork
- Posts: 7520
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Trump
Deaths as a percentage of numbers infected. Will change from population to population depending on the relative quality of healthcare, health of the local population etc. Can only be estimated for a worldwide percentage. And yes, once a true estimate of infection rates becomes available, a truly representative mortality rate will become available.Digby wrote:What is the basis of a mortality rate, or at least of this mortality rate under discussion? I assume it'd be based on case fatality rates and accounts for, amongst other things, the notion that not all of those going to die have yet actually died, but if many people don't show symptoms or symptoms are mild and aren't reported is it based on something other than case fertality rates?
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Trump
At heart it's how they're determining the numbers infected that I'm wondering about. Partly given the numbers being tested varies so hugely by nation, and partly given many infected may never know. I'm not suggesting for a moment they're plucking a number from the air.morepork wrote:Deaths as a percentage of numbers infected. Will change from population to population depending on the relative quality of healthcare, health of the local population etc. Can only be estimated for a worldwide percentage. And yes, once a true estimate of infection rates becomes available, a truly representative mortality rate will become available.Digby wrote:What is the basis of a mortality rate, or at least of this mortality rate under discussion? I assume it'd be based on case fatality rates and accounts for, amongst other things, the notion that not all of those going to die have yet actually died, but if many people don't show symptoms or symptoms are mild and aren't reported is it based on something other than case fertality rates?
Is it as simple as saying the rate is based on known cases and the actual rate would be lower?