So, I'm 32 years old. The current head of Russia became a president first in 2000, 20 years ago. So I hardly remember the period where there was another state leader.
I missed this comment from yesterday. I remember the final decade of the old CCCP--they went through three or four premiers really quickly before Gorbachev came to power before economic instability, exhaustion from keeping up appearances, and Chernobyl helped bring it to an end. By the time the Velvet Revolution happend in Prague and the Berlin Wall was physically breached everyone said "okay, we're done". Of course, back then none of us had heard of Putin because he was just a KGB lieutenant stationed in East Germany.
Haha this COVID-19 self quarantining Republican is making jokes about trying to kill someone on the SCOTUS.
Say, wait a minute is this worse than what Schumer said about making Republicans pay the price (implied: at the ballot box) for putting Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the bench?
I have an actual transcript of Justice Roberts statement on the matter: ____________________________________
I would very much like to be 100% wrong about where this heading, but I fear I won't be.
Where do you think it is going?
How, exactly, is it "racist" not to go eat at a Chinese restaurant these days? It is illogical, clearly, but not racist. I don't eat Chinese food any more, but that has more to do with the fact that I can't handle "hot and spicy" like I used to. I don't go to Mexican restaurants much any more, either, for the same reason, so does that make me doubly racist? The shame is that I really miss Mexican food, Indian food, Thai food, etc.
I would very much like to be 100% wrong about where this heading, but I fear I won't be.
Where do you think it is going?
How, exactly, is it "racist" not to go eat at a Chinese restaurant these days? It is illogical, clearly, but not racist. I don't eat Chinese food any more, but that has more to do with the fact that I can't handle "hot and spicy" like I used to. I don't go to Mexican restaurants much any more, either, for the same reason, so does that make me doubly racist? The shame is that I really miss Mexican food, Indian food, Thai food, etc.
I'd say it's ignorant and at least mildly racist myself. You're no more likely to get the virus at a Chinese or Thai restaurant than McDonald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken, but clearly people are still enjoying their fast food. The chains will be miraculously unaffected while people shun locally-owned restaurants who's owners are part of their communities. Idiotic...
Won't declare it an emergency because it conflicts with his narrative. Essentially, what we've been saying about him all along. Absolutely no interest in dealing with the actual problem (which South Korea has proven can be accomplished). If the clusters in Washington and New York don't deserve federal emergency funds, I don't know what does:
Trump is incapable of responsible leadership in this situation, because he views the virus as a personal affront to him, not a public health issue. Tell me I'm wrong about that last sentence. Explain to me why it's incorrect.
Won't declare it an emergency because it conflicts with his narrative. Essentially, what we've been saying about him all along. Absolutely no interest in dealing with the actual problem (which South Korea has proven can be accomplished). If the clusters in Washington and New York don't deserve federal emergency funds, I don't know what does:
Trump is incapable of responsible leadership in this situation, because he views the virus as a personal affront to him, not a public health issue. Tell me I'm wrong about that last sentence. Explain to me why it's incorrect.
Well the Chinese did develop it just to make him look bad after all...
Won't declare it an emergency because it conflicts with his narrative. Essentially, what we've been saying about him all along. Absolutely no interest in dealing with the actual problem (which South Korea has proven can be accomplished). If the clusters in Washington and New York don't deserve federal emergency funds, I don't know what does:
Trump is incapable of responsible leadership in this situation, because he views the virus as a personal affront to him, not a public health issue. Tell me I'm wrong about that last sentence. Explain to me why it's incorrect.
Well the Chinese did develop it just to make him look bad after all...
As a mentioned in a personal messsge to another forumite, I'm starting to feel like I'm on the Titanic and the captain is just pretending the ship didn't hit the iceberg. It's not the existence of the virus he is being blamed for. It's how he's reacting to it's existence. Since he is incapable of viewing anything outside the lens of his own well-being, every decision he makes will be shaped through that lens.
Won't declare it an emergency because it conflicts with his narrative. Essentially, what we've been saying about him all along. Absolutely no interest in dealing with the actual problem (which South Korea has proven can be accomplished). If the clusters in Washington and New York don't deserve federal emergency funds, I don't know what does:
Trump is incapable of responsible leadership in this situation, because he views the virus as a personal affront to him, not a public health issue. Tell me I'm wrong about that last sentence. Explain to me why it's incorrect.
Well the Chinese did develop it just to make him look bad after all...
As a mentioned in a personal messsge to another forumite, I'm starting to feel like I'm on the Titanic and the captain is just pretending the ship didn't hit the iceberg.
We hit that iceberg 4 years ago when Hillary was chosen by the Democratic Party supposed intellectual elites. Now we're treading water watching the same 'intellectuals' pick another candidate while the other party tells us the water isn't 'that' cold...
It isn't corona, itself, which kills its victims just like no one ever died from "smoking cigarettes". Instead, the *secondary* health problems are what become fatal to the patient. Corona *is* a flu *but* unlike the generic influenza virus there is no current vaccine to help bolster your immunity against it before you contract it.
I thought you were going to be concerned that Trump might flip and institute martial law to contain the situation.
I thought you were going to be concerned that Trump might flip and institute martial law to contain the situation.
He'd have to admit he was wrong to do that.
If mandatory quarantines become necessary in this situation then that's how it is. Complaining about it considering what is happening in Italy is, in my book, civil libertarian tripe. This isn't the time to be engaging in intellectual and philosophical exercises. COVID-19 doesn't read John Locke.
I thought you were going to be concerned that Trump might flip and institute martial law to contain the situation.
He'd have to admit he was wrong to do that.
If mandatory quarantines become necessary in this situation then that's how it is. Complaining about it considering what is happening in Italy is, in my book, civil libertarian tripe. This isn't the time to be engaging in intellectual and philosophical exercises. COVID-19 doesn't read John Locke.
At least we have the Space Force to protect us from Martians though...
Won't declare it an emergency because it conflicts with his narrative. Essentially, what we've been saying about him all along. Absolutely no interest in dealing with the actual problem (which South Korea has proven can be accomplished). If the clusters in Washington and New York don't deserve federal emergency funds, I don't know what does:
Trump is incapable of responsible leadership in this situation, because he views the virus as a personal affront to him, not a public health issue. Tell me I'm wrong about that last sentence. Explain to me why it's incorrect.
Well the Chinese did develop it just to make him look bad after all...
All part of ancient Chinese plan to coronise the world. Ba dum tiss.
I thought you were going to be concerned that Trump might flip and institute martial law to contain the situation.
He'd have to admit he was wrong to do that.
If mandatory quarantines become necessary in this situation then that's how it is. Complaining about it considering what is happening in Italy is, in my book, civil libertarian tripe. This isn't the time to be engaging in intellectual and philosophical exercises. COVID-19 doesn't read John Locke.
At least we have the Space Force to protect us from Martians though...
Unlike almost any other time, in this instance, I desperately hope I look like an idiot when this is over. All available evidence would indicate we should be preparing the public for a significant change in their daily life. And we're not even doing anything close to that.
Won't declare it an emergency because it conflicts with his narrative. Essentially, what we've been saying about him all along. Absolutely no interest in dealing with the actual problem (which South Korea has proven can be accomplished). If the clusters in Washington and New York don't deserve federal emergency funds, I don't know what does:
Trump is incapable of responsible leadership in this situation, because he views the virus as a personal affront to him, not a public health issue. Tell me I'm wrong about that last sentence. Explain to me why it's incorrect.
Adam Schiff summed up his impeachment argument passionately reminding the Senate to impeach Trump because Trump will always choose himself over the country. Republican partisan hacks, except Romney, then voted to acquit him and here we are.
I thought you were going to be concerned that Trump might flip and institute martial law to contain the situation.
He'd have to admit he was wrong to do that.
If mandatory quarantines become necessary in this situation then that's how it is. Complaining about it considering what is happening in Italy is, in my book, civil libertarian tripe. This isn't the time to be engaging in intellectual and philosophical exercises. COVID-19 doesn't read John Locke.
At least we have the Space Force to protect us from Martians though...
Unlike almost any other time, in this instance, I desperately hope I look like an idiot when this is over.
You won't look like an idiot. You'll look cautious. Nothing wrong with that. I'm trying to lighten things up a bit, not make light of it. I'm of the opinion that there is no locking this down without drastic measures and, at least in this country, there is no stomach for that. If 20% of the population just outright died, it'd be like 'survival of the fittest' for most people in the US.
Edit: Lest you think I'm jesting, I heard a caller on the radio on my way home today saying this was nature's way of 'thinning the herd'. I shit you not. The radio host was flabbergasted and just said, 'Well my 90 year old dad might not agree with you but you're welcome to your opinion'. Conservative radio at it's finest.
It looks like you and others totally misunderstood what I said. Oh well maybe next time.
Social security and public health care are socialist policies. Period. There is no ambiguity or room for argument about this - they are 100% socialist policies, which exist because of advocates of socialism and protosocialism.
There is no such thing as a non-socialist economy or government in the developed world, there is merely a variance of how socialist it is.
Where to begin with Trump tonight. First off, I don't object to the travel ban to/from Europe, except for the fact that it was CLEARLY meant to blame "Europe" for the virus spread and completely ignored the fact that it's ALREADY HERE and spreading. At least 50% of the speech was dedicated to tax cuts and small business loans. Nevermind that even just listening to it by audio, he was CLEARLY gasping for breath at the end of every sentence or two.
Tulsi Gabbard is such an odd duck. She has support from the farthest left and the farthest right, but normie democrats hate her for reasons I do not understand.
It's partially because Democratic-friendly media (and a fair amount of online chattering classes) were hostile to her from early on, and partially because at this point her candidacy is a protest vote.
And, of course, because the left-right dichotomy is silly and not based in reality or on public opinion. Gabbard's advocation of nonintervention is actually quite popular with the American public, but a nonstarter for both the Democratic and Republican parties as a whole. And is nonintervention leftist or rightist? Both. Neither.
Of course too there is the bizarre hostility a lot of Americans have for people who run even when they can't realistically win, as if there is no other possible agenda one could have (including personal conviction!) for doing so.
It looks like you and others totally misunderstood what I said. Oh well maybe next time.
Social security and public health care are socialist policies. Period. There is no ambiguity or room for argument about this - they are 100% socialist policies, which exist because of advocates of socialism and protosocialism.
There is no such thing as a non-socialist economy or government in the developed world, there is merely a variance of how socialist it is.
There's always room for argument . Classically, socialism is defined as the social ownership or regulation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Thus: who owns or controls the factories, the trucks delivering goods from the factories & the shops selling them, and the banks providing the money or credit to purchase those goods. None of that has any necessary connection with social security or public health. It's therefore perfectly possible to have a fully socialist country without any social security (that's not the case with communism though).
The current situation with Covid-19 gives a good illustration of why there's no necessary connection with social security and public health. The US is generally not too fond of socialism, but Trump has just announced that financial support will be given to working Americans to stay at home. That's the carrot - he's also displayed a stick by announcing a travel ban on Europe (oddly, that seems to just apply to the Schengen area for some reason). Apparently, with only a handful of new cases currently arising in China, it now plays better to blame Europe for the infections in the US ...
The only thing we can do now is ramp up testing at least ten-fold and practice social distancing for the foreseeable future. We have no choice. Because America will be Italy within two weeks if we don't. The one-two punch of Tom Hanks testing positive and the NBA season being suspended is going to hit home for alot of people.
If he has no chance of winning, he should drop out and throw his support behind Biden.
Why should he? I never understood this argument.
1) Mathematically Sanders is still capable of winning. If Joe Biden had a serious health issue and had to drop out of the race, Sanders is likely to be the nominee. If a scandal came up that seriously impacted his popularity (say very credible allegations of sexual assault, beyond what was known before), Sanders could benefit. That these are unlikely scenarios does not make them impossible ones.
2) There is no strong evidence that dropping out and throwing support to Biden would make Biden more likely to win the election. This is gut-level pundit thinking that is not supported by what has historically happened in previous primary contests.
3) There are reasons to run besides winning. Sanders didn't win last time and yet he undeniably influenced the Democratic party.
4) It is absurd to expect Sanders to defer to party unity when the one thing the party was unified on lately was on preventing Sanders from winning the nomination.
5) It is far more likely that Bernie Sanders will win the nomination now than it would have seemed that he could ever be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination 10 or 20 years ago.
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) suggests that Democrats cancel any remaining primaries and just give Biden the nomination now, a sentiment which was mirrored by James Carville.
If that is so, neither of those gentleman are very bright.
Changing the rules midstream to cheat someone who isn't going to win anyway is shooting yourself in the foot and feeding legitimate grievance to no actual advantage.
There's always room for argument . Classically, socialism is defined as the social ownership or regulation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Thus: who owns or controls the factories, the trucks delivering goods from the factories & the shops selling them, and the banks providing the money or credit to purchase those goods. None of that has any necessary connection with social security or public health. It's therefore perfectly possible to have a fully socialist country without any social security (that's not the case with communism though).
Hmm, okay, I get your point, but I disagree, though? The roots of socialism lie in the working class, as distinct from classical liberalism, and the questions socialist theory was meant to answer had to do with the conditions of the working/lower classes and what government responsibility was in respect to them. As such, policies like health care have been strongly advocated for by socialist parties before other parties warmed to them - they don't address the liberal ideals of freedom at all, but they are deeply important to the social welfare of the lower classes.
To put it another way, I agree with you that health care is not necessarily part of socialism as pure political theory, but it is absolutely part of social democracy and that is so entwined in the nature and origins of socialism as a movement that I believe you can't separate the two when talking about socialist policy in the real world (or even in socialist writings). All forms of government-funded health care are attempts to address the "social question", and the social question vs. political question split in the "left" goes back to (and before) the revolutions of 1848.
That being said, I'll concede there may be ways socialism developed in countries outside of Western Europe and the Americas that could sway my view on this, as I'm not an expert on that subject.
Addendum: After all, public health care was the very first thing Bismarck enacted in his defang-the-the-socialists-by-doing-all-the-things-they-advocated-for plan, and there was a reason for that!
If he has no chance of winning, he should drop out and throw his support behind Biden.
Why should he? I never understood this argument.
1) Mathematically Sanders is still capable of winning. If Joe Biden had a serious health issue and had to drop out of the race, Sanders is likely to be the nominee. If a scandal came up that seriously impacted his popularity (say very credible allegations of sexual assault, beyond what was known before), Sanders could benefit. That these are unlikely scenarios does not make them impossible ones.
2) There is no strong evidence that dropping out and throwing support to Biden would make Biden more likely to win the election. This is gut-level pundit thinking that is not supported by what has historically happened in previous primary contests.
3) There are reasons to run besides winning. Sanders didn't win last time and yet he undeniably influenced the Democratic party.
4) It is absurd to expect Sanders to defer to party unity when the one thing the party was unified on lately was on preventing Sanders from winning the nomination.
5) It is far more likely that Bernie Sanders will win the nomination now than it would have seemed that he could ever be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination 10 or 20 years ago.
Reread the first 7 words of my post again. But he has as much chance of winning as the Ottawa Senators have of making the NHL playoffs. Not mathematically eliminated, but aren’t making it regardless. Or if Ottawa is too extreme of an example, Montreal Canadiens.
We're not ready for this in any capacity. Taiwan and South Korea have proven this virus can be contained. Those measures, and importantly, their national healthcare systems, are not in place here. @WarChiefZeke is right when he says the general ATTITUDE of Americans compared to those of more authoritarian countries will be a hinderance in the fight. @Balrog99 is right when he says much of the population will view the dead as a culling of the herd. And @smeagolheart is right about how important universal healthcare is, and that is going to be laid bare here. The calvary isn't coming, Gandalf isn't appearing over the horizon with the Riders of Rohan. Trump, more than anything last night, looked like a man terrified and overwhelmed by events. This is such a precarious situation. I encourage everyone to prepare for a total upheaval to normal life for the foreseeable future. This is gonna get ugly.
If it does--when it does? *shrug*--the slippery slope will be quite slippery. Temporary suspension of First Amendment guarantees about freedom of assembly--events are already self-suspending so that won't tak much effort. Mandatory quarantines of locations? Should be happening soon. Once a vaccine for corona is developed--this is only a matter of time--it is highly unlikely that any anti-vaxxer will be able to choose not to comply.
In the meantime, introverts rejoice--now everyone will be social distancing like they have always done. Schools and businesses will finally get on board with virtual classrooms and telecommuting. More power to the online retailers, as well, as people avoid brick-and-mortars.
Once a vaccine for corona is developed--this is only a matter of time--it is highly unlikely that any anti-vaxxer will be able to choose not to comply.
Really? I can imagine the US ignoring constitutional protections during a short-term emergency. However, that's rather different to forcing individuals to take particular treatments in the longer term (in an environment where desired treatments are not freely available to the public) - I find it a bit hard to see that being done.
Comments
It looks like you and others totally misunderstood what I said. Oh well maybe next time.
I missed this comment from yesterday. I remember the final decade of the old CCCP--they went through three or four premiers really quickly before Gorbachev came to power before economic instability, exhaustion from keeping up appearances, and Chernobyl helped bring it to an end. By the time the Velvet Revolution happend in Prague and the Berlin Wall was physically breached everyone said "okay, we're done". Of course, back then none of us had heard of Putin because he was just a KGB lieutenant stationed in East Germany.
Haha this COVID-19 self quarantining Republican is making jokes about trying to kill someone on the SCOTUS.
Say, wait a minute is this worse than what Schumer said about making Republicans pay the price (implied: at the ballot box) for putting Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the bench?
I have an actual transcript of Justice Roberts statement on the matter: ____________________________________
Where do you think it is going?
How, exactly, is it "racist" not to go eat at a Chinese restaurant these days? It is illogical, clearly, but not racist. I don't eat Chinese food any more, but that has more to do with the fact that I can't handle "hot and spicy" like I used to. I don't go to Mexican restaurants much any more, either, for the same reason, so does that make me doubly racist? The shame is that I really miss Mexican food, Indian food, Thai food, etc.
I'd say it's ignorant and at least mildly racist myself. You're no more likely to get the virus at a Chinese or Thai restaurant than McDonald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken, but clearly people are still enjoying their fast food. The chains will be miraculously unaffected while people shun locally-owned restaurants who's owners are part of their communities. Idiotic...
Trump is incapable of responsible leadership in this situation, because he views the virus as a personal affront to him, not a public health issue. Tell me I'm wrong about that last sentence. Explain to me why it's incorrect.
Well the Chinese did develop it just to make him look bad after all...
As a mentioned in a personal messsge to another forumite, I'm starting to feel like I'm on the Titanic and the captain is just pretending the ship didn't hit the iceberg. It's not the existence of the virus he is being blamed for. It's how he's reacting to it's existence. Since he is incapable of viewing anything outside the lens of his own well-being, every decision he makes will be shaped through that lens.
We hit that iceberg 4 years ago when Hillary was chosen by the Democratic Party supposed intellectual elites. Now we're treading water watching the same 'intellectuals' pick another candidate while the other party tells us the water isn't 'that' cold...
I thought you were going to be concerned that Trump might flip and institute martial law to contain the situation.
He'd have to admit he was wrong to do that.
If mandatory quarantines become necessary in this situation then that's how it is. Complaining about it considering what is happening in Italy is, in my book, civil libertarian tripe. This isn't the time to be engaging in intellectual and philosophical exercises. COVID-19 doesn't read John Locke.
At least we have the Space Force to protect us from Martians though...
All part of ancient Chinese plan to coronise the world. Ba dum tiss.
Unlike almost any other time, in this instance, I desperately hope I look like an idiot when this is over. All available evidence would indicate we should be preparing the public for a significant change in their daily life. And we're not even doing anything close to that.
Adam Schiff summed up his impeachment argument passionately reminding the Senate to impeach Trump because Trump will always choose himself over the country. Republican partisan hacks, except Romney, then voted to acquit him and here we are.
You won't look like an idiot. You'll look cautious. Nothing wrong with that. I'm trying to lighten things up a bit, not make light of it. I'm of the opinion that there is no locking this down without drastic measures and, at least in this country, there is no stomach for that. If 20% of the population just outright died, it'd be like 'survival of the fittest' for most people in the US.
Edit: Lest you think I'm jesting, I heard a caller on the radio on my way home today saying this was nature's way of 'thinning the herd'. I shit you not. The radio host was flabbergasted and just said, 'Well my 90 year old dad might not agree with you but you're welcome to your opinion'. Conservative radio at it's finest.
Social security and public health care are socialist policies. Period. There is no ambiguity or room for argument about this - they are 100% socialist policies, which exist because of advocates of socialism and protosocialism.
There is no such thing as a non-socialist economy or government in the developed world, there is merely a variance of how socialist it is.
It's partially because Democratic-friendly media (and a fair amount of online chattering classes) were hostile to her from early on, and partially because at this point her candidacy is a protest vote.
And, of course, because the left-right dichotomy is silly and not based in reality or on public opinion. Gabbard's advocation of nonintervention is actually quite popular with the American public, but a nonstarter for both the Democratic and Republican parties as a whole. And is nonintervention leftist or rightist? Both. Neither.
Of course too there is the bizarre hostility a lot of Americans have for people who run even when they can't realistically win, as if there is no other possible agenda one could have (including personal conviction!) for doing so.
There's always room for argument
The current situation with Covid-19 gives a good illustration of why there's no necessary connection with social security and public health. The US is generally not too fond of socialism, but Trump has just announced that financial support will be given to working Americans to stay at home. That's the carrot - he's also displayed a stick by announcing a travel ban on Europe (oddly, that seems to just apply to the Schengen area for some reason). Apparently, with only a handful of new cases currently arising in China, it now plays better to blame Europe for the infections in the US ...
Why should he? I never understood this argument.
1) Mathematically Sanders is still capable of winning. If Joe Biden had a serious health issue and had to drop out of the race, Sanders is likely to be the nominee. If a scandal came up that seriously impacted his popularity (say very credible allegations of sexual assault, beyond what was known before), Sanders could benefit. That these are unlikely scenarios does not make them impossible ones.
2) There is no strong evidence that dropping out and throwing support to Biden would make Biden more likely to win the election. This is gut-level pundit thinking that is not supported by what has historically happened in previous primary contests.
3) There are reasons to run besides winning. Sanders didn't win last time and yet he undeniably influenced the Democratic party.
4) It is absurd to expect Sanders to defer to party unity when the one thing the party was unified on lately was on preventing Sanders from winning the nomination.
5) It is far more likely that Bernie Sanders will win the nomination now than it would have seemed that he could ever be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination 10 or 20 years ago.
If that is so, neither of those gentleman are very bright.
Changing the rules midstream to cheat someone who isn't going to win anyway is shooting yourself in the foot and feeding legitimate grievance to no actual advantage.
Hmm, okay, I get your point, but I disagree, though?
To put it another way, I agree with you that health care is not necessarily part of socialism as pure political theory, but it is absolutely part of social democracy and that is so entwined in the nature and origins of socialism as a movement that I believe you can't separate the two when talking about socialist policy in the real world (or even in socialist writings). All forms of government-funded health care are attempts to address the "social question", and the social question vs. political question split in the "left" goes back to (and before) the revolutions of 1848.
That being said, I'll concede there may be ways socialism developed in countries outside of Western Europe and the Americas that could sway my view on this, as I'm not an expert on that subject.
Addendum: After all, public health care was the very first thing Bismarck enacted in his defang-the-the-socialists-by-doing-all-the-things-they-advocated-for plan, and there was a reason for that!
Reread the first 7 words of my post again. But he has as much chance of winning as the Ottawa Senators have of making the NHL playoffs. Not mathematically eliminated, but aren’t making it regardless. Or if Ottawa is too extreme of an example, Montreal Canadiens.
If it does--when it does? *shrug*--the slippery slope will be quite slippery. Temporary suspension of First Amendment guarantees about freedom of assembly--events are already self-suspending so that won't tak much effort. Mandatory quarantines of locations? Should be happening soon. Once a vaccine for corona is developed--this is only a matter of time--it is highly unlikely that any anti-vaxxer will be able to choose not to comply.
In the meantime, introverts rejoice--now everyone will be social distancing like they have always done. Schools and businesses will finally get on board with virtual classrooms and telecommuting. More power to the online retailers, as well, as people avoid brick-and-mortars.
Really? I can imagine the US ignoring constitutional protections during a short-term emergency. However, that's rather different to forcing individuals to take particular treatments in the longer term (in an environment where desired treatments are not freely available to the public) - I find it a bit hard to see that being done.