Sagaar Enjeti, who I would describe as the right-wing populist co-host of The Hill's Rising, has now been saying for at least two weeks that the economic response has guaranteed Trump will lose because he's completely turned over that operation to the supply-side cultists like Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore, and Art Laffer. Frankly, it's likely confirming that the person with the actual political instincts in 2016 despite his other horrible qualities was Steve Bannon, not Trump. If he'd simply gone along with a UBI and supported the lockdowns, he'd be cruising right now:
I'm voting straight ticket Democrat, myself. Just for this election cycle. The GOP needs to be entirely dismantled before it can be repurposed as something better.
I've pretty much decided on doing the same. The Republicans are totally unworthy of my vote at this time in history and a protest vote for the Democrats might get my message across. It's time for a warning shot across the GOP's bow. Correct course or become irrelevant...
I can respect this position from both your and @WarChiefZeke - obviously I'm biased against the ideology in general, but it seems to me that the best way for conservatism to course correct is a total and utter repudiation of Trumpism.
I can't really see any coherent ideology behind Trumpism other than the belief in making absurd and bombastic statements online. I'd rather see the entire GOP- what is represented in the past, and what is represents now- burn to the ground and be rebuilt. The entire thing is currently a weird amalgamation of archaic, out of touch neocons at the top and a counter-productive sort of youth outreach at the bottom that encourages immaturity and hostility via "owning the libs", the last thing young conservatives with targets on their backs need. It leans more and more into cultural matters, which i'm okay with, but it does so with no intelligence whatsoever.
It's just not fit for purpose for any segment of society, which is probably why it was so easy for a political neophyte like Trump to win against all of the most well known GOP politicians.
This isn't fucking Ebola for God's sake! If the kids can safely go back to school they should. I do trust my local school board more than I trust a bunch of germaphobe, hysterical parents. Sorry that Trump dropped the ball because he's a fucking dipshit but we can't let our kids fall too far behind or this will be an even worse disaster.
I just think this is missing the point. The point isn't whether kids will get sick and possibly die from the virus. But that kids will become vectors for the virus and increase its risk to the vulnerable population. And teachers and staff can fall into that category. As well as the parents or other family of these children.
This is a pretty widespread failure on understanding what a pandemic is, imo. We see it with mask wearing opposition as well, mask opponents treat masks as some form of personal cowardice. But masks aren't about protecting yourself -- they're about protecting the people you interact with.
Likewise, delaying school openings isn't mainly about protecting children. It's mainly about protecting the people they interact with.
The vulnerable should be protected for sure, but total shut down of the entire country is not achievable now, if it ever was. Honestly the shut down went better than I expected and it still wasn't enough. It's time to be pragmatic and smart, not dogmatic and either paralyzed with fear, or reckless with stupidity. We're now to the point that the grandkids (and probably the kids too) need to wear masks around grandma and Aunt June with her diabetes might need to stay away from family reunions for a while. And for God's sake use the masks and hand sanitizer in rest homes and hospital rooms! If Trump has a complete epiphany tomorrow I think it's too late. The genie is out of the bottle and I doubt it's going back in...
I think for some districts, delaying school openings for a month or even three months is something that might be perfectly "pragmatic and smart". I think insisting that the consequences of doing so are limited or are offset by children missing school time is the dogmatic position.
I don't doubt that some places in the US have done well enough at suppressing transmissions to open schools. Some have not. And I think alot of your framing in this thread is actually quite dogmatic, positioning yourself against a strawman of "living in fear". It's not about personal fear. It's about a very real understanding that we are, right now, at peak hospitalizations and deaths from the virus in many parts of the country, and this has all kinds of ramifications that radiate out beyond merely "the vulnerable population". Saturated hospitals are going to be worse at treating victims of automobile accidents for example.
That's why I'm saying leave it up to the localities. Most of the folks' here on this thread seem to think that some decree from on high is needed. I'm just saying that there isn't a one size fits all solution for this outbreak any more. It sucks, but just like different states start and finish their schools at different times, it looks to me like having in-class schooling at all will be a state by state, or even district by district decision.
Of course, now that this is the case, Trump has to jump in and insist on his own one size fits all, everybody back to school bullshit message. What an asshole. So much for Republicans being against 'big government'. Hypocrites...
I think there's a limit to this logic of federalism though. I think two strong points have been made above by semiticgod and jjstraka. One, there is nothing preventing the US, even with the dire situation it is currently in, from doing what's right now in order to suppress transmissions to a manageable level. This might require some extreme -- but short term -- lockdown measures that might need to go beyond what the US originally did.
This ties into jj's point as well. Other countries, even those that had disastrous initial results, eventually got it together. Many of them did so with 1. far stricter lockdowns than the US, 2. generous bailouts for citizens.
But state governments don't have the resources like the federal government and its ability to borrow in order to bail out their citizens. So no, I don't think it's right to say "leave it up to the localities". You can't do two things at once here imo. You cannot get the political will at the national level to have the kind of generous economic bailouts people need in order to also institute the extreme lockdown and temporary economic closure you need. So I think even if some parts of the country are perfectly fine with suppressed transmissions, it's actually quite reasonable to ask them to make the economic sacrifice and join in on a second nationwide lockdown.
Because it's very possible that we are going to see the most deaths we've ever seen in the coming weeks in the US. It's time to break out of so-called "common sense" ideas and actually look at countries which had intense initial outbreaks and now have suppressed virus transmissions have done.
The problem with that is that our federal government is NOT going to do the right thing unless there's a coup or Trump has a stroke. Sorry, he's just not capable of admitting he was wrong.
I disagree to a slight extent here. The holdup on getting a second bailout to citizens isn't Trump, it's the Republican controlled Senate.
This isn't fucking Ebola for God's sake! If the kids can safely go back to school they should. I do trust my local school board more than I trust a bunch of germaphobe, hysterical parents. Sorry that Trump dropped the ball because he's a fucking dipshit but we can't let our kids fall too far behind or this will be an even worse disaster.
I just think this is missing the point. The point isn't whether kids will get sick and possibly die from the virus. But that kids will become vectors for the virus and increase its risk to the vulnerable population. And teachers and staff can fall into that category. As well as the parents or other family of these children.
This is a pretty widespread failure on understanding what a pandemic is, imo. We see it with mask wearing opposition as well, mask opponents treat masks as some form of personal cowardice. But masks aren't about protecting yourself -- they're about protecting the people you interact with.
Likewise, delaying school openings isn't mainly about protecting children. It's mainly about protecting the people they interact with.
The vulnerable should be protected for sure, but total shut down of the entire country is not achievable now, if it ever was. Honestly the shut down went better than I expected and it still wasn't enough. It's time to be pragmatic and smart, not dogmatic and either paralyzed with fear, or reckless with stupidity. We're now to the point that the grandkids (and probably the kids too) need to wear masks around grandma and Aunt June with her diabetes might need to stay away from family reunions for a while. And for God's sake use the masks and hand sanitizer in rest homes and hospital rooms! If Trump has a complete epiphany tomorrow I think it's too late. The genie is out of the bottle and I doubt it's going back in...
I think for some districts, delaying school openings for a month or even three months is something that might be perfectly "pragmatic and smart". I think insisting that the consequences of doing so are limited or are offset by children missing school time is the dogmatic position.
I don't doubt that some places in the US have done well enough at suppressing transmissions to open schools. Some have not. And I think alot of your framing in this thread is actually quite dogmatic, positioning yourself against a strawman of "living in fear". It's not about personal fear. It's about a very real understanding that we are, right now, at peak hospitalizations and deaths from the virus in many parts of the country, and this has all kinds of ramifications that radiate out beyond merely "the vulnerable population". Saturated hospitals are going to be worse at treating victims of automobile accidents for example.
That's why I'm saying leave it up to the localities. Most of the folks' here on this thread seem to think that some decree from on high is needed. I'm just saying that there isn't a one size fits all solution for this outbreak any more. It sucks, but just like different states start and finish their schools at different times, it looks to me like having in-class schooling at all will be a state by state, or even district by district decision.
Of course, now that this is the case, Trump has to jump in and insist on his own one size fits all, everybody back to school bullshit message. What an asshole. So much for Republicans being against 'big government'. Hypocrites...
I think there's a limit to this logic of federalism though. I think two strong points have been made above by semiticgod and jjstraka. One, there is nothing preventing the US, even with the dire situation it is currently in, from doing what's right now in order to suppress transmissions to a manageable level. This might require some extreme -- but short term -- lockdown measures that might need to go beyond what the US originally did.
This ties into jj's point as well. Other countries, even those that had disastrous initial results, eventually got it together. Many of them did so with 1. far stricter lockdowns than the US, 2. generous bailouts for citizens.
But state governments don't have the resources like the federal government and its ability to borrow in order to bail out their citizens. So no, I don't think it's right to say "leave it up to the localities". You can't do two things at once here imo. You cannot get the political will at the national level to have the kind of generous economic bailouts people need in order to also institute the extreme lockdown and temporary economic closure you need. So I think even if some parts of the country are perfectly fine with suppressed transmissions, it's actually quite reasonable to ask them to make the economic sacrifice and join in on a second nationwide lockdown.
Because it's very possible that we are going to see the most deaths we've ever seen in the coming weeks in the US. It's time to break out of so-called "common sense" ideas and actually look at countries which had intense initial outbreaks and now have suppressed virus transmissions have done.
The problem with that is that our federal government is NOT going to do the right thing unless there's a coup or Trump has a stroke. Sorry, he's just not capable of admitting he was wrong.
I disagree to a slight extent here. The holdup on getting a second bailout to citizens isn't Trump, it's the Republican controlled Senate.
They're going to do something in the next few weeks, but it's going to be focused on
1.) A payroll tax cut (fine for me I guess, useless if you aren't on a payroll)
2.) Either eliminating the $600 stipend in unemployment which is boosting consumer spending, or cutting it in half
3.) A capital gains tax-cut
4.) A corporate liability shield
This package will not regain them a single vote. It might as well be written by the Chamber of Commerce lobby (who am I kidding, that is who is is writing it).
This isn't fucking Ebola for God's sake! If the kids can safely go back to school they should. I do trust my local school board more than I trust a bunch of germaphobe, hysterical parents. Sorry that Trump dropped the ball because he's a fucking dipshit but we can't let our kids fall too far behind or this will be an even worse disaster.
I just think this is missing the point. The point isn't whether kids will get sick and possibly die from the virus. But that kids will become vectors for the virus and increase its risk to the vulnerable population. And teachers and staff can fall into that category. As well as the parents or other family of these children.
This is a pretty widespread failure on understanding what a pandemic is, imo. We see it with mask wearing opposition as well, mask opponents treat masks as some form of personal cowardice. But masks aren't about protecting yourself -- they're about protecting the people you interact with.
Likewise, delaying school openings isn't mainly about protecting children. It's mainly about protecting the people they interact with.
The vulnerable should be protected for sure, but total shut down of the entire country is not achievable now, if it ever was. Honestly the shut down went better than I expected and it still wasn't enough. It's time to be pragmatic and smart, not dogmatic and either paralyzed with fear, or reckless with stupidity. We're now to the point that the grandkids (and probably the kids too) need to wear masks around grandma and Aunt June with her diabetes might need to stay away from family reunions for a while. And for God's sake use the masks and hand sanitizer in rest homes and hospital rooms! If Trump has a complete epiphany tomorrow I think it's too late. The genie is out of the bottle and I doubt it's going back in...
I think for some districts, delaying school openings for a month or even three months is something that might be perfectly "pragmatic and smart". I think insisting that the consequences of doing so are limited or are offset by children missing school time is the dogmatic position.
I don't doubt that some places in the US have done well enough at suppressing transmissions to open schools. Some have not. And I think alot of your framing in this thread is actually quite dogmatic, positioning yourself against a strawman of "living in fear". It's not about personal fear. It's about a very real understanding that we are, right now, at peak hospitalizations and deaths from the virus in many parts of the country, and this has all kinds of ramifications that radiate out beyond merely "the vulnerable population". Saturated hospitals are going to be worse at treating victims of automobile accidents for example.
That's why I'm saying leave it up to the localities. Most of the folks' here on this thread seem to think that some decree from on high is needed. I'm just saying that there isn't a one size fits all solution for this outbreak any more. It sucks, but just like different states start and finish their schools at different times, it looks to me like having in-class schooling at all will be a state by state, or even district by district decision.
Of course, now that this is the case, Trump has to jump in and insist on his own one size fits all, everybody back to school bullshit message. What an asshole. So much for Republicans being against 'big government'. Hypocrites...
I think there's a limit to this logic of federalism though. I think two strong points have been made above by semiticgod and jjstraka. One, there is nothing preventing the US, even with the dire situation it is currently in, from doing what's right now in order to suppress transmissions to a manageable level. This might require some extreme -- but short term -- lockdown measures that might need to go beyond what the US originally did.
This ties into jj's point as well. Other countries, even those that had disastrous initial results, eventually got it together. Many of them did so with 1. far stricter lockdowns than the US, 2. generous bailouts for citizens.
But state governments don't have the resources like the federal government and its ability to borrow in order to bail out their citizens. So no, I don't think it's right to say "leave it up to the localities". You can't do two things at once here imo. You cannot get the political will at the national level to have the kind of generous economic bailouts people need in order to also institute the extreme lockdown and temporary economic closure you need. So I think even if some parts of the country are perfectly fine with suppressed transmissions, it's actually quite reasonable to ask them to make the economic sacrifice and join in on a second nationwide lockdown.
Because it's very possible that we are going to see the most deaths we've ever seen in the coming weeks in the US. It's time to break out of so-called "common sense" ideas and actually look at countries which had intense initial outbreaks and now have suppressed virus transmissions have done.
The problem with that is that our federal government is NOT going to do the right thing unless there's a coup or Trump has a stroke. Sorry, he's just not capable of admitting he was wrong.
I disagree to a slight extent here. The holdup on getting a second bailout to citizens isn't Trump, it's the Republican controlled Senate.
They're going to do something in the next few weeks, but it's going to be focused on
1.) A payroll tax cut (fine for me I guess, useless if you aren't on a payroll)
2.) Either eliminating the $600 stipend in unemployment which is boosting consumer spending, or cutting it in half
3.) A capital gains tax-cut
4.) A corporate liability shield
This package will not regain them a single vote. It might as well be written by the Chamber of Commerce lobby (who am I kidding, that is who is is writing it).
That's assuming they're even able to get it to Trump's desk. Doubtful from I'm hearing at this point...
I can't really see any coherent ideology behind Trumpism other than the belief in making absurd and bombastic statements online.
I think you're right, but maybe not in the way you meant (or maybe exactly in the way you meant. It's hard to tell).
Trumpism is the equivalent of turning the vitriol in Conservative orthodoxy up to 11. Traditional Conservative orthodoxy opposes too much immigration for a variety of reasons (Some are racist, see the soon to be former Rep Steve King - and some are economic). Trumpism amplifies the racism side and diminishes the economic side.
Which is why it's such an issue for the future of Conservatism. Older generations are perhaps more accepting of that message, but millennials and generation Z recoil at it. They might have bought the economic argument against immigration, but Trumpism cannibalizes that and puts the emphasis on racist messaging.
Edit - but it still must be said - Trump absolutely does advance the ball on Conservative beliefs. He's completely terrible at his job, and corrupt to high heaven, but his fundamental underpinnings are Conservative.
There's been several points of tension between the US and UK for a while, but it looks like there's been an effort to clear the decks of those and agree a more common approach internationally. Things I've noticed recently have included:
- the UK decision to remove Huawei as a supplier to the new 5g network.
- a common approach to Hong Kong, such as ending extradition agreements and special trading status.
- a more critical line by the UK on China generally (closer to that of the US), e.g. over human rights violations in Xinjiang.
- the long-awaited publication of a report by a House of Commons Committee on potential interference by Russia in UK elections and other affairs. I suspect the main reason this was delayed was because of the potential embarrassment to the UK government (who have ignored the issue for years). However, Trump would not necessarily be keen to see Russia back in the news either - and the publication now probably partly reflects the recent improvement in relations.
- the UK has been asking for some time for Anne Sacoolas to be extradited to face charges for killing a motor-cyclist before fleeing from the UK. The US position is that she had diplomatic immunity through the work of her husband in the UK, though the UK had not accepted that. If an extradition had happened it would certainly have been seen as a major climbdown by Trump. Reading between the lines of this story, I think it's now been agreed that she won't be extradited, but that the US will agree that anyone else in a similar position will not have diplomatic immunity in the future.
The improvement in the relationship is evidenced by Pompeo's current visit to the UK, which has generally gone smoothly. One slight hiccup I did note is Pompeo's statement that China is responsible for coronavirus deaths in the UK as a result of their close relationship with the head of the WHO. I think that's very much aimed at his domestic audience and bears little resemblance to reality. However, while I don't think that line will get significant support in the UK, as long as the US does not actually try and push the UK to come out of the WHO, it won't cause any significant tension.
There is no functional difference between asking the British government to help steer one of the four golf majors to be held at your golf course and asking them to directly deposit tens of millions of dollars in your bank account.
About Anne Sacoolas, I wonder if Biden gets to power if he’ll reverse this decision and extradite her as the UK is requesting. Trump has shown what the previous administration has said and done is by far a final decision.-
If it was reverse and a UK diplomats wife killed a person with their car and ran back to their country, the right wing media and politicans would be kicking and screaming and boycotting the UK until they were returned.
Haven't seen it mentioned recently but there's unidentified militarized police deploying force and violence in Portland. Supposedly their legal justification is something about protecting federal monuments or something but according to their acting boss they are preemptively arresting people.
Anyway, it's a huge authoritarian fascist mess to put it mildly.
Of course Trump's doubling down and says he wants to invade like every city.
He wants to occupy America with unaccountable militarized police forces loyal to himself to silence the protests about unaccountable police violence.
I've pretty much decided on doing the same. The Republicans are totally unworthy of my vote at this time in history and a protest vote for the Democrats might get my message across. It's time for a warning shot across the GOP's bow. Correct course or become irrelevant...
It's getting to the point where i've seriously considered leaving the country soon. I have the money and the means to do it, but I never wanted to consider it an option. However, i've had just about enough of watching the ability of good, ordinary people to express themselves freely drain away in favor of a merciless progressive overlord class that delights in putting fear into people by ruining the lives of public figures and ordinary people alike in order to enforce self-censorship, even about the most trivial things. If i'm going to live under a system of totalitarian thought, I would rather it be literally any other one than this one.
The GOP's response to all this is the worst, because they know it's going on and they know it's an issue for their voters, but all they do is make false promises to get their base to vote for another round of tax cuts and entitlement cutting. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are particularly bad about this. They are nothing but slaves to their donors and nothing about who they are represents me.
Protect my right to exist or I have no use for you.
Where would you think about going if you don't mind sharing? Can't say the thought hasn't crossed my mind too. Of course travelling is dangerous but sticking around is dangerous as well. This pandemics is accelerating like crazy here. No guard rails or safety brakes it's totally out of control.
Tips for emigrating (from someone who's done it twice):
Pick your country and check their immigration requirements. Most countries use a points based system with extra points being awarded for skills that are in particular demand in that country (medicine is invariably on the list). Obviously you get a huge amount of extra points if you already have a job offer in that country but a job offer alone doesn't necessarily guarantee you enough points. Having relatives already living in that country can also earn you a few points. Don't even think about applying if you have any kind of criminal record.
Being from the US now has the stigma that so many US citizens have projected on the rest of the world for decades. An out of control hellhole with a raging public health crisis and cratering economy where we have no universal healthcare in the middle of once in a century pandemic. Frankly, other countries should give us a taste of our own medicine and tell anyone trying to emigrate from here to fuck the fuck off. They'd be totally justified in doing so. This is the shithole country. No one else comes close at this point.
It's insane to look at the daily numbers coming out of Canada and Europe, in the later of which many countries were worse off than we were at points in March and April, and try explain away what is going on here. These are our closest facsimiles on the world stage, and it's a tragic embarrassment of the highest proportions.
Germany has a population of nearly 85 million and isn't even hitting double digits in deaths a day from this virus. Very few countries are even hitting 100 deaths at this point. The US?? Inching back towards 1200 a day, with absolutely no end in sight. Based on the 60-70k cases a day for the last few weeks, these numbers will not come down until the end of August even if drastic measures are taken this instant. Which they won't be.
I feel that country has clearly gone down hill since the last Obama residency.
Hilary and Donald were the least liked candidates in decades and now the choice is not much better. You have two geriatric patients for which one has already proven incompetence and the other you can doubt on whether he is mentally ready to go through a full term.
I think it is extremely shameful to both parties if these are the best candidates they can deliver. There should be many progeny ready to step up. What is going on there?
Those death panels we were always warned about during the Obamacare debate have arrived. Make no mistake, there are places in this country where triage decisions like they were making in Italy are taking place, and the most likely places you are going to see it is in rural hospitals:
Like every other disaster, the poor and working class will be screwed, and the powerful will find a way to twist it to their advantage so the gain even MORE wealth and power. I highly suggest everyone read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. Then you'll understand exactly how all this works.
I'm looking forward to the Republicans pissing off the entire country by holding up or watering down the second stimulus being debated currently. These worthless scum will tell any lies neccesary to their base to get elected. They are so shameless about it. The left lies about their opposition, sure, but the GOP lies about their opposition and to their voters, constantly. At least you can trust that the democrats will do, in part, what they say they will. The only thing you can trust the GOP to do is make life harder for everyone but the rich, no matter who is the figurehead or what promises they make.
I'm looking forward to the Republicans pissing off the entire country by holding up or watering down the second stimulus being debated currently. These worthless scum will tell any lies neccesary to their base to get elected. They are so shameless about it. The left lies about their opposition, sure, but the GOP lies about their opposition and to their voters, constantly. At least you can trust that the democrats will do, in part, what they say they will. The only thing you can trust the GOP to do is make life harder for everyone but the rich, no matter who is the figurehead or what promises they make.
From what I understand, their proposals would cut the unemployment stipend from $600 a week to $400 a month, or about 80%. They honestly believe people aren't going to work because they believe they can get more sitting on the couch, rather than the fact that even IF they still have a job in the service industry, hours have been slashed across the board. That money is the only thing keeping consumer spending up. We'll see another $1200 check, and a wholesale elimination of this provision. We all know if Trump had pushed a UBI the Republicans would have had to follow him for fear of his base, and his base would have happily accepted the money. A true populist would have done so, and there would have been nothing the Democrats could have done to beat him if he had gone this route. Instead, he listened to Steve Mnuchin and Art Laffer. For a day or two a few months ago, I was actually (politically) concerned he would outflank the Dems on the left, but then I came to my senses and said "who am I kidding??"
I feel like UBI, in general, has gotten a lot more politically feasible post-corona. A lot of people got a taste of it, and didn't mind it one bit. I was a supporter of Yang and his UBI proposal early on in the democrat nomination, so I'm glad to see it. It also makes the Republican anti-welfare stance that much more distasteful to a large amount of people.
Ok. Can I go tell Trump to F off here and leave Canadian drugs alone. If he signs an order saying that Americans can import Canadian drugs, it will increase the prices, or may even cause shortages here, due to supply and demand.
Fix your god damn patent loophole to get drug prices lowered and allow generic drugs more freedom to be created.
Do not listen to the Research and Development BS either. In fact, feel free to subsidize the costs of clinical trials if this is what these money grubbing sociopaths claim they need the extra years on patents for.
Ok. Can I go tell Trump to F off here and leave Canadian drugs alone. If he signs an order saying that Americans can import Canadian drugs, it will increase the prices, or may even cause shortages here, due to supply and demand.
Fix your god damn patent loophole to get drug prices lowered and allow generic drugs more freedom to be created.
Do not listen to the Research and Development BS either. In fact, feel free to subsidize the costs of clinical trials if this is what these money grubbing sociopaths claim they need the extra years on patents for.
Yeah, Bernie used to organize bus trips of Vermont seniors to drive into Canda to buy drugs because they couldn't afford the American versions.
Ok. Can I go tell Trump to F off here and leave Canadian drugs alone. If he signs an order saying that Americans can import Canadian drugs, it will increase the prices, or may even cause shortages here, due to supply and demand.
Fix your god damn patent loophole to get drug prices lowered and allow generic drugs more freedom to be created.
Do not listen to the Research and Development BS either. In fact, feel free to subsidize the costs of clinical trials if this is what these money grubbing sociopaths claim they need the extra years on patents for.
Sorry. Our President sucks and he's sharing the suckage with North America and the world.
Elections have consequences.
You think more expensive drugs is a problem? We fit it worse. We're dealing with a raging out of control pandemic and almost 150k dead due to this fucking guy's incompetence. He's continually showering us with lies and gaslighting. He's trying to kill us though forcing our children into unsafe situations at schools. And he's invading our cities with fascist goons occupying forces.
Ok. Can I go tell Trump to F off here and leave Canadian drugs alone. If he signs an order saying that Americans can import Canadian drugs, it will increase the prices, or may even cause shortages here, due to supply and demand.
Fix your god damn patent loophole to get drug prices lowered and allow generic drugs more freedom to be created.
Do not listen to the Research and Development BS either. In fact, feel free to subsidize the costs of clinical trials if this is what these money grubbing sociopaths claim they need the extra years on patents for.
Yeah, Bernie used to organize bus trips of Vermont seniors to drive into Canda to buy drugs because they couldn't afford the American versions.
you know what. that's fine. that's what? less than a 100 people over the age of 65 coming here at most once a month.
I do hope Trudeau grows a backbone within the next week and says that Canada has negotiated their prices for Canadians and it is up to Americans to do the same.
And the real kicker here. Most of the US can't get Canadian drugs legally:
"Currently, Americans need a prescription from a physician licensed in Canada to buy Canadian pharmaceuticals.
They can visit a walk-in clinic in Canada, and pay out-of-pocket for the visit. Or some living near the border may even have a family doctor in Canada."
That's from an article from about a year ago. This is all just smoke up the ass before an election in attempt to get seniors back on his side. Guess who isn't going to get a bulk prescription from a physician.
I know it's cliche to hate on Baby Boomers, but when you look at how much wealth and ease of access to the necessities of life they had compared to their descendants today, it's really hard not to be angry about it. I'm not sure I can name another generation in history who so woefully mismanaged a countries long term interests.
I know it's cliche to hate on Baby Boomers, but when you look at how much wealth and ease of access to the necessities of life they had compared to their descendants today, it's really hard not to be angry about it. I'm not sure I can name another generation in history who so woefully mismanaged a countries long term interests.
Their parents were the beneficiaries of unprecedented social programs and spending like (but not limited to) the GI Bill. Education, loans, and mortgages were all tied into this. It's hard to argue the people who fought WWII didn't deserve this. However, on MACRO level (because it would be a mistake to assume every boomer is responsible for this) once their kids hit middle-age, the Woodstock generation become (as George Carlin brilliantly put it in one of his best bits) the generation of "gimmie it, it's mine" and "he who dies with the most toys wins".
The boomers have been the dominant cultural force since the mid-60s, and they've really NEVER given that mantle to anyone else. They were the center of attention to their parents, the 60s counter-culture, and then as consumers to corporations. If ANY generation was coddled, it was the children of what is labeled as the Greatest Generation of WWII. Millennials and Gen Z don't even come close, despite the media's obsession with bashing them. Most Millennials are now in their mid-30s to approaching 40, and we are still treated as if we are children. Most Millennials have kids of their own entering elementary school.
People will say this generational warfare is pointless and counterproductive, and it probably is, but who fired those shots?? The think pieces ripping on Millennials and Gen Z in elite media the last 5 or 6 years have been unending. The idea that phrases like "OK Boomer" and "Karen" would show up in response is inevitable.
I know it's cliche to hate on Baby Boomers, but when you look at how much wealth and ease of access to the necessities of life they had compared to their descendants today, it's really hard not to be angry about it. I'm not sure I can name another generation in history who so woefully mismanaged a countries long term interests.
Their parents were the beneficiaries of unprecedented social programs and spending like (but not limited to) the GI Bill. Education, loans, and mortgages were all tied into this. It's hard to argue the people who fought WWII didn't deserve this. However, on MACRO level (because it would be a mistake to assume every boomer is responsible for this) once their kids hit middle-age, the Woodstock generation become (as George Carlin brilliantly put it in one of his best bits) the generation of "gimmie it, it's mine" and "he who dies with the most toys wins".
The boomers have been the dominant cultural force since the mid-60s, and they've really NEVER given that mantle to anyone else. They were the center of attention to their parents, the 60s counter-culture, and then as consumers to corporations. If ANY generation was coddled, it was the children of what is labeled as the Greatest Generation of WWII. Millennials and Gen Z don't even come close, despite the media's obsession with bashing them. Most Millennials are now in their mid-30s to approaching 40, and we are still treated as if we are children. Most Millennials have kids of their own entering elementary school.
People will say this generational warfare is pointless and counterproductive, and it probably is, but who fired those shots?? The think pieces ripping on Millennials and Gen Z in elite media the last 5 or 6 years have been unending. The idea that phrases like "OK Boomer" and "Karen" would show up in response is inevitable.
Well, truthfully, that’s democracy for you.
The state caters to the majority wellbeing because the majority is who puts you in power. Boomers have been the majority since they were born. Pissed them off ‘for the good of the nation’ was the easiest way to be kicked out of office.
I know it's cliche to hate on Baby Boomers, but when you look at how much wealth and ease of access to the necessities of life they had compared to their descendants today, it's really hard not to be angry about it. I'm not sure I can name another generation in history who so woefully mismanaged a countries long term interests.
Their parents were the beneficiaries of unprecedented social programs and spending like (but not limited to) the GI Bill. Education, loans, and mortgages were all tied into this. It's hard to argue the people who fought WWII didn't deserve this. However, on MACRO level (because it would be a mistake to assume every boomer is responsible for this) once their kids hit middle-age, the Woodstock generation become (as George Carlin brilliantly put it in one of his best bits) the generation of "gimmie it, it's mine" and "he who dies with the most toys wins".
The boomers have been the dominant cultural force since the mid-60s, and they've really NEVER given that mantle to anyone else. They were the center of attention to their parents, the 60s counter-culture, and then as consumers to corporations. If ANY generation was coddled, it was the children of what is labeled as the Greatest Generation of WWII. Millennials and Gen Z don't even come close, despite the media's obsession with bashing them. Most Millennials are now in their mid-30s to approaching 40, and we are still treated as if we are children. Most Millennials have kids of their own entering elementary school.
People will say this generational warfare is pointless and counterproductive, and it probably is, but who fired those shots?? The think pieces ripping on Millennials and Gen Z in elite media the last 5 or 6 years have been unending. The idea that phrases like "OK Boomer" and "Karen" would show up in response is inevitable.
Well, truthfully, that’s democracy for you.
The state caters to the majority wellbeing because the majority is who puts you in power. Boomers have been the majority since they were born. Pissed them off ‘for the good of the nation’ was the easiest way to be kicked out of office.
An easy part to miss is that their power (so to speak) is right there in the name. There are simply more of them. Because of their parent's elation at coming out of the Depression and WWII alive and reinvigorated. There was not only alot of pent of sexual desire because of the war, but they realized they could AFFORD to have a family, a nice house, and a garage with a car. Our current crisis might have ONE of those aspects at the end, but it certainly won't be the one dealing with financial security.
Not only that but here's a little caveat to the "Greatest Generation". Only around 10% of veterans see 'actual' combat. Sorry, but that's significant. Not to disparage their contributions, but of the 16 million WW2 veterans, less than 2 million ever fired a weapon. Do with that statistic what you will. That's ditto for the Vietnam War and Korea. Most veterans fight boredom far more than they fight the enemy...
Not only that but here's a little caveat to the "Greatest Generation". Only around 10% of veterans see 'actual' combat. Sorry, but that's significant. Not to disparage their contributions, but of the 16 million WW2 veterans, less than 2 million ever fired a weapon. Do with that statistic what you will. That's ditto for the Vietnam War and Korea. Most veterans fight boredom far more than they fight the enemy...
My grandfather on my dad's side was someone who actually broke his back in combat, and to be perfectly honest, I have no idea WHAT he did after he got back as a profession. But they always had enough money to pay for whatever further schooling my dad asked for out of pocket. And my grandma was simply a highly regarded secretary for a local attorney. This is why I use the term "coddling". Because they spoiled my father to the point of absolute absurdity well into his 40s.
I know it's cliche to hate on Baby Boomers, but when you look at how much wealth and ease of access to the necessities of life they had compared to their descendants today, it's really hard not to be angry about it. I'm not sure I can name another generation in history who so woefully mismanaged a countries long term interests.
Their parents were the beneficiaries of unprecedented social programs and spending like (but not limited to) the GI Bill. Education, loans, and mortgages were all tied into this. It's hard to argue the people who fought WWII didn't deserve this. However, on MACRO level (because it would be a mistake to assume every boomer is responsible for this) once their kids hit middle-age, the Woodstock generation become (as George Carlin brilliantly put it in one of his best bits) the generation of "gimmie it, it's mine" and "he who dies with the most toys wins".
The boomers have been the dominant cultural force since the mid-60s, and they've really NEVER given that mantle to anyone else. They were the center of attention to their parents, the 60s counter-culture, and then as consumers to corporations. If ANY generation was coddled, it was the children of what is labeled as the Greatest Generation of WWII. Millennials and Gen Z don't even come close, despite the media's obsession with bashing them. Most Millennials are now in their mid-30s to approaching 40, and we are still treated as if we are children. Most Millennials have kids of their own entering elementary school.
People will say this generational warfare is pointless and counterproductive, and it probably is, but who fired those shots?? The think pieces ripping on Millennials and Gen Z in elite media the last 5 or 6 years have been unending. The idea that phrases like "OK Boomer" and "Karen" would show up in response is inevitable.
Well, truthfully, that’s democracy for you.
The state caters to the majority wellbeing because the majority is who puts you in power. Boomers have been the majority since they were born. Pissed them off ‘for the good of the nation’ was the easiest way to be kicked out of office.
This and many other flaws are why I don't consider democracy to be the best form of government in all cases, at least not without some restrictions. It can easily lead to the majority group abusing the minority group, or in this case, condemning them to a much lesser standard of living all across the board.
Minorities within a democracy need some form of protection against the power of the majority. The founders of the country understood that, but I think that idea has been more or less abandoned today.
I don't think any sort of restrictions could have prevented the baby boomer phenomenon after the war however, too many other factors involved. But the principle stands.
Not only that but here's a little caveat to the "Greatest Generation". Only around 10% of veterans see 'actual' combat. Sorry, but that's significant. Not to disparage their contributions, but of the 16 million WW2 veterans, less than 2 million ever fired a weapon. Do with that statistic what you will. That's ditto for the Vietnam War and Korea. Most veterans fight boredom far more than they fight the enemy...
Where's the stat on WW2 vets coming from? The link you provided only talks about current wars and kinda misses part of the point.
My step brother, right now, is in Mali as a door gunner on a helicopter. I want to say he hasn't fired his gun yet (we're not really close), but the stress a person can get of just being on edge and not knowing if you are going to be attacked is a horrible experience that just gets compounded every time you leave a safe zone.
My step father was a sanitation engineer in the first Iraq war. He never left the base, nor did he ever fire his weapon but that didn't stop him from being gassed when the base he was working at was shelled.
My father, an airplane mechanic, never saw combat. He wanted too, he wanted to die a hero. But that didn't stop him from getting PTSD from picking up body parts after military plane crashes. Nor did it stop him from getting sick and dying young because he was told to recover the all jet fuel from a tank so he'd be in the confined area with no ventilation or protective equipment, sopping up the jet fuel with a bucket, a rag and his bare hands. Late 70s for you (I highly doubt they still do that). When he was in the hospital before he died, the doctors were shocked at the amount of chemicals in his body. He didn't die in combat, but the military still killed him and pretty much gave him a slow and painful death.
So ya, that 10% who fire at enemy combatants might be a realistic statistic now, but it shouldn't be the only statistic used to determine if they were actually doing something meaningful or that the other 90% just 'fight boredom.' There is a mental toll on almost every person who serves in the military, regardless of their role.
Comments
I can respect this position from both your and @WarChiefZeke - obviously I'm biased against the ideology in general, but it seems to me that the best way for conservatism to course correct is a total and utter repudiation of Trumpism.
It's just not fit for purpose for any segment of society, which is probably why it was so easy for a political neophyte like Trump to win against all of the most well known GOP politicians.
I disagree to a slight extent here. The holdup on getting a second bailout to citizens isn't Trump, it's the Republican controlled Senate.
They're going to do something in the next few weeks, but it's going to be focused on
1.) A payroll tax cut (fine for me I guess, useless if you aren't on a payroll)
2.) Either eliminating the $600 stipend in unemployment which is boosting consumer spending, or cutting it in half
3.) A capital gains tax-cut
4.) A corporate liability shield
This package will not regain them a single vote. It might as well be written by the Chamber of Commerce lobby (who am I kidding, that is who is is writing it).
That's assuming they're even able to get it to Trump's desk. Doubtful from I'm hearing at this point...
I think you're right, but maybe not in the way you meant (or maybe exactly in the way you meant. It's hard to tell).
Trumpism is the equivalent of turning the vitriol in Conservative orthodoxy up to 11. Traditional Conservative orthodoxy opposes too much immigration for a variety of reasons (Some are racist, see the soon to be former Rep Steve King - and some are economic). Trumpism amplifies the racism side and diminishes the economic side.
Which is why it's such an issue for the future of Conservatism. Older generations are perhaps more accepting of that message, but millennials and generation Z recoil at it. They might have bought the economic argument against immigration, but Trumpism cannibalizes that and puts the emphasis on racist messaging.
Edit - but it still must be said - Trump absolutely does advance the ball on Conservative beliefs. He's completely terrible at his job, and corrupt to high heaven, but his fundamental underpinnings are Conservative.
- the UK decision to remove Huawei as a supplier to the new 5g network.
- a common approach to Hong Kong, such as ending extradition agreements and special trading status.
- a more critical line by the UK on China generally (closer to that of the US), e.g. over human rights violations in Xinjiang.
- the long-awaited publication of a report by a House of Commons Committee on potential interference by Russia in UK elections and other affairs. I suspect the main reason this was delayed was because of the potential embarrassment to the UK government (who have ignored the issue for years). However, Trump would not necessarily be keen to see Russia back in the news either - and the publication now probably partly reflects the recent improvement in relations.
- the UK has been asking for some time for Anne Sacoolas to be extradited to face charges for killing a motor-cyclist before fleeing from the UK. The US position is that she had diplomatic immunity through the work of her husband in the UK, though the UK had not accepted that. If an extradition had happened it would certainly have been seen as a major climbdown by Trump. Reading between the lines of this story, I think it's now been agreed that she won't be extradited, but that the US will agree that anyone else in a similar position will not have diplomatic immunity in the future.
The improvement in the relationship is evidenced by Pompeo's current visit to the UK, which has generally gone smoothly. One slight hiccup I did note is Pompeo's statement that China is responsible for coronavirus deaths in the UK as a result of their close relationship with the head of the WHO. I think that's very much aimed at his domestic audience and bears little resemblance to reality. However, while I don't think that line will get significant support in the UK, as long as the US does not actually try and push the UK to come out of the WHO, it won't cause any significant tension.
There is no functional difference between asking the British government to help steer one of the four golf majors to be held at your golf course and asking them to directly deposit tens of millions of dollars in your bank account.
About Anne Sacoolas, I wonder if Biden gets to power if he’ll reverse this decision and extradite her as the UK is requesting. Trump has shown what the previous administration has said and done is by far a final decision.-
If it was reverse and a UK diplomats wife killed a person with their car and ran back to their country, the right wing media and politicans would be kicking and screaming and boycotting the UK until they were returned.
Anyway, it's a huge authoritarian fascist mess to put it mildly.
Of course Trump's doubling down and says he wants to invade like every city.
He wants to occupy America with unaccountable militarized police forces loyal to himself to silence the protests about unaccountable police violence.
I'm not a fan of this development.
Where would you think about going if you don't mind sharing? Can't say the thought hasn't crossed my mind too. Of course travelling is dangerous but sticking around is dangerous as well. This pandemics is accelerating like crazy here. No guard rails or safety brakes it's totally out of control.
Pick your country and check their immigration requirements. Most countries use a points based system with extra points being awarded for skills that are in particular demand in that country (medicine is invariably on the list). Obviously you get a huge amount of extra points if you already have a job offer in that country but a job offer alone doesn't necessarily guarantee you enough points. Having relatives already living in that country can also earn you a few points. Don't even think about applying if you have any kind of criminal record.
It's insane to look at the daily numbers coming out of Canada and Europe, in the later of which many countries were worse off than we were at points in March and April, and try explain away what is going on here. These are our closest facsimiles on the world stage, and it's a tragic embarrassment of the highest proportions.
Germany has a population of nearly 85 million and isn't even hitting double digits in deaths a day from this virus. Very few countries are even hitting 100 deaths at this point. The US?? Inching back towards 1200 a day, with absolutely no end in sight. Based on the 60-70k cases a day for the last few weeks, these numbers will not come down until the end of August even if drastic measures are taken this instant. Which they won't be.
Hilary and Donald were the least liked candidates in decades and now the choice is not much better. You have two geriatric patients for which one has already proven incompetence and the other you can doubt on whether he is mentally ready to go through a full term.
I think it is extremely shameful to both parties if these are the best candidates they can deliver. There should be many progeny ready to step up. What is going on there?
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/coronavirus/article244443257.html
Meanwhile, if you want to know the reason the Republican Senate is going to make a stand on a corporate liability shield, look no further:
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/24/meat-industry-coronavirus-lawsuits/
Like every other disaster, the poor and working class will be screwed, and the powerful will find a way to twist it to their advantage so the gain even MORE wealth and power. I highly suggest everyone read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. Then you'll understand exactly how all this works.
From what I understand, their proposals would cut the unemployment stipend from $600 a week to $400 a month, or about 80%. They honestly believe people aren't going to work because they believe they can get more sitting on the couch, rather than the fact that even IF they still have a job in the service industry, hours have been slashed across the board. That money is the only thing keeping consumer spending up. We'll see another $1200 check, and a wholesale elimination of this provision. We all know if Trump had pushed a UBI the Republicans would have had to follow him for fear of his base, and his base would have happily accepted the money. A true populist would have done so, and there would have been nothing the Democrats could have done to beat him if he had gone this route. Instead, he listened to Steve Mnuchin and Art Laffer. For a day or two a few months ago, I was actually (politically) concerned he would outflank the Dems on the left, but then I came to my senses and said "who am I kidding??"
Ok. Can I go tell Trump to F off here and leave Canadian drugs alone. If he signs an order saying that Americans can import Canadian drugs, it will increase the prices, or may even cause shortages here, due to supply and demand.
Fix your god damn patent loophole to get drug prices lowered and allow generic drugs more freedom to be created.
Do not listen to the Research and Development BS either. In fact, feel free to subsidize the costs of clinical trials if this is what these money grubbing sociopaths claim they need the extra years on patents for.
Yeah, Bernie used to organize bus trips of Vermont seniors to drive into Canda to buy drugs because they couldn't afford the American versions.
Sorry. Our President sucks and he's sharing the suckage with North America and the world.
Elections have consequences.
You think more expensive drugs is a problem? We fit it worse. We're dealing with a raging out of control pandemic and almost 150k dead due to this fucking guy's incompetence. He's continually showering us with lies and gaslighting. He's trying to kill us though forcing our children into unsafe situations at schools. And he's invading our cities with fascist goons occupying forces.
you know what. that's fine. that's what? less than a 100 people over the age of 65 coming here at most once a month.
What he's proposing is this on a grander scale, and you all are probably still not going to get them at the price Canadians pay as "states, wholesalers and pharmacies (are allowed) to import FDA-approved drugs from foreign countries and sell them in the U.S." Those states, wholesalers and pharmacies are then going to mark up the price to take their cut. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-ne-prescription-drugs-desantis-trump-orders-20200724-djhi5g3bfndnbh4vrdonjbzqyq-story.html
I do hope Trudeau grows a backbone within the next week and says that Canada has negotiated their prices for Canadians and it is up to Americans to do the same.
And the real kicker here. Most of the US can't get Canadian drugs legally:
"Currently, Americans need a prescription from a physician licensed in Canada to buy Canadian pharmaceuticals.
They can visit a walk-in clinic in Canada, and pay out-of-pocket for the visit. Or some living near the border may even have a family doctor in Canada."
That's from an article from about a year ago. This is all just smoke up the ass before an election in attempt to get seniors back on his side. Guess who isn't going to get a bulk prescription from a physician.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/03/precariousness-modern-young-adulthood-one-chart/
Their parents were the beneficiaries of unprecedented social programs and spending like (but not limited to) the GI Bill. Education, loans, and mortgages were all tied into this. It's hard to argue the people who fought WWII didn't deserve this. However, on MACRO level (because it would be a mistake to assume every boomer is responsible for this) once their kids hit middle-age, the Woodstock generation become (as George Carlin brilliantly put it in one of his best bits) the generation of "gimmie it, it's mine" and "he who dies with the most toys wins".
The boomers have been the dominant cultural force since the mid-60s, and they've really NEVER given that mantle to anyone else. They were the center of attention to their parents, the 60s counter-culture, and then as consumers to corporations. If ANY generation was coddled, it was the children of what is labeled as the Greatest Generation of WWII. Millennials and Gen Z don't even come close, despite the media's obsession with bashing them. Most Millennials are now in their mid-30s to approaching 40, and we are still treated as if we are children. Most Millennials have kids of their own entering elementary school.
People will say this generational warfare is pointless and counterproductive, and it probably is, but who fired those shots?? The think pieces ripping on Millennials and Gen Z in elite media the last 5 or 6 years have been unending. The idea that phrases like "OK Boomer" and "Karen" would show up in response is inevitable.
Well, truthfully, that’s democracy for you.
The state caters to the majority wellbeing because the majority is who puts you in power. Boomers have been the majority since they were born. Pissed them off ‘for the good of the nation’ was the easiest way to be kicked out of office.
An easy part to miss is that their power (so to speak) is right there in the name. There are simply more of them. Because of their parent's elation at coming out of the Depression and WWII alive and reinvigorated. There was not only alot of pent of sexual desire because of the war, but they realized they could AFFORD to have a family, a nice house, and a garage with a car. Our current crisis might have ONE of those aspects at the end, but it certainly won't be the one dealing with financial security.
https://www.midwestdisability.com/blog/2019/12/what-percentage-of-soldiers-see-combat.shtml
My grandfather on my dad's side was someone who actually broke his back in combat, and to be perfectly honest, I have no idea WHAT he did after he got back as a profession. But they always had enough money to pay for whatever further schooling my dad asked for out of pocket. And my grandma was simply a highly regarded secretary for a local attorney. This is why I use the term "coddling". Because they spoiled my father to the point of absolute absurdity well into his 40s.
This and many other flaws are why I don't consider democracy to be the best form of government in all cases, at least not without some restrictions. It can easily lead to the majority group abusing the minority group, or in this case, condemning them to a much lesser standard of living all across the board.
Minorities within a democracy need some form of protection against the power of the majority. The founders of the country understood that, but I think that idea has been more or less abandoned today.
I don't think any sort of restrictions could have prevented the baby boomer phenomenon after the war however, too many other factors involved. But the principle stands.
Where's the stat on WW2 vets coming from? The link you provided only talks about current wars and kinda misses part of the point.
My step brother, right now, is in Mali as a door gunner on a helicopter. I want to say he hasn't fired his gun yet (we're not really close), but the stress a person can get of just being on edge and not knowing if you are going to be attacked is a horrible experience that just gets compounded every time you leave a safe zone.
My step father was a sanitation engineer in the first Iraq war. He never left the base, nor did he ever fire his weapon but that didn't stop him from being gassed when the base he was working at was shelled.
My father, an airplane mechanic, never saw combat. He wanted too, he wanted to die a hero. But that didn't stop him from getting PTSD from picking up body parts after military plane crashes. Nor did it stop him from getting sick and dying young because he was told to recover the all jet fuel from a tank so he'd be in the confined area with no ventilation or protective equipment, sopping up the jet fuel with a bucket, a rag and his bare hands. Late 70s for you (I highly doubt they still do that). When he was in the hospital before he died, the doctors were shocked at the amount of chemicals in his body. He didn't die in combat, but the military still killed him and pretty much gave him a slow and painful death.
So ya, that 10% who fire at enemy combatants might be a realistic statistic now, but it shouldn't be the only statistic used to determine if they were actually doing something meaningful or that the other 90% just 'fight boredom.' There is a mental toll on almost every person who serves in the military, regardless of their role.