U.S. Politics

[LondonLax]

It is an intelligent electorate’s response to the problems created by a ‘first past the post’ system. 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by LondonLax
Spelling!

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, villakram said:

The "center" over here now lies to the right of the actual center.

There is no "actual centre"

[blandy]

39 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You're discussing your view on 'electability'. That's fine, I don't agree with it, but whatever. That's not what I'm talking about though.

We're both talking about our own views.

We have different takes on it, which is fine. Yours I believe to be that by repeatedly rejecting  their personal favourite (collectively) they'll never get their personal favourite.

Mine is that by (en masse) picking the most likely to win, they're giving themselves the best chance of getting a Dem as pres.

Obviously the best of both worlds is where the collective personal favourite is also has the best  chance of winning.

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, villakram said:

@blandy

That kind of thinking and voting strategy has lead to a steady move to the right by the US electorate over the past 50yrs. The "center" over here now lies to the right of the actual center. Of course, neo-liberal policies benefit those with, at the expense of those without, so there's that at least.

The UK is doing likewise.

Imho, allowing ourselves to be told about the electability of so and so by media organs owned and operated by those in the status quo doesn't quite make sense.  

That's arguable in terms of the steps within that 50 years. It's also highly (to the point of being utterly, not at all ,credible) arguable as to whether it's the cause of any movement one way or the other.

The centre is something of a moving target anyway. The US center is nowehere near the UK one. and the things that mark your center and our center are completely different, too.

Any move towards one direction or another is not driven by Dem voter choices of credible candidates (or Rep ones) - it's driven by a mass of factors, actions and reactions across the globe, and then how they are reflected in Government and populace opinion. and attitudes.

 

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

We're both talking about our own views.

We have different takes on it, which is fine. Yours I believe to be that by repeatedly rejecting  their personal favourite (collectively) they'll never get their personal favourite.

Mine is that by (en masse) picking the most likely to win, they're giving themselves the best chance of getting a Dem as pres.

Obviously the best of both worlds is where the collective personal favourite is also has the best  chance of winning.

Ignoring for a moment that your point involves describing a subjective conclusion ('the most likely to win') as if it is objective, that's a fair summary. But my disagreement is that your point is in any way a refutation of mine, which appeared to be how you were stating it. It isn't. 

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Ignoring for a moment that your point involves describing a subjective conclusion ('the most likely to win') as if it is objective, that's a fair summary. But my disagreement is that your point is in any way a refutation of mine, which appeared to be how you were stating it. It isn't. 

I was refuting your stance that This is an extremely dumb thing for 'voters' to do". Like I said I see it as wise. It's OK to disagree on this. No worries.

[maqroll]

And just when you thought the American political drama was cooling off, Trump has coronavirus. My guess is he has it as he's been in contact with at least two people who have it. Fire up the Right wing conspiracy machine about how it's a George Soros scheme to kill MAGAs.

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

And just when you thought the American political drama was cooling off, Trump has coronavirus. My guess is he has it as he's been in contact with at least two people who have it. Fire up the Right wing conspiracy machine about how it's a George Soros scheme to kill MAGAs.

Is this factual?

I know he suspended flights from Europe to the U.S.A, but can't find any sources for him contracting it.

 

[Straggler]

No it is not factual, he sounded a bit sick/raspy when reading his speech about shutting some stable door after the horse was long gone and the rumors started off the back of that.  It has not been confirmed by any reputable source.

[bannedfromHandV]

He did appear unwell I thought, more so than usual.

He unnaturally paused a few times which may have been editing, may have been him drawing breath, or may just have been because he couldn’t read the script.

[sne]

5 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

He did appear unwell I thought, more so than usual.

He unnaturally paused a few times which may have been editing, may have been him drawing breath, or may just have been because he couldn’t read the script.

As a self proclaimed germaphobe I imagine he is terrified. He is called the Purell President for a reason and this is pretty much his worst nightmare.

Sick or not I think he is bricking it.

[A'Villan]

@Brumerican If only Donald Trump was like Michael Jordan, he would lead the people he represents to glory despite suffering flu-like symptoms.

[HanoiVillan]

 . . . what

 

[A'Villan]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

 . . . what

 

Excuse my ignorance but why would this story have any substance to it?

[bickster]

Just now, A'Villan said:

Excuse my ignorance but why would this story have any substance to it?

I would 99% be certain that Congressional hearings are part of the public record

[il_serpente]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I would 99% be certain that Congressional hearings are part of the public record

I wouldn't be so sure with this administration.   The daily corona virus briefings have been classified and you never know what they're going to try to keep from the public any more!

[A'Villan]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I would 99% be certain that Congressional hearings are part of the public record

Sure, but I'm confused and wondering, surely this story is telling what may be a partial truth but misrepresenting the bigger picture?

Not to speculate, but I will, say these funding cuts are for an allocation of funds deemed appropriate elsewhere?

[HanoiVillan]

36 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Sure, but I'm confused and wondering, surely this story is telling what may be a partial truth but misrepresenting the bigger picture?

Not to speculate, but I will, say these funding cuts are for an allocation of funds deemed appropriate elsewhere?

 

Here's the story:

Trump administration isn't backing off proposed cuts to CDC budget

'[...] as the coronavirus threat was just starting to come into focus in early February, the White House recommended significant cuts to investments at the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.

To be sure, this president had called for deep cuts to the CDC budget before, and Congress ignored those requests. But calling for CDC cuts in the midst of a global viral outbreak seemed especially bizarre.

Stranger still, the White House apparently hasn't changed its mind. The Hill reported yesterday:

Russ Vought, the acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, on Tuesday doubled down on proposed cuts to health services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), despite the coronavirus outbreak.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) reminded the White House budget director that the president's blueprint proposed cuts to both the CDC and the Infectious Diseases Rapid Response Reserve Fund. The Pennsylvania Democrat asked, "The question is today, as we sit here and we know about coronavirus and the impact it's taking on the people of the world and the economies of the world and the stock market and everything, as you sit here today, are you ready to take that back?"'

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-administration-isn-t-backing-proposed-cuts-cdc-budget-n1155411

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

Here's the story:

Trump administration isn't backing off proposed cuts to CDC budget

'[...] as the coronavirus threat was just starting to come into focus in early February, the White House recommended significant cuts to investments at the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.

To be sure, this president had called for deep cuts to the CDC budget before, and Congress ignored those requests. But calling for CDC cuts in the midst of a global viral outbreak seemed especially bizarre.

Stranger still, the White House apparently hasn't changed its mind. The Hill reported yesterday:

Russ Vought, the acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, on Tuesday doubled down on proposed cuts to health services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), despite the coronavirus outbreak.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) reminded the White House budget director that the president's blueprint proposed cuts to both the CDC and the Infectious Diseases Rapid Response Reserve Fund. The Pennsylvania Democrat asked, "The question is today, as we sit here and we know about coronavirus and the impact it's taking on the people of the world and the economies of the world and the stock market and everything, as you sit here today, are you ready to take that back?"'

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-administration-isn-t-backing-proposed-cuts-cdc-budget-n1155411

I don't mean to sound ridiculous, but could it be possible that the USA declare Martial Law?

Edit: Something just doesn't add up for me. We've got a virus that potentially hits 60-80% of the world's populace within the year and that can be fatal, which is also mutating as it spreads, and Trump suspends all travel to Europe, but won't give his home base the necessary resources to mitigate risk within his own borders?

Edited March 12, 2020 by A'Villan

[A'Villan]

Quote

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 130 million people visited emergency rooms in the U.S. in 2013—about 42 in 100 people.

So they are already seeing to high volumes of people needing medical attention from a hospital.

They have near 1 million staffed beds in the USA's hospitals, that's public and private combined.

With a population of well over 300 million, they're in trouble, especially if they're cutting funds as @HanoiVillan has posted.

Edited March 12, 2020 by A'Villan