If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Yeah, he sure messed up Obama's presidency, didn't he?
You can laugh but he was a more effective leader than Paul Ryan...damn sure more than Kevin McCarthy. Might even argue better than Newt if you consider the way Newt's career ended.
We shall leave pedophile Dennis Hastert out of the conversation.
Your expectations for Democratic party leadership are way lower than you claim mine are.
You absolutely refuse to repudiate people like Pelosi, Tliab and Nadler and all of their stupid nonsense, but continue to blast Newt and Paul Ryan for their tenures.
I'd blame your Ohio residency for that, but there has to be something more.
"What you're doing, speaks so loudly, that I can't hear what you are saying"
I think Nadler's terrible at his job. Pelosi is a good leader but clearly past her prime and occasionally annoys me with some of her Trump-baiting comments.
Nadler is a clown. Pelosi is a career politician and she, more or less, knows what she's doing. I dislike some things about her, but I think of her as the Left's version of McConnell.
Any member of "The Squad" is god-awful.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
The Dems got pretty whipped in 2016, too IIRC. It wasn't just that HRC was such a horrible candidate, but that the Obama agenda had run its course. It was, even though Jon got blasted upthread for using the term, a pendulum shift. That stuff happens in US politics- usually every 6-10 years. Each side gets their chance and then you switch sides and let the other guy play. You don't ever go easy on the other guys, but there's a sense of responsibility, not just from Congress and the WH, but from the press and the voters, to do what's best for the nation as a whole. Yeah, Boehner and McConnell were putzes, but they're not much different than Pellosi, Schumer, Schiff, etc. They all need to be held accountable
Sure, that sounds like "blue skies" sort of logic, but that's really how this country has worked. 2016 was kind of unique in that a significant amount of voters were fed up with all of the clowns in both parties that they elected a real life version of Al Czervik from Caddyshack. as their President. As messed up as this is, it's even more amazing, frightening, actually, that neither one of the parties has come up with anyone better in the subsequent 4 years.
Oh, I forgot about Schumer. I think he's a weaker party leader than Pelosi definitely. Harry Reid was by all accounts an abrasive asshole but he got stuff done for his party. The political machine he set up for himself in Nevada is still paying off for Dems.
FWIW Dems actually made small gains in both the House and Senate in the 2016 elections but that's because they hit their lowest point in decades after the 2014 midterms. Here's the number of House members they had at the start of each Congress (you need 218 for a majority):
Heh, I actually checked and I believe the 2015-2017 Congress had the fewest Dems in it since the 1947-1949 Congress, when there were two fewer states. That was the first time Republicans had control of the House of Representatives since 1931.
Basically from mid-1931 until the 1994 midterms, Republican ran the House for a grand total of only 4 years.
Not sure what DSL is really getting at here. It's pretty clear that watching partisan politics is like us watching the SEC play football.- it's highly entertaining and while you might have your favorite teams, none of them give a damn about you.
Historical perspective. From the '29 stock market crash to roughly the end of Vietnam there was a strong Dem majority in this country. Since Reagan the politics are more like the ebb and flow you and talent are talking about. In terms of the seesaw aspect and tight presidential elections, we have more similarity to the late 1800's (arguably) than 1900-1980. Republicans were absolutely dominant in the first 30 years of the 20th century and then the Dems for the next 45-50 or so.
Florida
When including third party candidates: Libertarian nominee Dr. Jo Jorgensen (3%) and Green party nominee Howie Hawkins (2%), Joe Biden and Donald Trump are tied at 43% each, while 9% were unsure. As expected, Joe Biden was performing very well with younger voters aged 18-29 (Biden le...
A few months go by and 160,000 people caught the disease and died. Which politician will the general public be more forgiving of? The one who preached doom and "only" 160,000 died or the guy who promised you'd be safe and "only" 160,000 people died?
I want to make sure I have this right because I'm going to blast this question with a talent lite response .....
You're asking me which politician, A or B is, in retrospect, going to get a lean to the view, yep, he was right:
A..... for saying the pandemic is like the Black Plague of the 14th century and a lot of people are going to die..... and you forgot to add UNLESS WE LOCK EVERYONE AND EVERY THING DOWN...... and 160K died.
or
B....... for saying you can't control the virus as in eliminate community spread. You certainly can't eradicate it. It is an unobtainable goal to try to engineer near zero risk before reopening the economy, churches, schools, sports, whatever. Better to figure out how to manage outcomes, bear the disease burden of C-19 while responsibly reopening...... and 160K died.
This is a fucking no-brainer. The guy preaching A is stupid and if you are in that crowd, its a bad crowd to be associated with. Sure, lock downs and stay-at-home orders work but the only way to prevent the spread of the virus right now is to continue that insanity while companies go bankrupt, jobs disappear, and the social fabric of the locked down community unravels. It's not sustainable. You have to come out and as soon as you do, the virus will return...... endless cycle of shutting down, reopening, shutting down and on and on and on. Are we seeing this now in varying degrees? Yes. I rest my case.
Look, SARS-CoV-2 is going to be with us for years..... YEARS. It's not going away and if it does, there will be other viruses to come along out of fucking China that humans have no immunity to. The disease burden of C-19 is going to be impactful for years. A vaccine may help but until it is judged safe, until it is available at scale, until, outside of trials, it's proven to dampen community spread, until such dampening appears to be sustainable implying some degree of lasting immunity, we have to learn to bear the disease burden as best we can, manage outcomes for Americans that contract the virus and develop C-19 as best we can ...... and that is a lot of "untils," a lot of water under the bridge, a LONG time to alternatively keep the folks locked down while the economy craters...... and 160K die.
So, fuck guy A. He is stupid and totally unrealistic.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
The NASDAQ is now up 23% on the year. The S&P 500 is up 3%. Amazing.
But, but, but ..... DSL will tell you that his sources think the markets are completely disconnected from economic reality.
Granted, we're seeing consolidation in the market place. The big guys are doing well and wealth is accumulating within those companies while small businesses are struggling. But that is how that goes in capital markets but, DSL doesn't like those so he'll whine about it.
I believe that small business is incredibly important to the US economy but the big boys drive the US economic engine and have done so for centuries. I'm fine with that, I'm not fine with redistributive socialism and what that implies as in leveling the playing field.
I do think a strong middle class made up of entrepreneurs and well trained labor is important. There are ways to build a middle class like that through education, tax policy, consumer protections and appropriate regulations. In the mean time, Congress has at it's disposal the means to get small business and the mostly low skill labor force through this if it will get off it's partisan ass and get it done ..... and I am for a huge free money hand-out as fiscal policy from Congress and easy money as monetary policy from the Fed .... for now.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
I want to make sure I have this right because I'm going to blast this question with a talent lite response .....
You're asking me which politician, A or B is, in retrospect, going to get a lean to the view, yep, he was right:
A..... for saying the pandemic is like the Black Plague of the 14th century and a lot of people are going to die..... and you forgot to add UNLESS WE LOCK EVERYONE AND EVERY THING DOWN...... and 160K died.
or
B....... for saying you can't control the virus as in eliminate community spread. You certainly can't eradicate it. It is an unobtainable goal to try to engineer near zero risk before reopening the economy, churches, schools, sports, whatever. Better to figure out how to manage outcomes, bear the disease burden of C-19 while responsibly reopening...... and 160K died.
This is a fucking no-brainer. The guy preaching A is stupid and if you are in that crowd, its a bad crowd to be associated with. Sure, lock downs and stay-at-home orders work but the only way to prevent the spread of the virus right now is to continue that insanity while companies go bankrupt, jobs disappear, and the social fabric of the locked down community unravels. It's not sustainable. You have to come out and as soon as you do, the virus will return...... endless cycle of shutting down, reopening, shutting down and on and on and on. Are we seeing this now in varying degrees? Yes. I rest my case.
Look, SARS-CoV-2 is going to be with us for years..... YEARS. It's not going away and if it does, there will be other viruses to come along out of fucking China that humans have no immunity to. The disease burden of C-19 is going to be impactful for years. A vaccine may help but until it is judged safe, until it is available at scale, until, outside of trials, it's proven to dampen community spread, until such dampening appears to be sustainable implying some degree of lasting immunity, we have to learn to bear the disease burden as best we can, manage outcomes for Americans that contract the virus and develop C-19 as best we can ...... and that is a lot of "untils," a lot of water under the bridge, a LONG time to alternatively keep the folks locked down while the economy craters...... and 160K die.
So, fuck guy A. He is stupid and totally unrealistic.
There's literally no one saying all businesses, schools, and churches must remain closed until cases reach zero. No one. Tell me a Governor who has literally closed everything and refuses to lift any restrictions. Name ONE.
There used to be, maybe still are, plenty of people downplaying the disease, think it's all media hype, think masks are a waste of time, and are generally opposed to closing anything or having any portion of their life inconvenienced in any slight way.
Tweet
Comment