I don't think that's accurate, and it goes back to what I consistently have said about Trump - the reasons for his election go far further than racism. I don't think they're even primarily racism. Dismissing it as that misses the opportunity to meaningfully address the big picture. I've explained which I believe this many times on these forums, but perhaps a smarter and wiser man than me (Simon Sinek) can hold forth this time:

DONALD TRUMP IS A REFLECTION OF US - Simon Sinek on Trump - YouTube

What do you mean I don't think that's accurate? What other way is there to describe birtherism?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Birtherism appealed not just to racists but also to a lot of garden-variety conspiracy theorists not driven by racism. But more importantly, I don't think it's correct to say Trump's political career was built on birtherism either.

Birtherism was definitely a building block in Trump's political career. Not sure how you can think otherwise. It's not the only block, it may or may not be the largest block. But it is a block none-the-less.

Trump absolutely found his political niche with birtherism. It's what gave him the following to start his campaign. He used it as a way to show he would tell the truth when the squishes wouldn't.

Not everyone who voted...

But there's no doubt that the key group of Trump voters, non-college educated whites, were much more motivated by cultural and racial resentment than by economic anxiety.

So... Trump telling a Chinese-born reporter to go ask China about his failed coronavirus response has led to splitting hairs about whether Trump is kinda racist or really racist?

The man's an artist in a demented sort of way. I have to give him that.

SI

Or maybe that was some time ago and we now know better ? Or these are quite purposefully NOT named after a country or village (but river/region).

And in this instance "we" is essentially "some peope". (Yes, yes, we dumb sheep elsewhere kowtow to china or are too political correct ...). There has never been a consensus to name a new virus after the place of origin, either. And again, neither was this one actually named that.

It has been called (!) China/Wuhan to make a statement, not because that is what it by some iron clad rule should be its name. I mean, you can agree with that statement, but there's no need to pretend it is some sort of inevitability to call it that or that language is not shaped by or used with intent.

Good lord trump is tweeting any governor who has a high approval rating has him to thank because they couldn’t have done it without the help of the federal government. I can’t even fathom the alternate reality these people live in.

The racist baby-in-chief's latest tantrum

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/coro...lief-bill.html

Good lord, 3 trillion dollars. With that money they should just pay every adult two grand every month to the end of the year.

But nah, they'll squander it.

Well, here we go, CARES2 negotiations starting:

Coronavirus stimulus: Democrats’ $3 trillion opening bid for the next stimulus package, explained - Vox

Seems most of it is money for states/localities/tribes, another $1200 payment, extension of added unemployment benefits, a PPP with a lot of additional limits, more funding for testing and contact tracing, money for SNAP benefits, money for elections and vote by mail, more money for USPS, and paying for COBRA benefits.

Also, there are some provisions to help with rent/mortgage payments.

Of course Senate Republicans are calling it a lib wish list, while those on the left are saying it doesn't go far enough. So we'll see what happens. I'm sure the President wants some of this to happen enough (the payments for one so he can send a letter again) that there is going to be some pressure applied.

The Dems should put in there they want an autographed 8x10 of Trump included with every check. The GOP would go for it then because Donny will make them.

I have absolutely no doubts that idea would work.

There Is No Evidence That Voting By Mail Gives One Party An Advantage | FiveThirtyEight

It would be funny if Dems fight tooth and nail for VBM, and the GOP fights tooth and nail against it.

And then it all kind of turns out not to really matter in terms of giving one party an advantage.

It's sad that one party's best strategy is to suppress voters, rather than try to appeal to a majority of voters in an honest manner.

I read a quote from a GOP congressman during the shutdown last year complaining that the Dem platform is just stuff that's popular and Republicans are forced to be the adults in the room.

Yes, I know you can't just give the majority of the people everything they want but it says everything about the state of our politics when the ruling party admits their ideas aren't popular.

Based on the first day of testimony, Trump's claim that he's essentially a King for 4 year terms isn't going over well. It's looking like a 8-1 or 9-0 decision depending on how the wind blows for Thomas.

That's funny. I was just reading a Vox article that said the House lawyer sound unprepared and the Supreme Court is likely to give Trump wins across the board.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Based off the various articles I've read I don't gather Trump losing this decision.

Of course, by no means am I a lawyer or a constitutional expert.

GD: I believe you are speaking of this article?

Supreme Court: The House’s defense of its Trump investigation was a disaster - Vox

It does say the House lawyer was terrible and a majority of SCOTUS wants to give sitting Presidents some leeway but also points out that those justices also don't seem inclined to squash the investigations. So more mixed - special, but not total, immunity.

The house did a terrible job but Trump's team was proba ly even worse. They have no argument other than "he's the president".

Fwiw, Neal Katyal and George Conway both have this 7-2. Thomas should just wear a MAGA hat on the bench at this point while Gorsuch has always supported presidential power.

After Paula Jones and Whitewater it should be 9-0 against Trump but I assume even if they liked that decision against Clinton, they'll thread the needle like Bush v. Gore where it only applies to this one case(s)

Pete Williams on MSNBC says he believes they will kick it back to the lower court. Most likely, that will draw it out till next year.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Temporary Presidential Immunity.

I am reading the opposite.

The main talking points they are getting out on social media is: it’s too many words, too many paragraphs and it’s a bailout for...what for it...the evil, dreaded blue states.

It's like the Democrats are trying to push me to vote Libertarian this election.

They should just give every adult 2k/month until the end of the year and maybe let the states tax it.

COBRA payments are bullshit. Bailout for insurance companies. If people need coverage, put them in Medicare.

Was told how great private health insurance is and now the government needs to bail it out incessantly at the first sign of a health crisis. Well done dipshits.

If you are inclined to vote libertarian, then you should.

COBRA payments are steep since you are now covering the entire cost of the premium with no employer subsidy, but curious how you see this as more helpful to insurance companies than consumers? There is going to be hit regardless. So your are either paying it to an already stretched Medicare program with what is assuredly a multitude or regulations and qualifiers, or putting it on state Medicaid, which creates a greater funding burden.

With all of current Covid-19 related disbursement funds for providers that state programs provide for testing, practice relief, incentives and community based assistance programs administered through health care providers, Medicaid is already running at a financial redline.

There is no winner in where ever you choose to pump additional cash, but at least with the COBRA subsidies it is less taxing on the insureds, who can keep a familiar product without disruption to their healthcare needs.

I would, but then this pops up in my head



My parents always said The Simpsons would be a bad influence on me.

So let me get this straight. Both parties are spending monies to 'save' the capitalist economy yet one wants no oversight of the flow and wants monies to go to the wealthiest companies and one is trying to get money into the hands of people at the bottom and work your way up from there. Yet one of them is wrong to you and one of them is right or are they both bad for it? I would say they're similar now in this regard and it's just whether or not you want the very wealthiest to be able to 'steal' the money (my words) or do you want it to go to people at the bottom who don't 'want to work for it?'

One of them sounds consistent to the way things have gone for about 3 years which we see what that's gotten us and one is about trying to stop the graft and theft by the 1%.

Again its all just redistribution of wealth only one side has made that terms dog whistle. I believe its based upon which way the redistribution flows that determines whether or not you're a current fan of that flow.

I see it this way. If the Feds are throwing money around like a drunken sailor, no matter how I feel about that, I want my cut. I dont want the oil companies getting money or the banks. Give me $2k a month and let me decide what to do with it. I need that money more than some big corporation that profits are slightly lower than 3 months ago.

Is it redistribution? sure, but its my tax dollars. And I dont want my tax dollars going to big corporations.

I love this. Please do.

I need Trump in office another four years.

As a middle aged, semi wealthy white Christian straight dude, I'm not the target of his scorn, and I may get another tax cut out of it.

Of course, your libertarian ideals will be ignored too but hey, that vote matters to you, and that's what is important.

The way I am reading it is there is no way he was voting Trump and now the Democrats are losing his vote as well.

...but without a true multi party system (which I would love) built upon less money in politics including a reversal of 'Citizens United' a vote for anything but one of the parties (D or R) is a vote for the D or R who is less affected by the leading 3rd party candidate.

I get it that it feels better in the effort but the effect is the same.

Pretty much. I am a never-Republican voter who decides between Democrats and Libertarians pretty much depending on my mood and how much I trust the integrity of individual candidates.

As a libertarian voter then why are you assuming where my vote would go in a two party party system?

And the amount of times I have heard "I would love to vote third party but...". Vote third party. Most states are already decided right so your vote for a D or R also doesn't matter. I think Quiksand said this earlier in this thread in a nicer more succinct way. Telling me my vote in Missouri is life or death for the D/R paradigm could be traded off with a California or Wyoming voter whose vote means nothing. But they selfishly stick to their D/R vote so why am I so bad to stick to my L vote? If you really believed in a multi party system your vote is much better made to make one of the third party's achieve 5% then to a 65/30 landslide in a non battleground state.

I am a NO Trump, highly likely never Republican, mostly Libertarian/ but possible Democrat voter. I voted Claire McCaskill and actually like Biden as a candidate though the possibility of Amash had made me reconsider a little. My problem is my vote for Biden would be a vote for no Trump and a return to sanity but fear a Biden victory would lead the Democrats to believe my vote was a mandate on some of the crazier (EDIT: IMO) Sanders/AOC/Pelosi aspects of the Democratic Party.

Exactly. In addition to losing out on ER subsidies for health plans, they can charge a 2% admin fee - so now in order to keep their same health plan Participants would have to pay up to 102% of the premium costs. This can be substantial (note: I work in the government agency that enforces COBRA).

It is probably far more likely, without a COBRA bailout that Participants would just drop COBRA and go for a less comprehensive ACA Plan (they would be eligible to sign on under special enrollment because they've lost their job) which would likely cost less.

Not to mention that this is something that you probably CAN get Republican support on (not for the entirety of COBRA benefits, of course). Putting them on Medicare would be a complete non-starter (as the GOP would consider it an attempt to start a Medicare for All plan).

Our national poll is another that shows Biden's lead ticking down. https://t.co/t8rvffIviV

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) May 13, 2020

Good news for Trump. He seems to be slightly improving in polling.

Truth is, even if Biden wins, the Republicans/FoxNews cycle will decimate any sort of momentum the Democrats would have and in another four years, he'll be popped out for Trump Jr anyway.

If Trump is voted out (unlikely), the Repubs would make it their goal to make Biden a one term president too. They'll stall judges and everything, just to make this happen.

Then they'll state that Biden was inept and we need "leadership" (and tax cuts for the wealthy) back again...oh and the Bible too...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-2020/611500/

Well to be fair, Biden has already made it clear he is a one term President. so the real key here is flipping the Senate.

Why is it unlikely that Trump gets voted out?

It's chicken and egg. I would love to vote 3rd party but feel that we cannot until Citizen's United is repealed.

I'm not assuming where it'll go. What I said is wherever it does go will in essence be a vote for the party in that state that is most hurt by that.

It's fascinating to me that the majority see Trump as the favorite despite trailing Biden in the polls for well over a year now, Trump remaining underwater with his approval rating, and the generic congressional poll showing Dems with an 8 point lead.

I think 538's chat this morning covers most of the reasons.

If Trump Is Down In The Polls, Why Do So Many Americans Think He’ll Win? | FiveThirtyEight

I've always thought that if you're voting for a third party, that's fine. You should give your support to the party that most closely fits your desires. My problem is with the people that vote third party as a protest. If you're more closely aligned with one of the two major parties, voting for a third party really does make it more likely that the opposition party wins.

I think the risk of some of the more extreme democratic positions getting enacted under Biden is pretty small. The guy is a moderate.