The facts remain: he can't attack Biden right now and the economy looks bad. — frank

My God, haven't you seen the Biden clips the past couple of days? Stumbled through his webcast as he lost track of his thoughts when his teleprompter failed; then doing some cable tv interview and bumbling and stumbling through that, then going on The View and bumbling and stumbling on that.

Tell me something, just between us, and remember I'm an old liberal so this is between friends.

Do you honestly, heart of hearts, no fingers crossed, think that Joe Biden is mentally competent to be the president of the United States? And do you honestly stand up forthrightly and say that you support Joe Biden for president? And that you're not utterly shocked at the fraud the Dems are trying to perpetrate? Or do you just support Biden because he's not Trump even though you have watched his recent performances and are appalled at the utter shamelessness of the DNC?

Anyway, that is now one of the good decisions that Trump has made. Especially when Trump doing this went against WHO, which at that time was against travel bans. — ssu

So you concede the point. While the Dems were impeaching him and calling him a racist, he was seeing ahead of the "experts."

Yet now Trump is panicking about the prevailing economic depression and wanting to stop this "social distancing" and lock down for economic purposes. — ssu

I don't see that at all. I had the same thought a couple of days earlier. I posted here that there's no rational basis to know whether we should blow up the economy to prevent a worse outcome. It's a valid question. Trump's no panicking. He's expressing the perfectly obvious thought that we don't want the cure to be worse than the disease. We're monitoring the hell out of the situation but we also have an eye on getting small businesses up and operating again. I drove around my little town today, it's a ghost town. Trump gets this country far better than the other politicians do. He's for the workers and the little people. The mainstream GOPs and Dems aren't.

Trump's being an optimist, giving people something to hope for. You're just seeing what you want to see here. I want the shops and restaurants to be able to open, people to be able to go back to work. Don't you? Nobody's going to do that before it's medically safe. But we shouldn't mindlessly shut down our economy without asking the question.

But in 2020? I will vote for Trump and would do that in any state. — fishfry

I am in a swing state. On your behalf, I will vote for Trump. I just have to figure out how to do early voting because I'm not going to stand in line for two hours for anybody.

he was seeing ahead of the "experts." — fishfry

(I think this would be better to be answered in the Corona-virus thread, not here, but I'll answer still.)

His rhetoric afterwards and at present tells quite clearly that he's not seeing ahead. He got lucky with this call, and of course luck is important.

In this case a travel ban/quarantine of people coming from China was something close to his heart, something fitting his World view and his followers. It would go into the category of "be tough on China". Hence the ban on flights from Schengen countries, but leaving the UK and Ireland open for traffic, showed also this kind illogical thinking in the case of the pandemic. As a jab to the EU it's something else.

I posted here that there's no rational basis to know whether we should blow up the economy to prevent a worse outcome. It's a valid question. — fishfry

Well, the question is simply how much are you willing to do to save lives? Nobody wants to make the juxtaposition like that and likely it will become a taboo to ponder it when the death toll rises, but it's obvious that containing it like China did (for the moment) cannot be done anymore.

(I think this would be better to be answered in the Corona-virus thread, not here, but I'll answer still.)

His rhetoric afterwards and at present tells quite clearly that he's not seeing ahead. He got lucky with this call, and of course luck is important.

In this case a travel ban/quarantine of people coming from China was something close to his heart, something fitting his World view and his followers. It would go into the category of "be tough on China". Hence the ban on flights from Schengen countries, but leaving the UK and Ireland open for traffic, showed also this kind illogical thinking in the case of the pandemic. As a jab to the EU it's something else.

According to Trump the measures regarding the European bans and the UK exemptions were recommended to him by “a group of professionals”. Trump later banned UK. So what evidence do you have that this is not the case, and further, what evidence do you have that it is a jab at the EU and shows his logical thinking?

But in 2020? I will vote for Trump and would do that in any state.
— fishfry

I am in a swing state. On your behalf, I will vote for Trump. I just have to figure out how to do early voting because I'm not going to stand in line for two hours for anybody. — frank

I do not automatically think either of you are crazy or defective, so maybe you can make some sense of your willingness to vote for Trump. Or are you both supposing that you're rich enough and white enough so that he will not betray you - which he has already done a hundred times over though it appears you both may be in denial.

Try making a list of adjectives that you might use to describe Trump (that is, him and not his promises). When done, look at them! Is that the man you want as President and leader of this country?

I like Biden. I saw him on Stephen Colbert's show and he struck me as being a fundamentally decent guy. Plus he's a friend of Obama's and I had the same feeling about him. He would fill RBG's spot with a democrat. He would get Obamacare back on track. The downside is that he would reinitiate antagonism of Russia, with ongoing attempts to interfere in their internal politics.

Trump is a slug. He would tilt the SCOTUS a little further to the right. But he wouldn't restart bullshit with the Russians and he would continue to alienate the US from the rest of the world.

So where are my priorities? The main concern I see with RBG's spot is that it becomes more likely that Roe v Wade will be overturned. It probably should be. Trump was elected in part because he garnered more votes from white women than Clinton did. If it was important to those women to have the right to an abortion, they would have voted for Clinton.

Obamacare turned out to be legally wonky. That's why it was so easy to screw it up. If we can't manage to do it right so it will last, then again, that signifies that the people are mostly against it.

So all that's left is foreign policy. I would rather the US stop interfering with other countries. But do I care enough about that to bother voting? No.

But here's fishfry. He's angry, but he lives in a state where his vote doesn't matter. I know what that's like and it sucks. I don't care who the president is, but I live in a state where my vote could impact the final result. It makes sense that I should give my vote to fishfry. He wants Trump, so I'm going to vote for Trump.

His rhetoric afterwards and at present tells quite clearly that he's not seeing ahead. He got lucky with this call, and of course luck is important. — ssu

I can't argue Trump. People have their opinions. He's incredibly divisive. Nixon was that way. Reagan was politically divisive but very personally likable. Trump rubs a lot of people the wrong way. If he got lucky, it's because he's someone who gets lucky a lot, and ... if you put aside your dislike of his personality ... you might see that he "gets lucky" because he's very good at what he does. And he did reality tv for ten years so he knows what the American public likes. A showman and, in his strange nonlinear way, a statesman.

But it's ok if you don't agree. That's why they have elections ... if they have an election.

In this case a travel ban/quarantine of people coming from China was something close to his heart, something fitting his World view and his followers. — ssu

Yes you could say that. Or you could say that his instincts are against globalization. A month ago nobody knew that China makes a huge percentage of the pharmaceuticals we use. Now everyone knows. We know we need to make our own masks and respirators. We need to re-learn to make a lot of the stuff we use on a daily basis. This is the big-picture trend on which Trump ran in 2016. America first. You can decry his rhetoric on immigration -- I do. But his instincts have been prescient. Now the rest of the world is starting to catch up.

You could see it that way, if you chose to.

Well, the question is simply how much are you willing to do to save lives? — ssu

100 Americans a day die in automobile accidents. If you threw the book at drunk drivers, 30 days in the slam first offense no picking up trash on weekends, hard time in the local slam, you'd save 20,000 American lives a year easy. If you banned cars altogether you'd save 36,000 lives a year.

In 2018 the CDC reported 80,000 flu deaths in the US. You probably didn't even know that. There was no hysteria. Social distancing would have saved a lot of lives that year.

You could save over 400,000 Americans every year if you banned booze and cigarettes. So "how much are you willing to do to save lives?" Maybe you should give that question some thought yourself.

SOME crises get the media hysteria treatment and SOME don't. If you don't see that, you lack perspective. Yes covid is serious. But a lot of things are serious. 150,000 humans die every single day worldwide. Every single death a tragedy. But relative to people-killers, by the numbers, covid ain't much yet. You can talk about extrapolations, but it's always a value judgment as to whether your extrapolation of vague and conflicting data justifies putting millions of Americans out of work and blowing up the supply chain leading to a depression.

That's a value judgment. A lot of people lately think their judgment is an objective fact. That's wrong. The other day Cuomo said the usual political bs line, "If we save just one life." Well some young girl just killed herself at the prospect of being quarantined. There's your one life.

There are always tradeoffs and tradeoffs are matters of opinion, not fact.

I am in a swing state. On your behalf, I will vote for Trump. I just have to figure out how to do early voting because I'm not going to stand in line for two hours for anybody. — frank

Well the real question is, in the awful and hopefully unlikely even that this covid insanity is still going strong in November, how the heck are we going to have an election?

Of course if the entire country is sheltering in place that long we'll have worse problems. People will be going insane and there will no longer be an economy. That would be bad.

It's also interesting to speculate as to the election. I've read that if an election isn't held. Trump and Pence cease to be in office on inauguration day. They are not extended, they're gone. So what happens then? Normally Pelosi is next in line but if there is no election then she couldn't still be Speaker because she wouldn't even have been reelected to the House. There would be no House and a lot of the Senators would be gone too. None of this makes any sense. I don't know what the answer is. But people saying Trump would cancel the election to be president forever are wrong. He'd be gone in January. It's just unclear what would happen then.

So you concede the point. While the Dems were impeaching him and calling him a racist, he was seeing ahead of the "experts." — fishfry

Uh, impeachment was already finished by that point? And who care about what anyone calls Trump? He certainly doesn't care about what he calls others.

And why are the experts in scare quotes?

You could save over 400,000 Americans every year if you banned booze and cigarettes. So "how much are you willing to do to save lives?" Maybe you should give that question some thought yourself. — fishfry

We should totally do that, IMHO. Alkoholism is really bad.

Anyways you make a good point. The core reason that this is taken as seriously as it is is that no-one wants to be the one responsible for wrecking the healthcare system. You don't want to be responsible for doctors to working themselves nearly to death while having to decide who lives and who dies.

It's a good enough reason as far as I am concerned.

But his instincts have been prescient. Now the rest of the world is starting to catch up.

You could see it that way, if you chose to. — fishfry

Yeah, but why choose to do that? It seems much more reasonable to assume that "presidential instincts" have fuck all to do with success or failure.

So where are my priorities? The main concern I see with RBG's spot is that it becomes more likely that Roe v Wade will be overturned. It probably should be. Trump was elected in part because he garnered more votes from white women than Clinton did. If it was important to those women to have the right to an abortion, they would have voted for Clinton. — frank

What about all the other women? They don't feature in your calculations?

Obamacare turned out to be legally wonky. That's why it was so easy to screw it up. If we can't manage to do it right so it will last, then again, that signifies that the people are mostly against it. — frank

That doesn't follow. You realise the initial plans for "Obamacare" looked different, but there was too much political resistance? There is no reason to assume people being for or against it had anything to do with the quality of the implementation.

The downside is that he would reinitiate antagonism of Russia, with ongoing attempts to interfere in their internal politics. — frank

Like invading countries, shooting down airplanes, murdering people in exotic ways? Arguably the internal politics of a communist state are in principle external politics.

Trump is a slug. He would tilt the SCOTUS a little further to the right. But he wouldn't restart bullshit with the Russians and he would continue to alienate the US from the rest of the world. — frank

Have not you been paying attention these past years? Trump is the alienator. As to the Russians, those cuddly bears - if only us bad people would just learn to leave them alone they wouldn't bother a soul.

Biden is no prize. And it is disgusting that the best this country can find as candidates for its leadership are 1) the likes of Trump, and 2) an old man.

But it strikes me that if this country re-elects Trump, it can have no - zero - complaint about anything he does or its consequences.

Do you really think the "slug" is the best man for the job? And do not forget the fine people he brings with him.

The downside is that he would reinitiate antagonism of Russia, with ongoing attempts to interfere in their internal politics.
— frank
Like invading countries, shooting down airplanes, murdering people in exotic ways? Arguably the internal politics of a communist state are in principle external politics. — tim wood

The US has been trying to influence Russia and surrounding countries in the direction of democracy and openness. That's the interference that I condemn.

Have not you been paying attention these past years? Trump is the alienator. — tim wood

Right. The world needs to stop relying on the US and learn to protect itself. I used to be a globalist, but I've changed. That's where that's coming from.

But it strikes me that if this country re-elects Trump, it can have no - zero - complaint about anything he does or its consequences.

Do you really think the "slug" is the best man for the job? And do not forget the fine people he brings with him. — tim wood

I understand your concern about character. I don't really share it though. He's annoying, true. But I really admired Obama. Put Obama's effects on the world against Trump's, and it turns out the slug was less dangerous. That doesn't mean you have to go with the slug, but it means you lose nothing by doing so.

What about all the other women? They don't feature in your calculations? — Echarmion

They can travel to areas where abortion is legal. Or just move. True, some women will be caught in situation where abortion is unavailable and they can't travel.

If the country as a whole decides that it doesn't want women to have that right, then on what basis would I insist otherwise? I bolded that because I want to know what your answer is.

That doesn't follow. You realise the initial plans for "Obamacare" looked different, but there was too much political resistance? There is no reason to assume people being for or against it had anything to do with the quality of the implementation. — Echarmion

My understanding is that the loophole Trump used to undermine it was a result of aggressive way it was passed.

If the country as a whole decides that it doesn't want women to have that right, then on what basis would I insist otherwise? — frank

Well if the whole country decides they'd want rape within a marriage to be legal, would that be cause to just accept it. I think it's obvious that while some questions are left to public consensus, others are not. Of course, you can argue that abortion is of the former type.

But, looking at this from the perspective of a voter, your question seems entirely beside the point. It's during the process of voting that the country decides what "it" wants. Basing your vote on the predicted outcome of that choice is circular. You vote according to your conscience.

So the only question that should matter here is whether you think abortion, with whatever strings attached, should be legal and available.

My understanding is that the loophole Trump used to undermine it was a result of aggressive way it was passed. — frank

Yes. But even at that point the proposals had already been watered down significantly, in a vain attempt to get bipartisan support. At least that is how I remember it. I may have to look that up again, so take this with a grain of salt.

So the only question that should matter here is whether you think abortion, with whatever strings attached, should be legal and available. — Echarmion

I think that decision was already made. The country elected Trump at a time when a justice seat was vacant. Voting for Biden now just to get RBG's seat for a democrat would be a gesture. Prolife advocates are already spoiling for a SCOTUS trial. They aren't waiting for RBG's seat.

States that are strongly democratic won't illegalize abortion. States like South Carolina will.

If you truly believe that South Carolina will be doing grievous wrong by this (in the league with allowing rape), then what will you do about it?

I think that decision was already made. The country elected Trump at a time when a justice seat was vacant. Voting for Biden now just to get RBG's seat for a democrat would be a gesture. Prolife advocates are already spoiling for a SCOTUS trial. They aren't waiting for RBG's seat.

States that are strongly democratic won't illegalize abortion. States like South Carolina will. — frank

That just sounds like you're avoiding the question. If it truly didn't matter, why did you bring it up earlier?

If you truly believe that South Carolina will be doing grievous wrong by this (in the league with allowing rape), then what will you do about it? — frank

I suppose I'll complain about it on the internet somewhere. There is probably something more effective I could do, like donate to some organisation. But to be honest I probably won't.

That just sounds like you're avoiding the question. If it truly didn't matter, why did you bring it up earlier? — Echarmion

You're right. Voting for Biden to get RBG's seat would be standing for a principle in the face of defeat. I don't see why I should do that if large numbers of women actively caused that defeat. See what I mean?

You're right. Voting for Biden to get RBG's seat would be standing for a principle in the face of defeat. I don't see why I should do that if large numbers of women participated in that defeat. See what I mean? — frank

Why do you base what you want on what other people do or do not do? That's genuinely confusing to me. I get voting tactically to get what you want, or closer to it, anyways. What you seem to be doing is actively refusing to make your own decision.

Why do you base what you want on what other people do or do not do? That's genuinely confusing to me. I get voting tactically to get what you want, or closer to it, anyways. What you seem to be doing is actively refusing to make your own decision. — Echarmion

Again, you're right. If large numbers of women in South Carolina don't want abortions going on in their communities, then I believe they shouldn't have to endure it. I'm in favor of the freedom to choose.

Again, you're right. If large numbers of women in South Carolina don't want abortions going on in their communities, then I believe they shouldn't have to endure it. I'm in favor of the freedom to choose. — frank

So you're pro choice then? :wink:

But seriously, if you are going to adopt some meta-political stance based on allowing as much electoral choice as possible, you'd have to consult a detailed survey on just who would vote for what. And does it follow you'd want all supreme court decisions restricting legislation be overturned, including brown v board?

But seriously, if you are going to adopt some meta-political stance based on allowing as much electoral choice as possible, you'd have to consult a detailed survey on just who would vote for what — Echarmion

The basic idea of democracy is that the people rule. We have guardrails on that, like the Constitution, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. If a decision makes its way through that obstacle course, then we say we've done the best we can.

In the not too distant future, there will be a case before the SCOTUS that calls into question the constitutionality of Roe v Wade. It's likely that the SCOTUS will then overturn it.

If women in general truly wanted national protection of a woman's right to a safe abortion, then they would have voted for presidents that would have stacked the SCOTUS in their favor. They did not do that.

What do you want me to do about that? I can vote for Biden to give a faint voice to my attitude about the legality of abortion, but if large numbers of women don't want it, I can't say they're being victimized. If they aren't being victimized, then on what basis do I say they should put up with what they consider to be murder? And please, I know there are women in South Carolina who want safe abortions to be available. I'm sorry, but that's democracy.

And does it follow you'd want all supreme court decisions restricting legislation be overturned, including brown v board? — Echarmion

Again, my attitude about this is related to the voting record of women. If there's a predominantly black community somewhere that wants to segregate schools, then how would that be in defiance of the 14th Amendment (the basis of Brown v Board)?

The basic idea of democracy is that the people rule. We have guardrails on that, like the Constitution, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. If a decision makes its way through that obstacle course, then we say we've done the best we can. — frank

If that were the case, why would people be as unhappy with their representatives as they are? Making it through is merely the lowest rung on the ladder.

What do you want me to do about that? — frank

What makes you think this is about what I want, or what I want you to do? I am just confused about the way you make your decisions.

I can vote for Biden to give a faint voice to my attitude about the legality of abortion, but if large numbers of women don't want it, I can't say they're being victimized. — frank

Err, ok. So, just how many women have to not want it for women in general to no longer be victimised?

If they aren't being victimized, then on what basis do I say they should put up with what they consider to be murder? — frank

Why should you, or anyone, care what some random group of people "considers" murder? You either conclude it is morally wrong or it isn't. If you conclude it isn't morally wrong, these people are simply wrong. You can consider their viewpoint and their fears as a matter of empathy, but basing policy decisions on that is just irrational.

I'm sorry, but that's democracy. — frank

What's democracy? People getting what they want, whatever it is? Is Roe v Wade anti-democratic? Is brown v board?

Again, my attitude about this is related to the voting record of women — frank

I doubt very much that you have looked at the voting record of women in detail.

If there's a predominantly black community somewhere that wants to segregate schools, then how would that be in defiance of the 14th Amendment (the basis of Brown v Board)? — frank

The decision in brown v board was based on the equal protection clause, which would apply regardless of who was at the receiving end of discrimination.

You either conclude it is morally wrong or it isn't. — Echarmion

And this is your answer to my previous bolded question, I believe. I understand you, I think.

:chin:

And he did reality tv for ten years so he knows what the American public likes. A showman and, in his strange nonlinear way, a statesman. — fishfry

That's why his followers love him as he doesn't at all sound like a politician. And he is a great communicator for his followers. And he's a genuine populist.

Or you could say that his instincts are against globalization. — fishfry

That's the basic agenda in modern populism.

A month ago nobody knew that China makes a huge percentage of the pharmaceuticals we use. — fishfry

That sounds like a Trumpism. Perhaps one could assume that making cheap simple industrial things hasn't been very popular in the US. Manufacturing has left the country for cheaper labor, you know.

In 2018 the CDC reported 80,000 flu deaths in the US. You probably didn't even know that. There was no hysteria. — fishfry

I did. And I've right from the start said this: in 1968/1969 about 100 000 Americans died in the Hong Kong flu pandemic. It's a thing hardly anyone knows. A pandemic in 1968-1969??? Never heard. That's how things have changed. It's simply we don't take as granted that oh well, old people die.

No. What's really going to get under the American collective skin is if on average more people will die in the US than in other countries. If China gets away with thousands of dead, and in the US it's over hundred thousand (let's hope not), that's going to be a real irritant for Trump. We'll see how it goes in the next two months I guess.

Because what Trump does now will have an effect on his re-election. Being even a decent leader would surely make him win the re-election. If the US muddles through this pandemic, it's going to be fine. But if the response is far worse than Katrina, then it's a different story.

Uh, impeachment was already finished by that point? And who care about what anyone calls Trump? He certainly doesn't care about what he calls others.

And why are the experts in scare quotes? — Echarmion

Because if there's one thing an observant person learns in a crisis, it's the fecklessness and unreliability of "experts." And have you noticed all the armchair epidemiologists lately? Something to behold. Why bother with a degree in microbiology when you can just parrot the hysterics you see on tv. "Exponential!" "R-zero!" "Flatten the curve!" A nation of morons who think they're smart.

You could save over 400,000 Americans every year if you banned booze and cigarettes. So "how much are you willing to do to save lives?" Maybe you should give that question some thought yourself.
— fishfry

We should totally do that, IMHO. Alkoholism is really bad. — Echarmion

Yes actually I fully agree. Problem is that we tried that in the US and it didn't work. Nobody stopped drinking and it led to the rise of organized crime. When will they learn the same lesson about the war on drugs?

You could see it that way, if you chose to.
— fishfry

Yeah, but why choose to do that? — Echarmion

Some of us independent-minded types call 'em as we see 'em.

It seems much more reasonable to assume that "presidential instincts" have fuck all to do with success or failure. — Echarmion

Trump is weirdly intuitive about things. Whether it's luck or skill, I'd say skill. Nobody puts up buildings in NYC without some smarts about people and things.

addendum:

Presidential re-elections are always referenda on incumbents (as well as incumbent legistlative parties in power). This year the electorate will :down: or :up: on twin terrors of (criminally negligent, mismanaged) Pandemic & (relative, persisting) Depression; any other considerations are just - yes, 'ideologies' be damned (re: 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992 presidential elections) - ahistorical, miss-the-forest-for-the-trees, circle-jerking - to wit: Biden, HRC, Bernie or whomever the Dems eventually nominate will be sworn-in as the 46th POTUS in 2021. :mask: :victory:

Trump is weirdly intuitive about things. Whether it's luck or skill, I'd say skill. Nobody puts up buildings in NYC without some smarts about people and things. — fishfry

That seems to be what Trump lovers believe. Confirmation bias is a many splendored thing.

I'm always curious about the certainty with which people predict the outcomes of elections. In the event that you're mistaken, how would the re-election of Trump change your worldview?

I'm always curious about the certainty with which people predict the outcomes of elections. In the event that you're mistaken, how would the re-election of Trump change your worldview? — coolazice

I don't know. It would depend on what, if anything, would explain the advent of circumstances favorable to the president's reelection despite the national catastrophe of a pandemic-driven depression that, just getting started now, will continue to play-out well past November. I've no reasons yet to doubt my prediction (though, paradoxically, that doesn't reassure me).