NPR

EnergiseR wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:30 pm Fonz is so balanced. Lucky to have his viewpoints here

Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:10 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:44 pm

Camroc2 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:36 pm I see Trump is now admitting that he is deliberately with-holding funding from the USPS in order to sabotage mail-in voting in the Presidential election.

Surely this is fraud on a huge scale and Trump is setting himself up for a huge fail ?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-a ... ?r=US&IR=T

Trump can cite the USPS is making huge losses, and thus he's seeking to address that rather than anything else. However there are reasons USPS is struggling financially, some of the commitments expected of them don't apply to many agencies, or businesses, and they've struggled since Bush Jr. loaded them with a shit load of additional spend on future pension and health costs.

Now maybe those pension and health costs they're expected to set aside for are themselves reasonable, but almost nobody else has to fund programmes as does the USPS, and if you strip out the changes Bush made they would be making money, and that would undermine the stated concerns of Trump about them losing money.

There is also a debate about does it matter they're losing money? The post is a public service, if you just want to say services should be closed when they cost money how does Trump explain sinking vastly more into the amend forces? The loss on the postal service is small change next to the military spend

Yeah, the USPS were set up to fail by the W Bush administration by making them responsible for funding pensions and healthcare in advance.
https://theweek.com/articles/767184/how ... ost-office

This is just classic Republican politics, they undermine a public institution by making demands on it that are unreasonable and unnecessary and would never be applied in the private sector. Then when that institution inevitably starts to fail, or at least is in a perilous financial position they refuse to provide relief with the knock on benefit that it suppresses voting.

Fonz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:09 pm

EnergiseR wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:30 pm Fonz is so balanced. Lucky to have his viewpoints here

No one is totally balanced but I think I'm reasonable. I just don't dedicate every waking moment to telling a bunch of people who think Trump is retarded that he's retarded. Apparently this makes me a crypto Trump supporter. Sign of the times I guess.

I don't like where either party is right now. I liked Bernie but wasn't passionate about him, certainly not this go around, though I almost certainly would have voted for him had he won the nomination. I've spoken about my background plenty of times. My views are not surprising if you consider those things.

Camroc2 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:58 pm Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer/consigliere is, from his prison cell, having a book published. And boy, does it sound good.

https://disloyalthebook.com/download-th ... ael-cohen/

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:31 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:10 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:49 pm

It said he was losing the popular vote, it didn't say GOP voters who'd hold their nose and vote for Trump or some Dem supporters interested by his nonsense rhetoric on restoring the past were moving away from him. Though I'm not willing to believe he'll be out until he's out, so if others don't want to get their hopes up I get that.

I'm really conscious of how much "free airtime" with a captive audience can impact things. Look at Farage and the impact he's had thanks to endless appearances on TV.

The President is going to drive coverage, and Trump more than most. But that's largely the point of the data saying with people actually having the time to pay attention to what he says and does they're shocked at his ineptitude, and most people aren't following anything like people following a politics thread on a rugby board in normal times, so it's not going well for Trump. And every time Trump complains it's going badly for Trump he's only hurting himself more.

This might be part of the desperation to move the debate on from Covid, but unless Trump accepts it's not Covid or the economy he gets to address it's both he's not going to get any popular coverage. Though that only speaks to the desperation to suppress the vote, and there he might have some opportunities

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:01 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:31 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:10 pm

I'm really conscious of how much "free airtime" with a captive audience can impact things. Look at Farage and the impact he's had thanks to endless appearances on TV.

The President is going to drive coverage, and Trump more than most. But that's largely the point of the data saying with people actually having the time to pay attention to what he says and does they're shocked at his ineptitude, and most people aren't following anything like people following a politics thread on a rugby board in normal times, so it's not going well for Trump. And every time Trump complains it's going badly for Trump he's only hurting himself more.

This might be part of the desperation to move the debate on from Covid, but unless Trump accepts it's not Covid or the economy he gets to address it's both he's not going to get any popular coverage. Though that only speaks to the desperation to suppress the vote, and there he might have some opportunities

"Popular coverage" doesn't matter if he's getting hours every day to spout his own brand of electioneering bullshit under the guise of covid updates, that's the point! He's drowning everything else out and the media can't help but assist him.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:10 pm He demands attention and Biden has to work through that, that's not a reason to feel sorry for Biden as he wanted the nomination and if he can't overcome the extra attention Trump garners then Biden deserves nowt but scorn and derision, though luckily for Joe we find Trump isn't simply drowning everything else as despite his shower only emitting a dribble he's mostly drowning himself, Trump as ever being out of his depth in a puddle

dob wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:19 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:10 pm He demands attention and Biden has to work through that, that's not a reason to feel sorry for Biden as he wanted the nomination and if he can't overcome the extra attention Trump garners then Biden deserves nowt but scorn and derision, though luckily for Joe we find Trump isn't simply drowning everything else as despite his shower only emitting a dribble he's mostly drowning himself, Trump as ever being out of his depth in a puddle

So far, Biden's campaign strategy seems to be to allow the President to garner all the attention he wants, and occasionally pop up to point at Trump, and say "See?"

In any sane country in the world, that really ought to be enough to win in a landslide.

EnergiseR wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:29 pm

Fonz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:09 pm

EnergiseR wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:30 pm Fonz is so balanced. Lucky to have his viewpoints here

No one is totally balanced but I think I'm reasonable. I just don't dedicate every waking moment to telling a bunch of people who think Trump is retarded that he's retarded. Apparently this makes me a crypto Trump supporter. Sign of the times I guess.

I don't like where either party is right now. I liked Bernie but wasn't passionate about him, certainly not this go around, though I almost certainly would have voted for him had he won the nomination. I've spoken about my background plenty of times. My views are not surprising if you consider those things.

He is retarded though. That's the key point. You can't talk around that by giving it the 'yeah but the democrats...' schtick

Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:10 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:44 pm

Trump can cite the USPS is making huge losses, and thus he's seeking to address that rather than anything else. However there are reasons USPS is struggling financially, some of the commitments expected of them don't apply to many agencies, or businesses, and they've struggled since Bush Jr. loaded them with a shit load of additional spend on future pension and health costs.

Now maybe those pension and health costs they're expected to set aside for are themselves reasonable, but almost nobody else has to fund programmes as does the USPS, and if you strip out the changes Bush made they would be making money, and that would undermine the stated concerns of Trump about them losing money.

There is also a debate about does it matter they're losing money? The post is a public service, if you just want to say services should be closed when they cost money how does Trump explain sinking vastly more into the amend forces? The loss on the postal service is small change next to the military spend

Yeah, the USPS were set up to fail by the W Bush administration by making them responsible for funding pensions and healthcare in advance.
https://theweek.com/articles/767184/how ... ost-office

This is just classic Republican politics, they undermine a public institution by making demands on it that are unreasonable and unnecessary and would never be applied in the private sector. Then when that institution inevitably starts to fail, or at least is in a perilous financial position they refuse to provide relief with the knock on benefit that it suppresses voting.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:40 am

Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:10 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:44 pm

Trump can cite the USPS is making huge losses, and thus he's seeking to address that rather than anything else. However there are reasons USPS is struggling financially, some of the commitments expected of them don't apply to many agencies, or businesses, and they've struggled since Bush Jr. loaded them with a shit load of additional spend on future pension and health costs.

Now maybe those pension and health costs they're expected to set aside for are themselves reasonable, but almost nobody else has to fund programmes as does the USPS, and if you strip out the changes Bush made they would be making money, and that would undermine the stated concerns of Trump about them losing money.

There is also a debate about does it matter they're losing money? The post is a public service, if you just want to say services should be closed when they cost money how does Trump explain sinking vastly more into the amend forces? The loss on the postal service is small change next to the military spend

Yeah, the USPS were set up to fail by the W Bush administration by making them responsible for funding pensions and healthcare in advance.
https://theweek.com/articles/767184/how ... ost-office

This is just classic Republican politics, they undermine a public institution by making demands on it that are unreasonable and unnecessary and would never be applied in the private sector. Then when that institution inevitably starts to fail, or at least is in a perilous financial position they refuse to provide relief with the knock on benefit that it suppresses voting.

And the chap given the job of running USPS looks set to be under investigation for buying Amazon stock options after taking up his role, options which would entitle him to buy below the current price and might given the history of Trump being happy to attack Amazon, or at least Bezos, give an uncomfortable look

Just how little common sense and culture of running things past officials if they have even the slightest doubt is there around Trump appointees? This situation like so many others simply never needed to happen, and yet they continue to flood the swamp with gay abandon

Fonz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:44 pm

EnergiseR wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:29 pm

Fonz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:09 pm

No one is totally balanced but I think I'm reasonable. I just don't dedicate every waking moment to telling a bunch of people who think Trump is retarded that he's retarded. Apparently this makes me a crypto Trump supporter. Sign of the times I guess.

I don't like where either party is right now. I liked Bernie but wasn't passionate about him, certainly not this go around, though I almost certainly would have voted for him had he won the nomination. I've spoken about my background plenty of times. My views are not surprising if you consider those things.

He is retarded though. That's the key point. You can't talk around that by giving it the 'yeah but the democrats...' schtick

Anyone who cares to see it understands his retardation, but unless people are saying it just to say it, then presumably the point of that key point is that he should be replaced. In which case it's entirely reasonable to ask questions about literally the only other group of people who could possibly replace him and his party.

Criticism of the Democrats does not imply support of Trump or the Republicans. I'm not criticising Democrats to "talk around" Trump's issues, I'm criticising Democrats because of where they are and what they're becoming.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:57 am I honestly don't understand how any person of colour can vote for him; or the GOP that excuses his blatant racism.

Party of Lincoln my hole !

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:15 am

Fonz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:44 pm

EnergiseR wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:29 pm

He is retarded though. That's the key point. You can't talk around that by giving it the 'yeah but the democrats...' schtick

Anyone who cares to see it understands his retardation, but unless people are saying it just to say it, then presumably the point of that key point is that he should be replaced. In which case it's entirely reasonable to ask questions about literally the only other group of people who could possibly replace him and his party.

Criticism of the Democrats does not imply support of Trump or the Republicans. I'm not criticising Democrats to "talk around" Trump's issues, I'm criticising Democrats because of where they are and what they're becoming.

I don't think it's "criticism of the Democrats" that implies support for Trump, but when you focus on Biden's imperfections, you imply that Trump is the better choice between the two.

I'd agree that Biden has his weaknesses in terms of being an ideal candidate, but of the 22-odd nomination hopefuls, he was probably the most electable.

Frankly, the fact that you disparage the "group of people" who could replace Trump gives a clear indication that you feel that Trump should not be replaced which makes you a Trump supporter, like it or not.

notfatcat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:50 amOutstanding logic!

Chareth Cutestory wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:37 am I see Birtherism is back in fashion

ScarfaceClaw wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:10 pm

Chareth Cutestory wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:37 am I see Birtherism is back in fashion

I saw that. Time for another round of deranged and barely concealed racism from the big orange conman.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:57 am I honestly don't understand how any person of colour can vote for him; or the GOP that excuses his blatant racism.

Party of Lincoln my hole !

notfatcat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:00 pm Hey Rinkals I have to go out in a few minutes, plus there's no use explaining this to you. I expect Fonz will later on, although I don't expect you to understand what he says.

notfatcat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:00 pm Hey Rinkals I have to go out in a few minutes, plus there's no use explaining this to you. I expect Fonz will later on, although I don't expect you to understand what he says.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:29 pm Nah, I don't buy that. The problem is that with a genuine two-party system like the USA, there's a single party that is supposedly the choice for a huge range of politics from what we would easily consider quite right wing all the way over to socialists, with a big chunk of center/center-right vs vaguely left progressives having to fight each other.

Yes, it's important to the 'left' that Trump be gone, although in America I think it's important to democracy, the rule of law, anti-corruption, and the lives of ordinary people that Trump be gone, but that doesn't mean that anyone who'd vote Democrat should not be critical about the choices on offer, as long as it's in good faith.

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:23 pm The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:31 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:23 pm The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:31 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:23 pm The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

Fangle wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:40 pm

notfatcat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:00 pm Hey Rinkals I have to go out in a few minutes, plus there's no use explaining this to you. I expect Fonz will later on, although I don't expect you to understand what he says.

Let me put it in easier terms. Fonz prefers the current Democratic team to Trump, but he can still point out their imperfections. There are people who Fonz would prefer to the current Democratic team, and it isn’t Trump.

And it’s completely reasonable for him to say what he doesn’t like about them.

Is that clear yet?

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:43 pm

Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:31 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:23 pm The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

Trump is trying to block postal voting and he's doing it for a reason.

He's doing it because he knows that a low turnout will benefit him.

So, even if you don't explicitly support Trump, if you refuse to vote, you are complicit in his re-election.

I'm not sure what I can say to make this clearer.

Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:31 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:23 pm The question is whether, by refusing to support the contender, you are supporting the incumbent.

Practically, of course, you are, even if it's only to withhold your vote.

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:51 pm Abstaining from voting is a political act in itself if it is done thoughtfully rather than just due to laziness or apathy and it is a rejection of the choices offered or the political process. Even then you could make the argument that people who don't vote due to apathy are only apathetic because they feel that voting is pointless so voting one way or the other won't profoundly affect their lives.