Lemming posted:

Do you want to address the point that you're so loving stupid you literally responded to my post where I said "Trump and every single Republican are lying" with an accusation that I thought their proposal was real and not a lie?

StealthArcher posted:

E:He's going to reply only to sharkie

Gio posted:

correct me if im wrong here but we’re talking about the party that couldnt even muster guaranteeing a hypothetical covid vaccine would be free, right? yeah that party sucks.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

I wonder how that's going to pan out when they either don't get it on the face of no congressional support or it turns out to be like $200 and a $15 off coupon at Arby's. Eh, better to scream now about the Messaging War. Telling my under-informed friends what's actually going on is other peoples' responsibility.

Sharkie posted:

Every dem should be screaming as loud as possible as often as possible that they want to send people checks. This is very simple to do and understand. They haven't been doing that. Thus, they have hosed up.

This is not complicated.

Gio posted:

correct me if im wrong here but we’re talking about the party that couldnt even muster guaranteeing a hypothetical covid vaccine would be free, right? yeah that party sucks.

Scooter_McCabe posted:

It's the hypothetical election, hypothetical vaccines, hypothetical voters that were supposed to show up and vote Bernie. But consider that the vaccine isn't going to come from a government lab but private industry.

Scooter_McCabe posted:

It's the hypothetical election, hypothetical vaccines, hypothetical voters that were supposed to show up and vote Bernie. But consider that the vaccine isn't going to come from a government lab but private industry.

Sydin posted:

B-b-but if pharmaceutical companies couldn't make a profit off of a COVID-19 vaccine, how could the market continue to incentivize R&D into future drugs?!?

The answer is, of course, that for profit companies and market interests should not be the primary drive behind medical research or really the medical industry at all, but Dems get too many campaign contributions from pharma and insurance companies to take that stance.

Scooter_McCabe posted:

It's the hypothetical election, hypothetical vaccines, hypothetical voters that were supposed to show up and vote Bernie. But consider that the vaccine isn't going to come from a government lab but private industry.

Gio posted:

*people dying in the streets, economy in a literal depression*

“did you consider it was private industry that made this”

Scooter_McCabe posted:

It was literally China hiding an outbreak that put the world in an impossible game of catch up. Private industry has nothing to do with a repressive socialist country putting the world at risk for the sake of saving face.

Djarum posted:

Well the lovely thing is that a lot of pharma research and development actually comes out of state funded universities.

State and Federal money pays for the R&D and then the results go to a private company that locks it up behind patent for 20 years or more.

I worked for both a university that did a ton of biotech research and a biotech company that profited from it. Despite what the pharma companies would like you to believe they spend very little on R&D.

Gio posted:

what the hell does that have to do with guaranteeing a vaccine will be free

Scooter_McCabe posted:

It was literally China hiding an outbreak that put the world in an impossible game of catch up. Private industry has nothing to do with a repressive socialist country putting the world at risk for the sake of saving face.

Sharkie posted:

Every dem should be screaming as loud as possible as often as possible that they want to send people checks. This is very simple to do and understand. They haven't been doing that. Thus, they have hosed up.

This is not complicated.

quote:

“We propose sending cash payments directly to American families,” reads the latest draft of the letter, which is signed by Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet, Sherrod Brown, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz, Richard Blumenthal and Angus King (who is an independent but caucuses with Democrats). Additional signatories are likely.

Here’s how the proposal works. In its first wave, it would provide $2,000 per person, to cover the period between now and June, including adults and children, people working and those unemployed, and those who are retired or on disability. It would phase out for those with higher incomes.

Then, come June, another $1,500 payment would be made, if either the secretaries for treasury or health and human services certify that the public health emergency is still ongoing, or the unemployment rate has gone up by at least 1 percentage point over the average in unemployment between last December and this February.

That last part all but guarantees the second payment would be made, because pretty much everyone predicts that unemployment will be much higher by then. The proposal also includes a provision for possible further quarterly payments starting in October.

The reason it’s important to work in such a guarantee is that, should a Democrat win the White House, and should the economic crisis still be upon us, one can envision Republicans in Congress suddenly deciding they no longer support sending checks to people, since that might spur along the recovery.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

Means testing means not giving it to rich people, not Nancy Pelosi sucking the souls out of poor people's bodies and into her colostomy bag while cackling, hth

Sodomy Hussein posted:

Sodomy Hussein posted:

Means testing means not giving it to rich people, not Nancy Pelosi sucking the souls out of poor people's bodies and into her colostomy bag while cackling, hth

Streak posted:

what is Trumpism

Streak posted:

yes this is all socialism's fault

Sodomy Hussein posted:

This doesn't change that this thread is full of perpetually under- and misinformed "scratch a socialist and find a chud" types who have decided that the best way forward is to not vote, and have hilariously mischaracterized the "proposal" of a one-time check (and that's it) with Trump "outflanking" the Democrats with UBI. And anyone who believes anyone in the administration about literally anything is a rube with the memory of a goldfish, whether they are politically informed or someone just trying to keep their heads down and make rent, or both. Because everybody heard about that tax cut and everyone got that lump of coal.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

Means testing means not giving it to rich people, not Nancy Pelosi sucking the souls out of poor people's bodies and into her colostomy bag while cackling, hth


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/17/suddenly-both-parties-want-send-cash-every-american-it-might-happen/


In my view what's happened is that people ITT have, not entirely unreasonably, equated "means testing" with "welfare reform" and other doublethink terms for conservative slashing and weakening of benefits. There is an argument to be made that you can just write checks now and collect it back later, but this is messier politically than giving people what they "deserve" now, as anyone who has done their income taxes after receiving unemployment benefits can attest. See also: Trump passing "tax cuts" and then your tax bill actually goes up, in some cases tremendously.

The "Nancy Pelosi is sabotaging everything in a smoke-filled room" narrative is coming from Tiger Beat on the Potomac-style Extremely Reliable Twitter sources and not what's actually being put on the table, and that narrative neatly dovetails with "Nancy Pelosi _{and coincidentally every other woman in Congress} is a she-witch" conservative narrative.

In any case the Democratic plan is again better than the Republican plan and again actually exists. People can be forgiven for watching the day-to-day news cycle horse race and not seeing the forest for the trees. An actual thing to worry about narratively IMO is Trump turning this into his September 11th crisis management moment, but that isn't going to be delivered at the hands of robber baron Steve Mnuchin and Trump's free association press conferences.

This doesn't change that this thread is full of perpetually under- and misinformed "scratch a socialist and find a chud" types who have decided that the best way forward is to not vote, and have hilariously mischaracterized the "proposal" of a one-time check (and that's it) with Trump "outflanking" the Democrats with UBI. And anyone who believes anyone in the administration about literally anything is a rube with the memory of a goldfish, whether they are politically informed or someone just trying to keep their heads down and make rent, or both. Because everybody heard about that tax cut and everyone got that lump of coal.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

Means testing means not giving it to rich people, not Nancy Pelosi sucking the souls out of poor people's bodies and into her colostomy bag while cackling, hth

Gio posted:

so mad rich people get free k-12!!!! and theres this place they can get books FOR FREE even though they can buy them!!’

Scooter_McCabe posted:

Socialism revolves around a select few deciding what is best for everyone, in this case China decided it was best if they hid any evidence of an outbreak. It is not that dissimilar from how the USSR tried to hide Chernobyl, only until the problem was detected by other countries did they own up to it. Both socialist countries, both hiding potentially globally catastrophic disasters.

Scooter_McCabe posted:

Socialism revolves around a select few deciding what is best for everyone, in this case China decided it was best if they hid any evidence of an outbreak. It is not that dissimilar from how the USSR tried to hide Chernobyl, only until the problem was detected by other countries did they own up to it. Both socialist countries, both hiding potentially globally catastrophic disasters.

Scooter_McCabe posted:

Socialism revolves around a select few deciding what is best for everyone, in this case China decided it was best if they hid any evidence of an outbreak. It is not that dissimilar from how the USSR tried to hide Chernobyl, only until the problem was detected by other countries did they own up to it. Both socialist countries, both hiding potentially globally catastrophic disasters.

Gio posted:

blaming china for this seems to me, a simple idiot, very weird. if it originated in the US it would have spread around the globe in days.

Gio posted:

so mad rich people get free k-12!!!! and theres this place they can get books FOR FREE even though they can buy them!!’

quote:

Nobody here believes Trump you dumbass lmao.

Like, holy gently caress - how are you consistently this dumb.

Politico posted:

2. Amy Klobuchar
If Biden really feels he needs help with flipping Midwest states, Amy Klobuchar is the safest pick. She raised her national profile by running for president. She held her own on the debate stage. She showed she had pull in Trump-curious Minnesota, helping throw the state to Biden. And Minnesota’s Democratic governor can appoint her Senate replacement.

Yet Klobuchar is not without risk. Allegations of staff mistreatment tainted the start of her campaign, though no one ever went on the record. Biden’s vetters should find out whether there are more shoes that could drop. And Klobuchar’s role, while district attorney, in imprisoning a black teenager on reportedly flimsy evidence could be used by Trump to try to weaken Biden’s support among black voters.

Progressive voices in the Democratic Party are already signaling they will react poorly to a Klobuchar pick. Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos tweeted Monday that Klobuchar “would be Tim Kaine 2.0—doing nothing to unify the party, bringing no new demographics to the ticket. It would be (once again) a disaster.”

But complaints on the left are an inevitable, and manageable, annoyance. Winning the Midwest takes precedence.

1. Kamala Harris
But there’s a twist. Biden should conclude, “I don’t need my vice presidential nominee to win the Midwest. I can win the Midwest all by myself!” Polls and primary results show he already has strong appeal to white, right-leaning, working-class and suburban swing voters.

Instead, Biden’s vice presidential nominee would be most useful politically by shoring up his support among culturally liberal young voters eager to elect a woman of color in 2024.

That’s why, of all the qualified women of color on the short list, the obvious choice was, and remains, Kamala Harris.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

Means testing means not giving it to rich people, not Nancy Pelosi sucking the souls out of poor people's bodies and into her colostomy bag while cackling, hth


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/17/suddenly-both-parties-want-send-cash-every-american-it-might-happen/


In my view what's happened is that people ITT have, not entirely unreasonably, equated "means testing" with "welfare reform" and other doublethink terms for conservative slashing and weakening of benefits. There is an argument to be made that you can just write checks now and collect it back later, but this is messier politically than giving people what they "deserve" now, as anyone who has done their income taxes after receiving unemployment benefits can attest. See also: Trump passing "tax cuts" and then your tax bill actually goes up, in some cases tremendously.

The "Nancy Pelosi is sabotaging everything in a smoke-filled room" narrative is coming from Tiger Beat on the Potomac-style Extremely Reliable Twitter sources and not what's actually being put on the table, and that narrative neatly dovetails with "Nancy Pelosi _{and coincidentally every other woman in Congress} is a she-witch" conservative narrative.

In any case the Democratic plan is again better than the Republican plan and again actually exists. People can be forgiven for watching the day-to-day news cycle horse race and not seeing the forest for the trees. An actual thing to worry about narratively IMO is Trump turning this into his September 11th crisis management moment, but that isn't going to be delivered at the hands of robber baron Steve Mnuchin and Trump's free association press conferences.

This doesn't change that this thread is full of perpetually under- and misinformed "scratch a socialist and find a chud" types who have decided that the best way forward is to not vote, and have hilariously mischaracterized the "proposal" of a one-time check (and that's it) with Trump "outflanking" the Democrats with UBI. And anyone who believes anyone in the administration about literally anything is a rube with the memory of a goldfish, whether they are politically informed or someone just trying to keep their heads down and make rent, or both. Because everybody heard about that tax cut and everyone got that lump of coal.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

Yes, it revolves around some nasty tropes about the Heathen Chinee


I can't remember the last time a stimulus or tax plan was re-framed, sometimes accurately, as a wasteful giveaway to the rich either


They "don't believe" Trump but support his "plan" while out of hand rejecting the Democrat plan, while vowing to never vote Democrat. That's just being a Trumpist with more steps.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

They "don't believe" Trump but support his "plan" while out of hand rejecting the Democrat plan, while vowing to never vote Democrat. That's just being a Trumpist with more steps.

empty whippet box posted:

means-testing probably means people will have to apply for it, so way, way less people who need it will get it and it will take much longer to make a reality.

Scooter_McCabe posted:

Socialism revolves around a select few deciding what is best for everyone, in this case China decided it was best if they hid any evidence of an outbreak. It is not that dissimilar from how the USSR tried to hide Chernobyl, only until the problem was detected by other countries did they own up to it. Both socialist countries, both hiding potentially globally catastrophic disasters.