The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: cherrypoptart on November 04, 2020, 11:21:36 PM

Title: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 04, 2020, 11:21:36 PM
These threads are always fun to come back to a few years later to see how what the politicians said they would do matches up to what they actually tried to do and then what they really accomplished. Obama's promises about healthcare are a good example, one with no individual mandate and average costs coming down twenty-five hundred dollars per family compared to what actually happened. So what is Biden promising to do, will he do it, and will it work as intended?

Will he succeed in getting the filthy rich to pay more in taxes and will his tax policies end up resulting in more money to the Treasury? Will he get the assault weapons ban he wants? Is our healthcare system going to be substantially improved and can he really "shutdown the virus" like he said? Will there be less pollution and will climate change slow down because of his administration? I wonder about all of that and a lot more. Just like with Obama, the good thing is that we get to see if these people can deliver on their promises. When they fail like Obama did miserably, that sets up the other side for a good chance at taking over for a while the way Trump did and may yet do again.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 11:28:39 PM
I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again - Biden pardons Trump.  (maybe that's aspirational, but it would be huge)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Mynnion on November 05, 2020, 07:14:11 AM
Pardon Trump for what?  I won't be surprised if Trump isn't indicted in New York but Biden has no power to pardon state crimes.  I guess it is possible that there are ongoing Federal investigations occurring into Trump but I doubt they will reach the conviction point.

With Biden I see a pull back of some of Trumps actions but he is not really a liberal and will be forced to work with a GOP Senate.  Since I doubt he will end up being a two term president he doesn't even need to work that hard to keep DEM support.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 07:43:48 AM
Ford's pardon of Nixon was also preemptive, for crimes that Nixon "might have" committed, and yes, it would only affect Federal crimes.

There is every chance that some will want to see Trump charged with obstruction of justice, among other crimes; this would put an unequivocal end to that.

The country needs rapprochement; that would be a powerful first step.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 08:49:02 AM
Will he succeed in getting the filthy rich to pay more in taxes and will his tax policies end up resulting in more money to the Treasury? Will he get the assault weapons ban he wants? Is our healthcare system going to be substantially improved and can he really "shutdown the virus" like he said? Will there be less pollution and will climate change slow down because of his administration? I wonder about all of that and a lot more. Just like with Obama, the good thing is that we get to see if these people can deliver on their promises. When they fail like Obama did miserably, that sets up the other side for a good chance at taking over for a while the way Trump did and may yet do again.

Any tax hike is going to have to get through the Republican Senate.  I don't know how that would work.  I honestly don't think the administration will push too hard because of the tone they are supposedly going to be setting.  Easier to let the Democrats in Congress but heads with the Republican Senate and try to broker a deal.  It would make the admin look good.  I honestly don't know exactly how the Biden admin is going to play things. 

Assault weapons ban?  Probably not.  Republican Senate.  I doubt it will be as big a deal as it was previously.  Maybe the Democratic House makes noise and passes bills, Biden says he would sign it and it is a good deal, Senate turns it down.  It will be just another political football.  But I don't think that the admin will really care.  It's just a way for them to look good to their voters. 

Healthcare system?  If they can come up with something that Republicans like.  Maybe.  Probably not.  Same as assault weapons.  Democrats are going to start looking forward to the next election and how to attack the Republicans.  Healthcare will become another football. 

I expect there to be more of a single voice within government on coronavirus.  Maybe better federal coordination.  But by the time Biden comes along, vaccines should be a month to 6 months away.  He's going to benefit from that.  The question remains who would remain the contrarian voice in government when it comes to coronavirus.  Maybe some Republican Congressmen and Senators.  Maybe Ted Cruz sees his opportunity to get on TV more.  Certainly Rand Paul.   ::)   Sorry I just upchucked a little. 

Climate change, reducing the rise of the ocean?  No.  Paris Accords will come back but whatever.  Is he going to push nuclear power?  Probably not.  So no. 

The bigger questions to me is how things are going to shake out with NATO, the mid-east, China, the Norks, Iran, etc, and most importantly Russia.  I expect things to improve, though this is all from one's pov.  Some Trumpists will not see these things as improvements.  I certainly don't expect Biden to be aggressive on military use.  His track record on it is abysmal. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: oldbrian on November 05, 2020, 08:49:33 AM
I predict Biden (if he wins) will accomplish nothing.
McConnell will openly announce that since the election was (rigged, stolen, fixed, whatever Trump eventually settles on as an explanation) the Senate will stonewall everything; nothing will get passed.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 08:54:48 AM
I predict Biden (if he wins) will accomplish nothing.
McConnell will openly announce that since the election was (rigged, stolen, fixed, whatever Trump eventually settles on as an explanation) the Senate will stonewall everything; nothing will get passed.

That sounds like a great way for the Republicans to lose the Senate and elect Harris in 2024. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: oldbrian on November 05, 2020, 08:57:47 AM
It also sounds like a great way for Trump to run again in 2024.  Or one of his kids, riding the wave of redneck righteous fury.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 09:08:38 AM
It also sounds like a great way for Trump to run again in 2024.  Or one of his kids, riding the wave of redneck righteous fury.

I don't know you well enough to know if you are being humorous or insulting.   To blame the rise of Trump and Trumpism on "righteous redneck fury" is incorrect and doesn't help matters.  Unless you can walk into a bar in Alabama and get away with blaming things on "redneck fury", I don't think it's a good idea to do it anywhere. 

If the Republican Senate becomes fully obstructionist it will not win votes.  To say it would is ridiculous. 

I rate this entire post as 1/10.   
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 09:19:33 AM
The republicans in the senate went full obstructionist with 40/41 senators during Obama's first term. What makes you think they'll do anything different for Biden? I fully expect they suddenly remember they care deeply about the deficit. As a result they will demand cuts to government across the board to pay for Trump's tax cuts. They will refuse to pass any future covid related stimulus and we'll see a recession as states and local governments start to lay off police, teachers, and other government workers adding to the economic down turn. They will refuse generous unemployment benefits making that down turn even more severe. And we'll hear all the time about the massive deficit that is the result of their policies the last 3 years and blame it all on democrats.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: oldbrian on November 05, 2020, 09:37:47 AM
Grant:
Quote
If the Republican Senate becomes fully obstructionist it will not win votes.  To say it would is ridiculous. 

not in 2022.  But if the senate swings (D) because of it, I could easily see the far right stoking up fury of the base to correct the injustice in '24.
I'm not saying that IS the plan, but it could certainly work. 

And I say 'righteous' because of the Trumpians I am surrounded by.  That seems to be the baseline emotion driving them.  I would also use righteous to describe the base emotion of Social Justice Warriors (TM).

I say 'redneck' because that is an easy tag that I believe everyone understands to describe the group of people I am talking about.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 09:39:53 AM
The republicans in the senate went full obstructionist with 40/41 senators during Obama's first term. What makes you think they'll do anything different for Biden?

First, what makes you say that the Republicans in Congress were fully obstructionist during the 111th Congress?  Just what percentage of acts passed by the 111th Congress was opposed by all Republicans?   

Secondly, since the Democrats had a supermajority, I imagine that they took that opportunity to pass much legislation that they knew Republicans would oppose.  What else should the Republicans have done?  Suddenly agree?  Start not being Republicans? 

Finally, the situation in 2009 is completely different than the one in 2021, wouldn't you agree? In 2009 the Democrats had a supermajority.  They didn't need Republicans for anything.  This time they do. 

Quote
As a result they will demand cuts to government across the board to pay for Trump's tax cuts.


That would be in keeping with Republican principles.  I agree that these principles have disappeared rather suddenly while L'Orange has been President. 

Quote
They will refuse to pass any future covid related stimulus and we'll see a recession as states and local governments start to lay off police, teachers, and other government workers adding to the economic down turn. They will refuse generous unemployment benefits making that down turn even more severe.

That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.  I'm sure Republicans in Congress will want to pass future covid relief stimulus, as long as it meets certain criteria.  To refuse stimulus outright would be a great way to lose the Senate. 

Quote
And we'll hear all the time about the massive deficit that is the result of their policies the last 3 years and blame it all on democrats.

Probably.  That's what happens when you win the Presidency.  You'll get blamed for everything. 

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 10:07:53 AM
Secondly, since the Democrats had a supermajority, I imagine that they took that opportunity to pass much legislation that they knew Republicans would oppose.  What else should the Republicans have done?  Suddenly agree?  Start not being Republicans?
I am pretty sure that, notwithstanding what some die hards might say, the Democrats gave at the very least lip service to consensus, instead of actually using the short-lived supermajority to advance very progressive projects.  The ACA is a mishmash of just such compromises, instead of going full single payer.  And the ACA, even being a compromise, sucked up a lot of the oxygen available for other legislative actions over the first two years.

McConnell did promise to make Obama a single-term president, and I think it would be silly to pretend that they did not do everything they could to make it so, and yes, that involved being obstructive.

I guess we'll see how many court openings remain un-filled over the next couple of years...
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 10:12:53 AM
The republicans in the senate went full obstructionist with 40/41 senators during Obama's first term. What makes you think they'll do anything different for Biden?

First, what makes you say that the Republicans in Congress were fully obstructionist during the 111th Congress?  Just what percentage of acts passed by the 111th Congress was opposed by all Republicans?   

Secondly, since the Democrats had a supermajority, I imagine that they took that opportunity to pass much legislation that they knew Republicans would oppose.  What else should the Republicans have done?  Suddenly agree?  Start not being Republicans? 

The democrats had a supermajority for about 3 months. From the time Franken was seated about six months after the election due to an extremely long recount and court cases until the time Kennedy died. Much of that time it was difficult for them to get a full 60 senators on the floor due to Kennedy's health. So the ACA was the one issue they pushed.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 10:27:25 AM
McConnell did promise to make Obama a single-term president, and I think it would be silly to pretend that they did not do everything they could to make it so, and yes, that involved being obstructive.

I'm looking at a long list of acts passed by the 111th Congress.  Often unanimously by the Senate.  I imagine that naming post offices really doesn't count, but it's there.  Plenty of other legislation too. 

I personally do not consider Republicans voting in line with Republican principles to be considered "obstructionist".  They're there to fight for Republican and conservative principles.  That includes some compromise, because politics, but it takes two to tango. 

I see that Barrack Obama appointed two Supreme Court Justices during the 111th Congress.  Five Republican Senators voted to confirm Kagan.  25 Republican Senators voted for Sotomayor.  I hardly call this obstruction. 

I see over 300 federal judges appointed by Obama.  Many times with votes of 95-0 or 100-0.  I hardly call this obstructionism. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 05, 2020, 11:13:43 AM
McConnell did promise to make Obama a single-term president, and I think it would be silly to pretend that they did not do everything they could to make it so, and yes, that involved being obstructive.

I'm looking at a long list of acts passed by the 111th Congress.  Often unanimously by the Senate.  I imagine that naming post offices really doesn't count, but it's there.  Plenty of other legislation too. 

I personally do not consider Republicans voting in line with Republican principles to be considered "obstructionist".  They're there to fight for Republican and conservative principles.  That includes some compromise, because politics, but it takes two to tango. 

I see that Barrack Obama appointed two Supreme Court Justices during the 111th Congress.  Five Republican Senators voted to confirm Kagan.  25 Republican Senators voted for Sotomayor.  I hardly call this obstruction. 

I see over 300 federal judges appointed by Obama.  Many times with votes of 95-0 or 100-0.  I hardly call this obstructionism.

It was in the final two years that things got serious, as Republicans saw the opportunity to take the White House and get their own judges instead. The eight year totals were not that far off, but the final two of those were about a third of historical precedent.

brookings article (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 05, 2020, 02:27:32 PM
I predict Biden (if he wins) will accomplish nothing.
McConnell will openly announce that since the election was (rigged, stolen, fixed, whatever Trump eventually settles on as an explanation) the Senate will stonewall everything; nothing will get passed.

Given the past working relationship Biden and McConnel had when they were both in the Senate, they could surprise us all.

The wildcard in all of this is Biden's mental health. In some respects, I wouldn't be surprised to learn at some point that Kamala will have spent most of her time as VP with a letter to Congress invoking the 25th Amendment ready to go at a moments notice should Biden start doing anything she doesn't approve of.

As such, unless Biden pulls off some real surprises by populating a majority of his cabinet with some flavor of conservatives/moderates to forestall that, he'll spend his term of office on a short leash being held by his VP. PotUS in name only.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 05, 2020, 04:51:33 PM
PINO Biden. I was just about to ask about predictions on Biden even serving out his first term. I'm going to go on the record as guessing no, he won't. If he does he'll be sequestered like he was for much of the campaign and only brought out for show on his good days, but I doubt he will even be able to do that much as time goes on. I think people know they were voting for Harris for President though. There was even a funny political ad about a trick or treater in a Biden mask who Spoiler Alert was actually Harris. After she grabbed all the candy the punchline was to know who you are really voting for and don't get tricked.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 05:44:01 PM
PINO Biden. I was just about to ask about predictions on Biden even serving out his first term. I'm going to go on the record as guessing no, he won't. If he does he'll be sequestered like he was for much of the campaign and only brought out for show on his good days, but I doubt he will even be able to do that much as time goes on. I think people know they were voting for Harris for President though. There was even a funny political ad about a trick or treater in a Biden mask who Spoiler Alert was actually Harris. After she grabbed all the candy the punchline was to know who you are really voting for and don't get tricked.

Lawd.

Biden was sequestered for most of the campaign, not due to health, but due to the fact that ; 1) there was a pandemic going on, and 2) Biden is famous for gaffes and his campaign wisely saw that the best way to victory was for Biden to say as little as possible and let Trump dig his own grave with his big mouth.  The anti-Trump.  No twitter nonsense. 

People were indeed voting for Biden and not Harris.  Harris sucked during the primaries.  If people were just voting for Harris, Biden wouldn't have won.  Your evidence seems to be a story about a holloween costume. 

This is nonsense.  I think the final stage of the breakdown is starting. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 05, 2020, 05:49:42 PM
People were indeed voting for Biden and not Harris.  Harris sucked during the primaries.  If people were just voting for Harris, Biden wouldn't have won.  Your evidence seems to be a story about a holloween costume.

They weren't even doing that. At one point CNN was showing exit polling that indicated over 30% of the Biden vote was a vote against Trump.

Which is promising for the Republicans should both of the Currently Republican Senate Seats end up going to a runoff election once the vote count completes. If Biden has been confirmed as the winner, the motivation for Democrats and more moderate voters to go out and vote Democrat "to fight Trump" is gone. While on the Republican side, the motivation to get out and vote to "fight Democrat control of Congress" will be huge. So how the at least 1 runoff race will play out will be very interesting to see how it plays out.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 05, 2020, 05:52:05 PM
This is nonsense.  I think the final stage of the breakdown is starting.

The breakdown only become critical if the Democrats pack the courts and add states to pack the Senate as well.

Otherwise, the most we'll probably see in the next 6 months or so is AntiFa acting out.

They're still rioting in Portland among other locations.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/05/portland-protests-election-2020-434221
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 05:53:07 PM
Yeah... we've seen Biden speak (yes, speak as well as give speeches) he's been on the debate stage with Trump twice, and although not the most gifted orator in the world, he is quite clearly not suffering from dementia, he puts together sentences that don't sound like they were futzed together by a 4th grader, and he can discuss policy without sounding, well, like Trump.

One can dislike the man, or his policies; but making statements about his dementia as if this is some kind of agreed-upon fact just makes people look purposefully duplicitous or, frankly, dumb.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DJQuag on November 05, 2020, 05:56:50 PM
Shout out to Martha McSally who somehow managed to fill both of her state's Senatorial seats and promptly turned them over to the opposition party.

Can we move her to Georgia and let her work her magic? Is that allowed? /s
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DJQuag on November 05, 2020, 06:08:37 PM
Christ.

I am sick and tired of hearing people complaining about "new states." The process for that is perfectly outlined in the friggen Constitution and it is what it is. If the process goes through then it's done.

You know the last time people started getting real shirty about new states being added and their Senatorial impact? Pretty sure it was when people were worried about Northern anti-slavery states outweighing Southern pro-slavery states. The South got real upset. First we had to have some compromise they made me memorise in high school and I forgot a week later then we had a civil war over it.

Fact is the Senate is proportioned precisely to allow smaller states to have bigger impact and I think it's pretty rich listening to people who have defended and traded on that for what are likely literal decades get their panties in a bunch because they're assuming the new states just wouldn't think like they do.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 05, 2020, 06:37:36 PM
Fact is the Senate is proportioned precisely to allow smaller states to have bigger impact and I think it's pretty rich listening to people who have defended and traded on that for what are likely literal decades get their panties in a bunch because they're assuming the new states just wouldn't think like they do.

Three issues:
1) Washington DC itself is a special case that likely required a constitutional amendment to make work as a state in its own right. Reverting it to Maryland on the other hand has existing precedent(Arlington, VA used to be part of Washington D.C.) and doesn't require constitutional amendments to address. Well, actually I guess it still would because what remained of Washington D.C. Population: PotUS and the VP + family having 3 electoral college votes because of an amendment...

2) Puerto Rico has failed to meet the entry requirements that were placed in regards to Hawaii, Alaska, and the Philippines -- 50% of eligible voters must approve the measure. They didn't even get 50% of eligible voters to vote. (The Philippines opted to become independent)

3) Post reconstruction era admission of states has not been done for the purpose of gaining a political advantage. And in the event that a perceived political advantage did exist, efforts were made to offset that, by admitting states in pairs--which is part of the story for Alaska(then Democrat favored) and Hawaii(then Republican favored).

This also doesn't get into the "fun" to be had in regards to house seat apportionment questions in scenario where they're likely admitted as states after the 2020 House Seat apportionments have been assigned. by the 2010 census, PR would be entitled to 5 representatives, assuming that held in the 2020 census, do they bump the house up to 441 seats(5 for PR, 1 for DC -- what they did for Alaska and Hawaii after their 1959 admission), or do they remove 6 house seats from circulation and reassign it (triggering more re-districting for the states impacted) before the 2022 or 2024 election?

I'm all for permanently increasing the size of the House, but the methodology involved in this case is a bit suspect especially if they're "temporary" until after the 2030 census.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DJQuag on November 05, 2020, 06:47:21 PM
What were the entry "requirements" for, let's say, Ohio? Nebraska? California?

And I have little to no respect for people who know they're going to lose an election and therefore decline to participate  because they're aware they can't win and are just looking to make the election look illegitimate.

"If you don't vote, you can't complain."
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DJQuag on November 05, 2020, 06:49:41 PM
Remove the six seats. I can't recall how long it's been but the size of the House hasn't changed in quite a while and if Arizona gaining a Rep and an electoral vote due to a census isn't a big deal I don't see why changing the proportion of Reps due to a new state would be.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 08, 2020, 12:57:22 PM
I think there is a non-zero chance that section 4 of the 25th amendment will be exercised before the end of the year.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2020, 04:51:11 PM
I think there is a non-zero chance that section 4 of the 25th amendment will be exercised before the end of the year.

I'd still strongly suspect January 21st, 2023.

It only happens sooner if Biden selects a majority leftist cabinet and moves "too far towards the center."

Although there also is this fly in the ointment regarding the section 4 of the 25th: (It pays to read things rather than rely on memory)

Quote
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Kamala has a window of just 21 days, and possibly much less than that, to discredit Biden sufficiently to get a supermajority (2/3rd vote of both houses) to choose to remove Biden, otherwise Biden remains in office and she then has a larger problem on her hands. Remember, that is a 2/3rds vote to replace the President, not re-instate him. The 2/3rd vote requirement in the House of Representatives also makes a section 4 removal against the President's Will harder to perform than impeachment.

Unless Biden is truly and completely mentally unfit for office, she's not getting rid of him unless he decides not to fight for whatever reason. As the Republicans may rather enjoy the chance to leave him in office if he's gone "mildly senile" rather than deal with a President Kamala.

If Biden "is all there" her attempted Section 4 removal of him then opens her up to impeachment if Biden fights back, although that one may require the Republicans to regain control of the House in the 2022 elections to complete.

So I guess after having bothered to re-read section 4, "Centrist Biden" is actually pretty safe from that section of the 25th Amendment if he goes that route. Anyone in his administration that backs a Section 4 attempt on him would likely be impeached in 2023 if they try, assuming Biden/others doesn't get them to resign first.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 08, 2020, 05:06:08 PM
I think there is a non-zero chance that section 4 of the 25th amendment will be exercised before the end of the year.

I'd still strongly suspect January 21st, 2023.

I think Donald means this year, which means Trump replaced by Pence. I'm not sure why Pence would stage a coup to be a lame duck President, or are you suggesting that Trump will suffer a severe health problem between now and then?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2020, 05:21:01 PM
I think Donald means this year, which means Trump replaced by Pence. I'm not sure why Pence would stage a coup to be a lame duck President, or are you suggesting that Trump will suffer a severe health problem between now and then?

I guess that kind of makes more sense than him, of all people, predicting Kamala would Section 4 Biden before the end of his first year in office. Although the thread he did it in still odd.

I guess a section 4 claim against Trump is possible depending on how unhinged he becomes over his presumptive loss. But in that context, I'd expect it to happen at some point in January after Congress ratifies the results. Which would be next year, not this year.  8)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on November 08, 2020, 05:21:38 PM
I think if Pence takes over then he pardons Trump for any crimes he might have committed. Trump probably is not able to pardon himself.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 08, 2020, 05:26:27 PM
My point being, that Trump very well may choose to cause so many problems to The Republic before the transition that even the Republicans will want him removed. Not because Pence wants the job but because he's doing so much damage to the Republican brand of which he is no longer of any assistance.

Don't forget, there are senate elections coming in early January that may be just as or maybe even more important than the results of the presidential election.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2020, 05:28:29 PM
My point being, that Trump very well may choose to cause so many problems to The Republic before the transition that even the Republicans will want him removed. Not because Pence wants the job but because he's doing so much damage to the Republican brand of which he is no longer of any assistance.

Same problem with try to Section 4 trump however, only reversed.

The Democrats may not want to remove him in that case because of the political hay they make out of it. So the 2/3rds super majority vote doesn't happen.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 08, 2020, 05:52:10 PM
You seem to think that, provided with sufficient evidence that even the cabinet is convinced that Trump is no longer able to fulfill his duties, that the Democrats would then vote to keep him in power? Seriously?

I doubt that many, if any, Democrats don't already believe that Trump should be removed, and most of them have been very very clear and I would say vociferous in their belief that he is completely ill-fitted for the job (impeachment, anybody?)

But even if Democrats are actually as unprincipled as Republicans when it comes to Trump, the math just doesn't work; if any Democratic senator votes against removing Trump in that situation, where the senator previously voice support for impeachment but more generally for Trump being a completely useless president, that wouldn't play well with the electorate. If sufficient Democratic senators defeated removal of the president there's just no way that sufficient Democratic voters would show up to vote in January.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on November 09, 2020, 12:28:32 AM
Unless Biden is truly and completely mentally unfit for office, she's not getting rid of him unless he decides not to fight for whatever reason. As the Republicans may rather enjoy the chance to leave him in office if he's gone "mildly senile" rather than deal with a President Kamala.

Although it appears DonaldD meant Trump/Pence, the Biden/Harris scenario is just as possible for other reasons. But I don't think it would be Harris out to remove him. Rather it would be a coordinated and agreed upon plan for him, as the veteran politician, to win the election, then hand it over to her since he's (for argument's sake) ineffectual, senile, etc. It would be his job to get here there, and hers to take over and be the new face of the DNC.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 09, 2020, 10:36:20 AM
Unless Biden is truly and completely mentally unfit for office, she's not getting rid of him unless he decides not to fight for whatever reason. As the Republicans may rather enjoy the chance to leave him in office if he's gone "mildly senile" rather than deal with a President Kamala.

Although it appears DonaldD meant Trump/Pence, the Biden/Harris scenario is just as possible for other reasons. But I don't think it would be Harris out to remove him. Rather it would be a coordinated and agreed upon plan for him, as the veteran politician, to win the election, then hand it over to her since he's (for argument's sake) ineffectual, senile, etc. It would be his job to get here there, and hers to take over and be the new face of the DNC.

If it's agreed between the two of them, it wouldn't need invocation of section 4 of the 25th amendment, Biden could just resign for health reasons. Presumably only after the first 2 years of his presidency, so that Harris would still be able to get two additional full terms (whereas by the 22nd amendment she would only be entitled to only one term if she'd served more than 2 years as president already).
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on November 09, 2020, 10:51:58 AM
But that is not nearly as nefarious. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2020, 10:58:36 AM
Unless Biden is truly and completely mentally unfit for office, she's not getting rid of him unless he decides not to fight for whatever reason. As the Republicans may rather enjoy the chance to leave him in office if he's gone "mildly senile" rather than deal with a President Kamala.

Although it appears DonaldD meant Trump/Pence, the Biden/Harris scenario is just as possible for other reasons. But I don't think it would be Harris out to remove him. Rather it would be a coordinated and agreed upon plan for him, as the veteran politician, to win the election, then hand it over to her since he's (for argument's sake) ineffectual, senile, etc. It would be his job to get here there, and hers to take over and be the new face of the DNC.

As pointed out, if Biden wants to step aside, he need only resign with no need to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

The context of my prior concerns about Section 4, while I was going off of memory, was that Kamala Harris could potential use Section 4 as a proverbial sword over Biden's head just waiting for a moment to strike if he steps out of line in regards to left-wing agenda items. The super majority requirement from both Houses of Congress in order for her to get such a tactic to last longer than 3 weeks means that option doesn't really exist for her as a political tool at the least.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on November 09, 2020, 11:05:38 AM
As pointed out, if Biden wants to step aside, he need only resign with no need to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

Well I suppose it depends on how they want it to show. Hypothetically the theatre is different between "Biden steps down due to health reasons", which might be open to the accusation that he never intended to preside and his run for President was a fraud; this would be especially powerful if there was no appreciable change in his health between now and then. Using the 25th would be more aggressive theatre, that would make it look like Harris is trying to fix something broken, rather than colluding behind closed doors to defraud the public (by which I mean telling people they're voting for Biden for Prez whereas in fact they were actually voting for Harris for Prez).
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 09, 2020, 11:31:44 AM
In that scenario, would Trumpians start defending Joe's mental competence?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2020, 11:36:57 AM
In that scenario, would Trumpians start defending Joe's mental competence?

That would largely depend on how capable Biden proves himself of being in regards to working with them.

Otherwise, they could go for the reverse and support Kamala so they can use her as a boogeyman in the current/next election cycle.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 09, 2020, 12:35:53 PM
I will wager the 25th isn't invoked nor threatened.

I do think Biden will not run again in 2024 but I think he'll have an unremarkable presidency. The senate republicans are going to determine if he manages over a reviving economy or a recession. So I'm betting on recession. The day he takes office they are going to go 100% deficit 100% of the time and refuse any additional stimulus or aid to states. Its not going to cost them in red states because they'll play the fiscal stimulus card and just blame Biden for the failing economy.

If Biden can be a successful president is going to come down to the 2022 Senate races. If the dems can't retake the Senate then its going to be 4 years of slow recovery as the economy tries to recover while the federal government puts the breaks on economic growth by cutting spending during a recession.

The fact that the Republicans are likely going to hold the Senate means no big policy initiatives can get through. So the best I'm really hoping for is that Biden manages to run the executive well and rebuild and repair the parts of the federal bureaucracy that Trump was damaging through inept leadership and horrible political appointees. I think we'll see some small positives on the environmental front, but nothing major because the senate won't be on board. After four years of Trump, four years of boring won't be a bad thing.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on November 09, 2020, 12:44:34 PM
I wonder if Trump will release his health care plan now and his taxes?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 09, 2020, 03:03:48 PM
I think he'll be releasing his health plan in two weeks' time...
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 09, 2020, 04:33:51 PM
These threads are always fun to come back to a few years later to see how what the politicians said they would do matches up to what they actually tried to do and then what they really accomplished. Obama's promises about healthcare are a good example, one with no individual mandate and average costs coming down twenty-five hundred dollars per family compared to what actually happened. So what is Biden promising to do, will he do it, and will it work as intended?

Biden is promising to be autocratic, to restore the Obama precedent of using executive orders to illegally create laws.  It will work because as Obama showed it can't be stopped unless the other party controls BOTH the House and 2/3rds of the Senate.  As there are more than 34 Democrat Senators and the Democrat's control the House, Biden will use executive orders to violate the Constitution.  He's already announced he's going to reenter the Paris Treaty, still without Senate approval, that he's going to re-institute the illegal DACA program, and several other "Day 1," initiatives - none of which involve any legislative agenda.  So I guess the DNC does get what it wants, more fascism from its own team.  That's before you consider he thinks he can order everyone in the country to wear a mask - wait till you see how that's going to be enforced.

He's going to bury any investigation into his own criminal conduct, his family's criminal conduct and the greatest political crime of the century that Obama Admin carried out in respect of the incoming Trump admin.  Again, DNC gets what it wants, a permanent double standard where the same conduct is criminal for Republicans and "totally okay" for Democrats.  He'll not only get away with it, he'll be praised for it.  Seems like people are always cheering somehow when they give away their own rights.

Quote
Will he succeed in getting the filthy rich to pay more in taxes and will his tax policies end up resulting in more money to the Treasury?

Lol, his policies were never about this.  Why do you think the filthy rich backed Biden overwhelmingly with their big money (do you remember, oh say every year before this one, when the Dems on the board through absolutely tantrums about dark money, lol, bet you didn't know their only real complaint was that they didn't think it was in their favor).  Under Trump there were real income gains among the poorest of us, under Biden and Obama, it was all about the rich benefitting more and that's the status quo they were looking to restore.  You can expect headline grabbing top line tax numbers to go up, and you can expect there won't be any real headlines on all the new deductions and special incentives that go right in behind them to ensure the really rich and connected end up better than now (meanwhile all those in the middle class will end up worse, cause the DNC really does seek to make people dependent on government, which is where they get their votes).

Quote
Will he get the assault weapons ban he wants?

Nope.  But you can expect completely partisan legal cases that seek and even may bankrupt those defending the second amendment and maybe even gun manufacturers themselves.  Meanwhile, like always, everywhere the DNC's control increases so does the crime.

Quote
Is our healthcare system going to be substantially improved and can he really "shutdown the virus" like he said?

No, healthcare will get worse, same as it did under Obama.  Our healthcare's overwhelming problem is too much government involvement.  Under Biden that's only going to increase.  You'll pay more for even less.

As far as the virus, my guess is yes.  Not because Biden is going to do anything, but because he's going to be the beneficiary of the exceptional work that the Trump administration engaged in.  Finding, completely "fascinating" that Biden's team made real efforts to meet with all the drug companies working on vaccines, and that after the media repeatedly undercut Trump's message about how vaccines were coming, we have an announcement less than a week after the election about 90% effective vaccine results.  If I were a betting man, I'd take that as a lock the results were deliberately delayed because they completely undercut the message Biden wanted to send.

Quote
Will there be less pollution and will climate change slow down because of his administration?

Not because of any anti-pollution efforts (those have been stable under all Presidents), but only because he'll slow down the economy and therefore we'll have less pollution.  Kind of silver lining on what's going to be an economic disaster. 

I mean, the way Biden is going to handle this globally is going to be a disaster.  The Paris Accord was not a pollution reduction treaty it was always a scam.  US carbon production hit a cap in 2006, and has been going down ever since while our production and efficiency has been increasing.  Trump's economy was better than Obama's and involved increases in manufacturing, and for carbon production was slightly up over the last year of Obama's but still below the average (granted, there was a drop from beginning to end of Obama).  In fact, under Trump US pollution from energy production continued to decline, but pollution from transportation increased (if you want to stop US pollution convince people to stop driving).  None of it shocking or unreasonable. 

Long and short is from 2006 to present, US has dropped from abt. 6 billion tons of carbon to around 5.5 billion tons.  In the same time period, China went from about 6 billion tons to over 10 billion tons.  India went from 1.3 billion to about 3 billion.  No matter what Biden claims, he's already announcing he's going to lift the tariffs on China and the Chinese think he's a done deal to open up to them completely.  You can expect that Chinese pollution rate to climb even faster, and as there's NO LEVEL OF CUTS that the US can make that will cause pollution to descrease without controlling China, all Biden is telling you is that he's going to sell out BOTH the economy and the environment and get congratulated for doing it. 

Quote
I wonder about all of that and a lot more. Just like with Obama, the good thing is that we get to see if these people can deliver on their promises. When they fail like Obama did miserably, that sets up the other side for a good chance at taking over for a while the way Trump did and may yet do again.

Except they made that mistake before, and they don't plan on making it again.  While that could have been a good thing, they could have reconsidered what they were doing and made policy corrections to get to a better place, that's not what they decided to do.  They decided that the way to make sure we don't get another Trump is to make sure the system is rigged to give themselves permanent power.  That's what Biden and the DNC plan to do with their four years (or heck, why not admit it, it's not going to be four years, it's intended to never transfer power again).
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 09, 2020, 04:40:00 PM
But even if Democrats are actually as unprincipled as Republicans when it comes to Trump...

Lol, the Democrats have no principles at all when it comes to Trump.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 09, 2020, 11:52:23 PM
Yes, I remember the headlines when DACA was ruled unconstitutional. I mean, I get that you and the Heritage foundation disagree, but that isn't really your job, is it? Selective enforcement of a variety of things is also not unconstitutional. It is about allocation of resources when it comes to enforcement. DACA rightfully can not grant citizenship. The federal government is not compelled to enforce every law, that would be impractical and a waste of resources.

He will obviously also stop sending people back to their home countries to be murdered by drug lords and sold into prostitution.

Likewise, he will start processing Visas in a timely fashion and help talented people who happen to have been born in other countries to be able to work here on a path to citizenship.

I'm sure that infuriates you, Seriati, but as Rhett Butler said...
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 10, 2020, 02:14:12 AM
The federal government is not compelled to enforce every law, that would be impractical and a waste of resources.

What? I'd be saying that is a case for congress getting their act in gear and cleaning out the cruft so the Federal Government doesn't have such significant overhead, rather than simply empowering the PotUS to pick and choose which laws get to be ignored.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 10, 2020, 11:23:52 AM
The federal government is not compelled to enforce every law, that would be impractical and a waste of resources.

What? I'd be saying that is a case for congress getting their act in gear and cleaning out the cruft so the Federal Government doesn't have such significant overhead, rather than simply empowering the PotUS to pick and choose which laws get to be ignored.

Great, so you think the FDA should start arresting people in marijuana dispensaries? That's a law too.

Some states and counties have blue laws still on the books that say businesses can't open on Sundays.

Officers can decide arbitrarily when to let someone off with a warning versus the hassle of arresting them.

Do you know the size of the federal code? There are 4000 to 5000 statutes. Are you under the illusion that they are all being enforced without discretion?

I'm not sure if you were one of them, but there have been people on this board applauding Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun legislation.

I'd sure be happier if we cleared out resources, say, devoted to the war on drugs and turned those resources toward financial fraud. But I don't get to make those decisions.

This makes sense given that the President has the power to pardon. If you had a way to compel law enforcement, ie DOJ, then all the President would have to do to nullify it is constantly pardon everyone who got caught.

ruling on the matter (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182#writing-11-182_OPINION_3)

Even more clear, removal isn't a criminal issue, it is a civil one.

Quote
The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features  is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.

So if Congress wanted to be heartless draconians whose sole purpose is ejecting anyone not here legally, they can change the word may to must. That would be a tragedy, because it would affect refugees, asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking, surviving spouses of US citizens, foreign students affected by natural disasters, etc.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 10, 2020, 01:04:32 PM
Yes, I remember the headlines when DACA was ruled unconstitutional.

Headlines came when DAPA was ruled unConstitutional. DACA is unConstitutional.  Prosecutorial discretion applied to a class, is actually acutally not discretion, it's literally just arbitrary executive action to rule without law.  I mean, we don't have enough "resources" so we're no longer going to prosecute Civil Rights cases.  Is that a legitimate exercise of executive discretion?  We don't have enough resources, so we're no longer going to prosecute crimes occurring during riots, also legit?

The Rule of Law is a duty to faithfully enforce the laws, not to pretend the executive has discretion not only NOT to enforce the laws, but to turn that into an entitlement that it would take a law to establish.

There's really no legal basis for DACA being Constitutional.  No one can be entitled to something that is violating the law, that includes an "entitlement" not to be removed for that legal violation absent another legal violation.

Quote
Selective enforcement of a variety of things is also not unconstitutional. It is about allocation of resources when it comes to enforcement. DACA rightfully can not grant citizenship. The federal government is not compelled to enforce every law, that would be impractical and a waste of resources.

This may be the single biggest most unAmerican idea that the left has incorporated into it's character.  The solution for bad laws is better laws, not arbitraty executive decisions serving political goals that are the opposite of the actual laws.

The laws say that those illegal aliens must be deported.  We'd all prefer that our immigration system be rationalized and that those who are in the DACA group be the first to benefit from that rationalization, FIX THE LAWs.  In fact, the abject refusal to fix those laws has put every one of those DACA recipients in a worse place than they'd be if we fixed the laws - which would almost certainly have led to citizenship for them.

Instead we have a system that abuses the rule of law, makes a mockery of the oath of office to faithfully enforce the laws, and is a violation of the separation of powers that does not - despite Democrat wishes to the contrary - empower the Executive to reverse that actual law on a fake claim of discretion, and that undermines and harms the very people you seem to want to help.  Court interference in Trump's repeal of "executive discretion" (which is beyond stupid to claim this is purely an exercise of discretion and therefore not an illegal law, but then to turn around and claim "discretion" doesn't actually mean discretion when it goes the other way) undermined what was almost certainly going to be a real reform to the law that fixed this issue.

Quote
He will obviously also stop sending people back to their home countries to be murdered by drug lords and sold into prostitution.

Of course.  He's going to open up the borders to let the drug lords and pimps into this country, why would he need to send anyone home anymore?

Nothing - NOTHING - has stopped you from advocating for an amendment to our Asylum policy.  But that's something that the people have a right to decide - ie to have their Congress make a law on after debate - and under no circumstances can you ever let the people actually make a real decision in your world.  Until that law is fixed, what entitles someone to Asylum is decided under the current law, not whether someone would be better off in this country analysis.

Continually advocating against the application of law, is a direct undermining of the authority of the people in a Democracy.  Autocrats and Dictators pick and choose what laws to apply to people based on politics and identity class, leaders in a free country apply the laws fairly, evenly and without regard to serving their political goals or benefitting their friends.  I find it hilarious, that you guys are concerned about Trump the autocrat when you're in bed with true autocratic solutions.

Quote
Likewise, he will start processing Visas in a timely fashion and help talented people who happen to have been born in other countries to be able to work here on a path to citizenship.

Got no problem with processing any legal visas or applications, or with granting any asylum requests that are actually consistent with our laws.  I have a massive problem with coaching applicants on asylum and visa fraud knowing full well that this generates years of delays on a proper removal from the country for no reason other than to generate that delay.

Quote
I'm sure that infuriates you, Seriati, but as Rhett Butler said...

Mostly it disappoints me.  I shouldn't expect more with education in the state it is in this country, but it still disappoints.

There's a difference between what's a good or bad policy and what's a legal or illegal one.  It's incredibly short sighted of you to conflate "good" (in your opinion) with legal.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 10, 2020, 01:48:23 PM
So then you obviously opposed Trump when he did his end run around the Congressional authority about asylum?

Quote
In the Immigrant Nationality Act, Congress established that the U.S. can enter into “safe third country” agreements with other nations. The agreement would make it so that the third country would process asylum claims instead of the U.S. Though Trump has discussed establishing third country agreements with Guatemala and Mexico, only one agreement currently exists and it’s with Canada.

“So this is actually a run around of the safe third country agreement,” Kennji Kizuka, Senior Researcher and Policy Analyst at Human Rights First, tells TIME. “Instead of reaching one of those agreements, what the administration is doing is punting people back to any third country that they potentially have passed through.”

“From our view, Congress already laid out the procedures to address asylum seekers who have passed through third countries or who have already been granted some form of protection or status in another country, and this isn’t it, this violates what Congress wrote out in the statute already,” Kizuka added.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 11, 2020, 01:39:55 AM
Great, so you think the FDA should start arresting people in marijuana dispensaries? That's a law too.

Either laws are laws or they aren't laws. Laws on the books which are not enforced (unless a DA is looking to catch someone in a "gotcha!") are very bad, and very dangerous to the system as a whole. And IIRC Marijuana being illegal is an administrative ruling(although the department of HHS gets that authority by statute), not a statutory one, so it doesn't even require Congress to undo, it just requires certain decisions from the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Quote
Some states and counties have blue laws still on the books that say businesses can't open on Sundays.
And you want to keep those laws on the books because of what exactly? They serve no purpose, get rid of them.

Quote
Officers can decide arbitrarily when to let someone off with a warning versus the hassle of arresting them.

Why give them the option? If its an obsolete or outright bad law, it needs to be removed from the code books. Unless you think Police need more tools for harassing the population at large?

Quote
Do you know the size of the federal code? There are 4000 to 5000 statutes. Are you under the illusion that they are all being enforced without discretion?

I don't think most of those codes should be enforced, I think they should be streamlined and remove the ones that are no longer needed. Except that runs counter to the Democrat's dream of a bureaucratic super-state, which requires a byzantine set of on obscure and obsolete and often contradictory laws in order to be able to solidify its supremacy over everything else. Make the Administrator happy or he's going to ruin your life because there are laws he can hammer you with that you've never even heard of before.

Quote
I'm not sure if you were one of them, but there have been people on this board applauding Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun legislation.

Bad laws should be ignored, and removed as soon as practical. Your point is? At what point did the people applauding those Sheriffs advocate for keeping those bad laws on the books?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2020, 12:27:53 PM
Quote
I don't think most of those codes should be enforced, I think they should be streamlined and remove the ones that are no longer needed. Except that runs counter to the Democrat's dream of a bureaucratic super-state, which requires a byzantine set of on obscure and obsolete and often contradictory laws in order to be able to solidify its supremacy over everything else. Make the Administrator happy or he's going to ruin your life because there are laws he can hammer you with that you've never even heard of before.

It is astonishing that you think this is a partisan issue. From the New Deal to the War on Drugs to the Contract with America, and beyond, the one guaranteed things is more lines added to the code. Doesn't matter if it is Republican or Democrat. Republicans love adding many and various loopholes to the tax code, and so do Democrats. The tax code alone should be one page, these are the percentages. Not "I'm a family owned horticulture collective". Not "I'm an oil and gas company, I shouldn't have to take the same business risks as every other company". Not "I'm gonna build a big warehouse in your area, give me breaks."

Additionally, we wouldn't need lots of entries if people weren't complete and utter aholes. We wouldn't need an FDA if it weren't for the fact that so many people are perfectly fine selling lemon seeds as a cure for AIDS. Or selling people accounts that they never opened. Or fraudulently dealing with every citizen.

Usury laws are necessary because nobody should get pushed into a 70% APR. Zoning laws are necessary so somebody doesn't open an auto body shop next door to my house.

Love to have a conversation about which laws you'd like repealed, maybe that can be a thread.


Quote
Bad laws should be ignored

Great, glad you agree. Immigration laws are bad laws, therefore we can ignore them.

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 12, 2020, 02:03:54 PM
So then you obviously opposed Trump when he did his end run around the Congressional authority about asylum?

Quote
In the Immigrant Nationality Act, Congress established that the U.S. can enter into “safe third country” agreements with other nations. The agreement would make it so that the third country would process asylum claims instead of the U.S. Though Trump has discussed establishing third country agreements with Guatemala and Mexico, only one agreement currently exists and it’s with Canada.

“So this is actually a run around of the safe third country agreement,” Kennji Kizuka, Senior Researcher and Policy Analyst at Human Rights First, tells TIME. “Instead of reaching one of those agreements, what the administration is doing is punting people back to any third country that they potentially have passed through.”

“From our view, Congress already laid out the procedures to address asylum seekers who have passed through third countries or who have already been granted some form of protection or status in another country, and this isn’t it, this violates what Congress wrote out in the statute already,” Kizuka added.

Not sure why you think we don't have safe third party agreements other than with Canada, they've been widely publicized.  Do you think they are defective?

Here's a link to a Vox article from last calendar year acknowledging 3 such agreements.  https://www.vox.com/2019/9/26/20870768/trump-agreement-honduras-guatemala-el-salvador-explained (https://www.vox.com/2019/9/26/20870768/trump-agreement-honduras-guatemala-el-salvador-explained)

The actual law on this from another Vox article opposed to the agreements:

Quote
Paragraph (1) [who may apply for asylum, quoted above] shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country… in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection…”

The agreements don't have to be treaties.  The liberal left lawyers' complaint is that under the process immigrants don't get the years of delays and living in the US to pursue their claims because they typically go home or resettle in the country that's holding them when it becomes clear they won't get into the US. But that's not a failure of due process as they allege.  It's actual the exact right level of due process under the law.

The law - as written by Congress - makes the AG's determination of safety unreviewable by the courts, as are many asylum judgements (notwithstanding that judges have routinely made up their own basis for reviewing the unreviewable).

Mexico never ended up with such an agreement.  Instead after much negotiation they massively increased their limits on travel across their Southern border and Trump instituted the remain in Mexico policy.  That policy was overturned by a 9th Circuit district judge nationwide, then the 9th Circuit agreed with that judge but partially overturned the order's national scope and limited it to the 9th Circuit, and then the SC  put a stay on the original injunction that the 9th Circuit had partially affirmed, which means the Trump admin was allowed to enforce the policy while litigation is ongoing.

My strong assumption is that Biden is going to try and moot the issue, because if the SC rules here he probably would not like the result.  Not to mention, the SC was asked - again - to clarify that district court judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.  Biden might actually like that, as it'll prevent a district judge in the Fifth circuit, for example, from stopping his policies cold nationwide.  Of course, the media will be all over that judge in a way they've completely not been with the leftist partisan judges.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 12, 2020, 02:17:01 PM
Quote
Officers can decide arbitrarily when to let someone off with a warning versus the hassle of arresting them.

Why give them the option? If its an obsolete or outright bad law, it needs to be removed from the code books. Unless you think Police need more tools for harassing the population at large?

Seriously, why leave laws on the books that are just for harassing people or giving police who want to arrest someone a basis that is hard to dispute?

Quote
Quote
Do you know the size of the federal code? There are 4000 to 5000 statutes. Are you under the illusion that they are all being enforced without discretion?

I don't think most of those codes should be enforced, I think they should be streamlined and remove the ones that are no longer needed. Except that runs counter to the Democrat's dream of a bureaucratic super-state, which requires a byzantine set of on obscure and obsolete and often contradictory laws in order to be able to solidify its supremacy over everything else. Make the Administrator happy or he's going to ruin your life because there are laws he can hammer you with that you've never even heard of before.

QFT.  The goal of the left is to create a system so arbitrary and complicated that no matter what someone does a zealous prosecutor can put them in jail, meanwhile, those in the know can commit actual crimes with impunity.  That kind of arbitrary enforcement is completely contrary to justice, that's true whether is a young black man being harassed by the police or a Trump admin official who's being investigated solely because he works for Trump.

Quote
Quote
I'm not sure if you were one of them, but there have been people on this board applauding Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun legislation.

Bad laws should be ignored, and removed as soon as practical. Your point is? At what point did the people applauding those Sheriffs advocate for keeping those bad laws on the books?

Most anti-gun legislation is unConstitutional.  County Sheriffs are charged with the duty to enforce the Constitution over the laws that conflict with it.  Why would you think there's something wrong in that scenario?  In fact, the very idea that you are advocating represents a completely flawed understanding of legal principals and the duty to faithfully enforce the laws.  That duty requires that a Sheriff not enforce unConstitutional laws.

A Sheriff that enforces a violation of religious freedom or free speech is doing just as much wrong.  A Sheriff that ignores the Constitutional limits on searches without probable cause is too.

The difference is between a law that is categorically unConstitutional (most gun laws that Sheriffs refuse to enforce, and the Constitution is their stated basis) and one that is not.  Discretion exists for determining on an "as applied" basis laws that are in fact constitutional.  DACA is whole other issue, where the law on immigration is clear and constitutional, and the "policy" directly violates it.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 03:21:31 PM
Quote
The difference is between a law that is categorically unConstitutional (most gun laws that Sheriffs refuse to enforce, and the Constitution is their stated basis) and one that is not.  Discretion exists for determining on an "as applied" basis laws that are in fact constitutional. 

So a rando Sherriff gets to override his state Supreme Court, and SCOTUS, based on his own personal interpretation? I'm sure they are quite the legal scholars and choose to be sheriffs despite holding a JD.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 16, 2020, 03:03:52 AM
Here's a nice summary of Biden on the border and on illegal immigration which he will for all practical purposes legalize.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-foolish-immigration-priorities-034554415.html

I saw no mention in the article of Covid-19 but I'll throw that in there as well. Trump's immigration policies must have to some extent reduced the spread of Covid-19 in Latin America and to the United States for all the good it did anyone anyway since it's pretty much out of control in both places. It's hard to imagine that Biden's policies could make the Covid situation any worse than it already is but encouraging the restart of the migrant caravans seems like one of the best ways to do exactly that.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on November 16, 2020, 09:22:04 AM
Here's a nice summary of Biden on the border and on illegal immigration which he will for all practical purposes legalize.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-foolish-immigration-priorities-034554415.html

I saw no mention in the article of Covid-19 but I'll throw that in there as well. Trump's immigration policies must have to some extent reduced the spread of Covid-19 in Latin America and to the United States for all the good it did anyone anyway since it's pretty much out of control in both places. It's hard to imagine that Biden's policies could make the Covid situation any worse than it already is but encouraging the restart of the migrant caravans seems like one of the best ways to do exactly that.

Got anything that isn’t an opinion piece? You call that a summary...it’s just a political hit piece.

As for COVID-19, it’s going away soon, so I’ve heard from my President. That’s a nonissue.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 16, 2020, 09:29:03 AM
Here's a nice summary of Biden on the border and on illegal immigration which he will for all practical purposes legalize.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-foolish-immigration-priorities-034554415.html

I saw no mention in the article of Covid-19 but I'll throw that in there as well. Trump's immigration policies must have to some extent reduced the spread of Covid-19 in Latin America and to the United States for all the good it did anyone anyway since it's pretty much out of control in both places. It's hard to imagine that Biden's policies could make the Covid situation any worse than it already is but encouraging the restart of the migrant caravans seems like one of the best ways to do exactly that.

Got anything that isn’t an opinion piece? You call that a summary...it’s just a political hit piece.

As for COVID-19, it’s going away soon, so I’ve heard from my President. That’s a nonissue.

Cherry has been an outspoken critic of the president on COVID so that tongue in cheek response doesn't quite land.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 16, 2020, 09:45:12 AM
I was for masks even before Trump was against them. Having spent a couple of years in Asia the way mask wearing was common and perfectly acceptable already left a good impression on me. In a pandemic like this one as well as the last one they are just common sense.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2020, 01:26:35 PM
a "nice summary"? Whoever wrote it seems barely literate.

Quote
With the agreements with Mexico and Central American in suspended animation during the pandemic, Title 42 is necessary stopgap that Biden will come under intense pressure from pro-immigration groups to reverse.

It is truly terrible that the agreement with "Central American" avoids "necessary stopgap". If words were a salad, this would be ambrosia.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 11:22:20 AM
Quote
The difference is between a law that is categorically unConstitutional (most gun laws that Sheriffs refuse to enforce, and the Constitution is their stated basis) and one that is not.  Discretion exists for determining on an "as applied" basis laws that are in fact constitutional. 

So a rando Sherriff gets to override his state Supreme Court, and SCOTUS, based on his own personal interpretation? I'm sure they are quite the legal scholars and choose to be sheriffs despite holding a JD.

Lol, again read what I said.  Quit jousting with windmills and strawmen. 

Unless you can point to the Sheriff that was enforcing or not enforcing a specific order that in fact was decided in the Supreme Court.  Answer you can't, the SC's jurisprudence on gun control is very sparse overtime.  And yes, interpretation of the law to the citizens in the county is literally the job of a sheriff.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 19, 2020, 11:27:38 AM
Quote
The difference is between a law that is categorically unConstitutional (most gun laws that Sheriffs refuse to enforce, and the Constitution is their stated basis) and one that is not.  Discretion exists for determining on an "as applied" basis laws that are in fact constitutional. 

So a rando Sherriff gets to override his state Supreme Court, and SCOTUS, based on his own personal interpretation? I'm sure they are quite the legal scholars and choose to be sheriffs despite holding a JD.

Lol, again read what I said.  Quit jousting with windmills and strawmen. 

Unless you can point to the Sheriff that was enforcing or not enforcing a specific order that in fact was decided in the Supreme Court.  Answer you can't, the SC's jurisprudence on gun control is very sparse overtime.  And yes, interpretation of the law to the citizens in the county is literally the job of a sheriff.

So a sheriff can refuse to enforce a law he deems unconstitutional unless the SC has directly ruled on that individual law?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 11:28:13 AM
Here's a nice summary of Biden on the border and on illegal immigration which he will for all practical purposes legalize.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-foolish-immigration-priorities-034554415.html

I saw no mention in the article of Covid-19 but I'll throw that in there as well. Trump's immigration policies must have to some extent reduced the spread of Covid-19 in Latin America and to the United States for all the good it did anyone anyway since it's pretty much out of control in both places. It's hard to imagine that Biden's policies could make the Covid situation any worse than it already is but encouraging the restart of the migrant caravans seems like one of the best ways to do exactly that.

Got anything that isn’t an opinion piece? You call that a summary...it’s just a political hit piece.

It's pretty much Biden's policy, why do you think its a hit piece?   Were you somehow not aware of what Biden's team intends to do?  It's almost like somehow, mysteriously, you're underinformed about the actual policies of a person who just campaigned for President and was elected.  I wonder how that could have happened.

Quote
As for COVID-19, it’s going away soon, so I’ve heard from my President. That’s a nonissue.

Lucky for us Trump really did break ground and records in getting a vaccine developed.  Lucky for Biden the media chose to lie about it and big Pharma deliberately concealed the success prior to the vote.  Couldn't have people knowing about Biden's lies on Trump's COVID success prior to casting their votes.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 11:30:43 AM
Quote
The difference is between a law that is categorically unConstitutional (most gun laws that Sheriffs refuse to enforce, and the Constitution is their stated basis) and one that is not.  Discretion exists for determining on an "as applied" basis laws that are in fact constitutional. 

So a rando Sherriff gets to override his state Supreme Court, and SCOTUS, based on his own personal interpretation? I'm sure they are quite the legal scholars and choose to be sheriffs despite holding a JD.

Lol, again read what I said.  Quit jousting with windmills and strawmen. 

Unless you can point to the Sheriff that was enforcing or not enforcing a specific order that in fact was decided in the Supreme Court.  Answer you can't, the SC's jurisprudence on gun control is very sparse overtime.  And yes, interpretation of the law to the citizens in the county is literally the job of a sheriff.

So a sheriff can refuse to enforce a law he deems unconstitutional unless the SC has directly ruled on that individual law?

Quoted for deliberate misrepresentation.  Quit trying to mischaracterize to the point of lying.

TheDrake is the one that introduced a FAKE HYPOTHETICAL whereby a local Sheriff overrules the SC.  It has never happened, its not happening now and it has no relevance to the discussion.

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on November 19, 2020, 11:32:15 AM
So the pharma companies held back results, even though the timing of the results is almost exactly what they said they would be way back in the start. The only person giving better timing was the President, and he was not the one making the vaccine or doing the trials.

yeah, going to need some sources on that claim.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 11:40:12 AM
So the pharma companies held back results, even though the timing of the results is almost exactly what they said they would be way back in the start.

It's just a fact that the first announcement of results came from a data run conducted after the election and reported within the same week.  That run was scheduled to be made earlier where it would have been reported in mid October.  Hmmm... Imagine what a 90% effective vaccince report connected to Warp Speed would have done to the election.  The Biden campaign only really pushed 2 issues, and undermining the "Trump failed on COVID" meme would likely have titled the election. 

Is it any wonder that Biden's campaign was meeting with big pharma and pressuring them not to make announcements?

Is it any surprise that Fauci refused to say any positive about vaccines until after the votes were cast, when he suddenly started being much more public and positive on how soon it will be ready?

Quote
yeah, going to need some sources on that claim.

Why?  No one is willing to believe anything that they don't already agree with on these topics.  How about you actually learn about something about the topic before setting your opinion in stone?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 19, 2020, 11:47:12 AM
You:
Quote
Most anti-gun legislation is unConstitutional.  County Sheriffs are charged with the duty to enforce the Constitution over the laws that conflict with it.  Why would you think there's something wrong in that scenario?
Me:
Quote
So a sheriff can refuse to enforce a law he deems unconstitutional unless the SC has directly ruled on that individual law?
Quote
Quoted for deliberate misrepresentation.  Quit trying to mischaracterize to the point of lying.

That was an honest question. It was your assertion that gun control laws are unconstitutional. If the SC or a court has struck down the law then I would expect the sheriffs not to enforce it. But you said they have a duty to enforce the Constitution over laws that conflict with it. Once a law is struck down its not the law anymore. So in the interim of a court decision who gets to determine if there is a conflict between the law and the constitution if not the courts? It seems to be your claim that the sheriff has both the right and the duty to do so.

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 19, 2020, 11:57:15 AM
And I'm not wholly unsympathetic to the argument that law enforcement should refuse to enforce bad laws. But I also understand this opens a whole can of worms that we probably don't want. So I also agree that its much better for society to get rid of bad laws that shouldn't be enforced rather than depend on law enforcement and DAs to ignore laws that are that bad/unconstitutional or out of date.

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2020, 12:23:51 PM
Quote
The difference is between a law that is categorically unConstitutional (most gun laws that Sheriffs refuse to enforce, and the Constitution is their stated basis) and one that is not.  Discretion exists for determining on an "as applied" basis laws that are in fact constitutional. 

So a rando Sherriff gets to override his state Supreme Court, and SCOTUS, based on his own personal interpretation? I'm sure they are quite the legal scholars and choose to be sheriffs despite holding a JD.

Lol, again read what I said.  Quit jousting with windmills and strawmen. 

Unless you can point to the Sheriff that was enforcing or not enforcing a specific order that in fact was decided in the Supreme Court.  Answer you can't, the SC's jurisprudence on gun control is very sparse overtime.  And yes, interpretation of the law to the citizens in the county is literally the job of a sheriff.

So a sheriff can refuse to enforce a law he deems unconstitutional unless the SC has directly ruled on that individual law?

Quoted for deliberate misrepresentation.  Quit trying to mischaracterize to the point of lying.

TheDrake is the one that introduced a FAKE HYPOTHETICAL whereby a local Sheriff overrules the SC.  It has never happened, its not happening now and it has no relevance to the discussion.

You really think so? Should we start with local sheriffs who refused to enforce integration? I will say there are sheriffs who say if the Supreme Court rules they'll start enforcing it. So I'll back off that extreme statement and say that that is also not how it works. If any court rules, that stands until it gets appealed. So when your Circuit Court says "that's constitutional" that is also more definitive than the sheriffs own personal views, and he should obey the rule of law.

But all the face mask and epidemic stuff got covered 100 years ago already.

Quote
Typical is the Supreme Court of Arizona’s pronouncement, “Necessity is the law of time and place, and the emergency calls into life the necessity … to exercise the power to protect the public health.” In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court had called for just such deference in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

If such an officer disagrees with the courts of this land and defies them (talkin to you Arapio), they ought resign.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: rightleft22 on November 19, 2020, 12:26:05 PM
So the pharma companies held back results, even though the timing of the results is almost exactly what they said they would be way back in the start.

It's just a fact that the first announcement of results came from a data run conducted after the election and reported within the same week.  That run was scheduled to be made earlier where it would have been reported in mid October.  Hmmm... Imagine what a 90% effective vaccince report connected to Warp Speed would have done to the election.  The Biden campaign only really pushed 2 issues, and undermining the "Trump failed on COVID" meme would likely have titled the election. 

Is it any wonder that Biden's campaign was meeting with big pharma and pressuring them not to make announcements?

Is it any surprise that Fauci refused to say any positive about vaccines until after the votes were cast, when he suddenly started being much more public and positive on how soon it will be ready?

Quote
yeah, going to need some sources on that claim.

Why?  No one is willing to believe anything that they don't already agree with on these topics.  How about you actually learn about something about the topic before setting your opinion in stone?

Interesting... Big Pharma typically prefer Republican administrations. - Less regulation and accountability.   
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: NobleHunter on November 19, 2020, 12:33:11 PM
Also worth noting that the first announcement about a 90% effective vaccine had nothing to do with Trump or Operation Warp Speed since that company didn't take government money.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 12:34:31 PM
It's funny, because if you read this "Fact Check" on the delay in the COVID results with an honest skepticism, you see through its conclusion that there is no evidence of manipulation to delay results past the election.  There are many actions that they directly report that were taken deliberately to ensure that the results did not post in October. 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/fact-check-no-evidence-supports-trump-s-claim-covid-19-vaccine-result-was-suppressed (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/fact-check-no-evidence-supports-trump-s-claim-covid-19-vaccine-result-was-suppressed)

Some things covered.  Pfizer's CEO projected at the end of September results by late October.  Keep reading and its clear that the original testing threshhold (32) was hit in October and that the FDA and Pfizer knew it and deliberately stopped testing samples to avoid reporting it.

When the "fact checker" references Pfizer to claim that there was no political motive to their decision, pay attention to how often they both reference the FDA's involvement and ignore the politics at the FDA.  The FDA staff despise Trump, that's been an ongoing issue since the day he was elected, and the FDA has attempted to interfere with and road block an effective COVID response again and again (remember the whole mess with the failed testing process?).  The fact checker goes to great lengths to bury when Pfizer hit the 32 case threshhold - it was in October with plenty of time to meet the reporting timeline.  But they do cite to, but ignore the implications of, multiple FDA initiated rules changes and policy discussions targetted at the forcing vaccine producers to the delay of reports until after election day, including FDA initiated suggestions of requiring a higher threshhold before the preliminary results are reviewed (note - this report was not the approval - but rather an interim report to indicate if an exceptional approval process could start).  So despite a full court press by the media of the death toll of COVID and how Trump was killing us by ignoring the crisis, the FDA was, once again, working behind the scenes to deliberately delay reporting on and approval of the vaccines.  Pfizer agreed to switch to a 64 case report, which threshhold they also hit before the election, but the FDA mandated process forced Pfizer not to even test the samples they had collected.  So Pfizer deliberately delayed testing swabs -as testing them would have mandated a required report that would have been public before the election - so they wouldn't have to confirm that the vaccine had hit a much higher threshhold than the FDA required for early approval.  Don't confuse yourself on this, the company and the FDA were already aware of that effectiveness rate, they keep those numbers "unofficially" real time.

The panic at the FDA was obvious when Pfizer doubled down on being able to have results by the end of October and they moved to hard code a rule to prevent it.  "To increase confidence in the safety of these vaccines, the FDA revision—which the Trump administration attempted to block—said that before a company applied for an EUA, 2 months must have passed since at least half of the participants in a trial had received their final shot."  That's how the "fact checker" talked about a NEW RULE the FDA decided to implement that has the "unintended" consequence of just so happening to discourage any preliminary testing until after the election.  Hows that work?  By preventing the application for the EUA, the FDA removed any incentive for the early testing, why would a Company run early on a higher threshhold for success rather than wait and get more statistical power and a lower success measure - as set by the FDA.  This prompted the company to file a request to change the plan to a higher threshhold for test results - all the while - sitting on samples untested that would have crossed both the old and the new threshhold that mandated reporting.

I love this unexamined quote below.    Seems pretty open and shut, but in case you have doubts take a look at what the FDA did in this paragraph.

Quote
When the companies submitted their request for a protocol change, they had yet to accumulate 32 cases. If they had 32 cases before the change was approved, the protocol would have required them to report the results to FDA.  In addition, if the results could impact the way investors traded company stock, they may also have been required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to make the results public. They decided to store the nasal swabs taken from participants who had suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections: If they didn’t test the swabs, they couldn’t confirm cases and therefore would avoid a protocol violation. On 3 November,  FDA approved the protocol changes and the companies assumed the trial was crossing the 62-case mark. It then took several days to check the stored samples—and they also had new ones coming in that they could test, too. Combined, these samples led to the 94 cases presented to the DMC on 8 November. (The results were publicly announced the next day.)

So read that clearly.  The approved protocols required reporting at 32 cases, which Pfizer likely had so they stopped testing the swabs in their possession to avoid making that report.  That report would have been public and in October.  Instead, Pfizer sat on its tests, and filed an application to "change the protocols" that required the FDA sign onto it, effectively creating a holding pattern where they deliberately did nothing - despite the protocols requiring that they make a report.  And the FDA?  The FDA approves the change to the protocol and the end of the holding patter on Nov. 3.  Remind me again, what day did we vote for President?  There's zero chance that the FDA didn't deliberately time that, they hate Trump and that Nov. 3 approval date is their great spit in the eye of Trump as they manipulated the election by deliberately undercutting the reports.

It took less than 5 days from the FDA's "approval" to test and report on swabs that had deliberately not been tested because it would have required a report be issued, to announce those initial 90+% effective.  You'll note this isn't an isolated case, multiple vaccine producers all magically hit their targets right after the election, after the FDA "nonpolitical" manipulation.  "The press release on 9 November noted the trial had so far tallied 94 cases out of 43,538 participants" that's well above the 32 threshold, or even the 64.  If you believe they didn't have 32 in October you're wilfully deluding yourself.

I note the fact checker put this correction on, in case you have lingering doubts about the 32 case threshhold:  "The story initially said that Pfizer knew it had crossed the 62-case threshold on 3 November. Pfizer has clarified to ScienceInsider that the company assumed it was close to or beyond 62 cases on 3 November, but did not have an actual number of confirmations on that date."  The only reason they didn't know for sure is that they stopped processing results to ensure they wouldn't cross the mandatory threshholds before the FDA issued it's new "approval." 

Not sure how much clearer you'd need a case to be without access to the internal processes and documents.  I have enough personal contacts at the FDA to be very certain that they have and would do everything within their bureaucratic authority to slow walk results and undermine Trump's re-election.  They cloak themselves in claims that they are defending medicine but the results were 100% purpose driven for political malice.   But like everything in the deep state they aren't going to write down that they make a decision to hurt Trump, they're going to coach it in plausible sounding reasons.  At some point, you have to wake up and acknowledge that the reasons on the paper aren't the motivation, they're artifice.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 12:36:34 PM
Interesting... Big Pharma typically prefer Republican administrations. - Less regulation and accountability.

Big Pharma prefers establishment politicians period.  They're looking for politicians that they can buy and rely upon to be bought.  That's not actually, and surprisingly, not Trump.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 12:40:22 PM
Also worth noting that the first announcement about a 90% effective vaccine had nothing to do with Trump or Operation Warp Speed since that company didn't take government money.

So Pfizer's nearly $2B deal to sell the vaccine to the government - signed in July as part of Operation Warp Speed - is consistent with your claim?  Pfizer didn't accept research money, they absolutely were developing to be a recipient of Operation Warp Speed.  Pfizer itself even clarified that they are part of Operation Warp Speed.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on November 19, 2020, 12:45:46 PM
Seriati,

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-joe-biden-donald-trump-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-76d1580f82b1586b207990396c1e3b5f

So Warp Speed had zilch to do with it.

Specifically Warp Speed participants get paid regardless, Pfizer is contingent on a functional vaccine.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 12:59:12 PM
If any court rules, that stands until it gets appealed. So when your Circuit Court says "that's constitutional" that is also more definitive than the sheriffs own personal views, and he should obey the rule of law.

Not how courts work.  Federal Courts at the District Court level can only decide the case in front of them.  If a Sheriff arrests people in violation of law, the District Court can release them.  The District Court can enjoin a future violation in limited circumstances.  There's a been gross expansion of court authority in the last 30 years that pretends that District Courts can order anything, including positive requirements on any one and anywhere.  That's actually a Constitutional violation in its own right.

It's really moot though.  The District Courts can do nothing about a lack of enforcement.  Why do you think Antifa can commit violence and never face charges?  It's not because the police won't arrest them or the courts wouldn't convict them, it's completely because the prosecutors refuse to prosecute their political allies.  Absent another prosecutor's office becoming involved - which is rare because our system wasn't designed with overlapping authority - there's no recourse.

This is why activist judges are so dangerous.  They'll look at that situation decide it's unjust and craft a new authority to do "something" about it, but they only do that when the system seems unjust under their personal politics.  So you get a national order on immigration issues that are exclusively in the President's authority, or an illegal order to a Nevada Sheriff directing that he can't apply the law, but none of them order say Seattle to break up an insurrection or any one of dozens of DNC prosecutors to apply the law to punish rioters.

Quote
If such an officer disagrees with the courts of this land and defies them (talkin to you Arapio), they ought resign.

We're not a country of slaves.  Judges that get repeatedly overruled should be removed from the bench, yet instead, we have activist lawyers playing with dockets to get in front of activist judges who routinely abuse their authority in the full knowledge that appeals are expensive, time consuming and even when warranted not always taken up.

In the meantime, I suggest that if you hold your Constitutional rights with such little concern that you'd let an activist Judge violate them (when you'd throw a giant tantrum if it were the police doing so, a Republican politician doing so, a religious leader, or a local mayor doing so) then you may not deserve to have them.  Why don't you know when a judge is issuing an order that violates the Constitution?  It shouldn't be a matter of arcana that it takes nine old people in robes to divine.  And in fact it's not, the reason it seems to be is that we have so many people who are actively trying to take your rights away and so much loyalty to "team" that we ignore it when its the "good guys" that we're losing more rights every day.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 19, 2020, 12:59:56 PM
I'm sure Trump's plan to allow Americans to buy drugs made abroad at drastically lower prices than what the big Pharma monopoly forces them to pay at home had nothing to do with companies like Pfizer preferring a Biden presidency. Speaking of which, when Biden assumes power I wonder if Americans will ever see the lower drug prices that international competition will foster or if the Democrats only believe in allowing cheaper labor into America, not cheaper drugs.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 19, 2020, 01:06:06 PM
I'm sure Trump's plan to allow Americans to buy drugs made abroad at drastically lower prices than what the big Pharma monopoly forces them to pay at home had nothing to do with companies like Pfizer preferring a Biden presidency. Speaking of which, when Biden assumes power I wonder if Americans will ever see the lower drug prices that international competition will foster or if the Democrats only believe in allowing cheaper labor into America, not cheaper drugs.

Or Republicans could just stop their objections to Medicaid and Medicare negotiating better drug prices on behalf of the country. Which is how all those other countries get their better prices. Shipping the medicines overseas and then buying them back is an inefficient workaround. Also it will lead to people buying from fraudulent sellers at some point.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 01:08:24 PM
Seriati,

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-joe-biden-donald-trump-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-76d1580f82b1586b207990396c1e3b5f

So Warp Speed had zilch to do with it.

Specifically Warp Speed participants get paid regardless, Pfizer is contingent on a functional vaccine.

You make me tired.  See my prior post, nothing about this is in disagreement with what I said.  Pfizer is participating in Warp Speed by signing a deal that is funded through Warp Speed's guarantees.  If we didn't have Warp Speed we'd have to have had a special act - lets call it the Trump was right and you were wrong Act - to sign that contract with Pfizer.  I never claimed that Pfizer took research money.

This is such pettiness, an inability to give any credit where its due, and a need to try and exploit any technicality - at all - to claim a major shift.  It's just a fact that every major biotech with the ability was going to be developing a COVID vaccine.  It's just a fact that there's big dollars out there available.  It's just a fact that Operation Warp Speed created a guarantee program that meant that even if a Pfizer competitor was first to market with a more available vaccine, Pfizer was still guaranteed a payment of nearly their entire sunk costs.  You don't think a program that provides funds widely and guaranties a market even if others develop a better cheaper product is relevant?  You don't think Pfizer was aware of the power from the minute Warp Speed was discussed and then went into force?

Do you have any understanding - at all - of market incentives?  Of the risks that developing a vaccine in a flooded market create for companies where there are significant sunk cost?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 01:12:15 PM
Or Republicans could just stop their objections to Medicaid and Medicare negotiating better drug prices on behalf of the country. Which is how all those other countries get their better prices. Shipping the medicines overseas and then buying them back is an inefficient workaround. Also it will lead to people buying from fraudulent sellers at some point.

Or Democrats could stop proposing solutions without addressing their problems, since that's what's behind virtually the entire mess in the first place.  Nothing like creating a new problem with your solution to ensure that government needs to keep getting bigger.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 19, 2020, 01:16:53 PM
You make me tired.  See my prior post, nothing about this is in disagreement with what I said.  Pfizer is participating in Warp Speed by signing a deal that is funded through Warp Speed's guarantees.  If we didn't have Warp Speed we'd have to have had a special act - lets call it the Trump was right and you were wrong Act - to sign that contract with Pfizer.  I never claimed that Pfizer took research money.
...
Do you have any understanding - at all - of market incentives?  Of the risks that developing a vaccine in a flooded market create for companies where there are significant sunk cost?

Trump got one thing right in the pandemic. He helped fund vaccine research and made guaranteed purchases of potential vaccines so the USA could get them early. This is the one area he did what the rest of the developed world did instead of sticking his head in the sand and saying it would disappear like a miracle.

We should give him a great retirement package back to Mar-A-Lago where he can relax and play golf as much as he wants for not being a complete idiot about vaccine research and funding.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 19, 2020, 01:26:07 PM
Trump got one thing right in the pandemic. He helped fund vaccine research and made guaranteed purchases of potential vaccines so the USA could get them early. This is the one area he did what the rest of the developed world did instead of sticking his head in the sand and saying it would disappear like a miracle.

This.

Funding and putting together a program to streamline and promote vaccine development was literally the least he could have done - and it is what every other country in the world was also doing.  Demanding he get a Scooby Snack for this huge effort and foresight is silly.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: rightleft22 on November 19, 2020, 01:31:57 PM
Or Republicans could just stop their objections to Medicaid and Medicare negotiating better drug prices on behalf of the country. Which is how all those other countries get their better prices. Shipping the medicines overseas and then buying them back is an inefficient workaround. Also it will lead to people buying from fraudulent sellers at some point.

Or Democrats could stop proposing solutions without addressing their problems, since that's what's behind virtually the entire mess in the first place.  Nothing like creating a new problem with your solution to ensure that government needs to keep getting bigger.

Depends on how you define 'big government' From the fanatical perspective government get bigger under republicans while providing less for the money
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 01:46:40 PM
Trump got one thing right in the pandemic. He helped fund vaccine research and made guaranteed purchases of potential vaccines so the USA could get them early. This is the one area he did what the rest of the developed world did instead of sticking his head in the sand and saying it would disappear like a miracle.

This.

Funding and putting together a program to streamline and promote vaccine development was literally the least he could have done - and it is what every other country in the world was also doing.  Demanding he get a Scooby Snack for this huge effort and foresight is silly.

You two should be embarrassed.  The full extent of what Trump did to get the US response to COVID where it is actually stunning.  Operation Warp Speed, as important as it was, is a tiny part and ultimately an easy part as it does what government does best - promise to spend a bunch of money with big corporates, little oversight and big legal protections.

Glomming onto it, because it's really undeniable, but doubling down on your fake news narrative should embarrass you at this point.  Why keep repeating lies?  Do you really think its going to make the country better to lie about Trump, lie about what Biden's done and what he's planning to do, lie about what happened inside our administrative agencies, and generally just lie, lie and lie some more?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 19, 2020, 02:01:02 PM
Trump got one thing right in the pandemic. He helped fund vaccine research and made guaranteed purchases of potential vaccines so the USA could get them early. This is the one area he did what the rest of the developed world did instead of sticking his head in the sand and saying it would disappear like a miracle.

This.

Funding and putting together a program to streamline and promote vaccine development was literally the least he could have done - and it is what every other country in the world was also doing.  Demanding he get a Scooby Snack for this huge effort and foresight is silly.

You two should be embarrassed.  The full extent of what Trump did to get the US response to COVID where it is actually stunning.  Operation Warp Speed, as important as it was, is a tiny part and ultimately an easy part as it does what government does best - promise to spend a bunch of money with big corporates, little oversight and big legal protections.

You're right he deserves a ton of credit for making the statistics on those vaccine trials so much more definitive. Without having the virus spread so wide across the country we wouldn't know nearly as soon or with as much certainty that the vaccines are effective.

Quote
Glomming onto it, because it's really undeniable, but doubling down on your fake news narrative should embarrass you at this point.  Why keep repeating lies? ...

What lies did I repeat?
I'll even parse out my factual statements for you.
1) Trump/government rightly funded vaccine research.
2) Trump/government rightly made guaranteed purchases of proposed vaccines.
3) The rest of the developed world did similar things with vaccine research.
4) Trump said the virus would disappear like a miracle.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: NobleHunter on November 19, 2020, 02:05:57 PM
I'll agree that supporting vaccine research is small part of the Trump's response to COVID. Given how the US's experience with COVID is going, Trump's efforts are stunning but not in the way you think.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2020, 03:29:31 PM
I don't know about least he can do, but what he didn't do:

1. Support social distancing
2. Support mask wearing
3. Centralize equipment and supply acquisition nationally
4. Support local decisions to close businesses
5. Support local decisions to reduce mass gathering
6. Help people take the threat seriously
7. Support CDC recommendations for reopening, including schools
8. Centralize and coordinate contact tracing
9. Block travel from Europe soon enough

These aren't pie in the sky dreams, many other nations did all of these with better results.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on November 19, 2020, 03:45:42 PM
Seriati,

Germany and every other EU country and probably all but China and Russia would be interested in a functioning vaccine by Pfrizer.  The US expressing interest had zero impact on the vaccine development it was well under way long before the US agreement.

So there is a absolutely no reason to credit the Trump administration for its development.

Also funding vaccine development was something rather obvious given that most major countries were doing so well before the US announced Warp Speed.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on November 19, 2020, 05:05:36 PM
Seriati,

the US might get access to the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine sooner than those countries who haven't made a purchase commitment in advance.  So for that the Trump admin gets credit similar to other countries made such purchase agreements.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 05:18:11 PM
Again, it's like a bad joke around here these days.   You can find many quotes from Trump, from the WhiteHouse and from the administration undermining virtually everything you guys just claimed.  The Trump admin followed the professional guidance on the mask mandate and social distancing and repeatedly referred people to the official resources.  It's not his fault that the guidance jumped around so much.  I mean - for example - Fauci repeatedly asserting that masks wouldn't help early on and then changing his position later (my own view on that was that he always expected they'd help but he was trying to prevent the population from buying out the limited supply so that medical professionals could acquire it - up to you if you think that lie was worth it, knowing full well that none of you give Trump himself any good faith leeway on such things). 

There are no identifiable benefits from "centralizing equipment and supply" other than those that were realized by the Trump admin.  The Trump administration pressed industry nationwide to deliver results and supplies and they did so at a pace that exceeds historical performance.  What exactly did you want?  Trump got the nation through the ventalitator "shortage" before the doctors figured out they were a mistake to use in many cases.  He broke the road block at the CDC/FDA that caused the testing delays and shortages and then took it further and decimated the roadblocks that they tried to set up to slow down emergency approval of test kits.  As a result only a handful of countries (almost all extremely rich tiny population countries) have better test penetration than the US.  Even the left governors admitted that Trump got them what they asked for, and he did it without allowing panic hoarding to disrupt the distribution.

Why would anyone support "local decisions to close businesses"?  Virtually none of those decisions were scientifically justified.  It's just a fact at this point that most closures were arbitrary and unnecesary.  Life had to change, but people were more than capable of doing it once we understood the virus enough to explain what to do.  Closing businesses, and much worse closing schools, was a mistake in most instances.  Not sure what you mean on supporting CDC reopening of schools, the CDC's position was too keep them more closed than they should have been based on the risks present and the actual harms that remote learning was causing.  Is that what you mean?  That he pushed the CDC on the excessive position it was taking on school closings?  Again, that was a good thing and something that a leader should have been doing.

Taking it seriously?  You mean calling it a matter of life and death?  Having daily press briefings until it became clear the press was going to use the time to spread misinformation?  it's one thing to read MSM lies, its another thing to internalize them to the point you think they're true.  I get how you could be confused on this, it's hard to read any left media at all that doesn't restate this lie.  How often did you check the WhiteHouse.org link or look at their Coronavirus information for yourself?  If you had you wouldn't believe this claim.

Centralizing and coordinating contact tracing?  Lol, sure, that's exactly what we need, a government program to record everywhere we go, everyone we speak to and everyone we interact with.   Nothing is going to go wrong with that (might want to take a look at AOC's calls for blacklists before you back that).  The biggest issue with contact tracing in the US is HiPaa and medical privacy.  Its a violation of that law (hmm... wonder who wrote those provisions and the policies under it) to share medical information - including a infectious disease results - without consent.  How exactly was he suppose do it?  Violate the law and do it as an autocrat - you guys love pretending he's an autocrat and would've flipped out.  Contact tracing is failing - not because of a lack of federal coordination - but because once again your fellow Americans are selfish, they lie about it literally all the time.  My community here in a blue state has a persistent problem with parents refusing to provide that information after a kid tests positive because the kid was partying and drinking alcohol illegally, adults refuse to out their friends.  Heck, we've had a two week mandatory quarantine order for months and there's not been a seconds slow down in the Facebook and Instagram pictures of people hanging all over each other, including visitors from out of state.  FB, Twitter and Instagram can manage to flag statements Trump makes that are true, but they can't be bothered to out their coronavirus quarantine violating customers.

Lol on blocking travel. Everyone of you on the left (and Biden) accused Trump of being a racist for his travel bans, and several of you called him out for his illegal ban of travel from Europe.  Nothing like being a hypocrit on calling someone else out for doing things you thought were a bad idea when they did them.

It is true that some other nations got better results (on some measures) with similar policies, but its not apples to apples.  The biggest difference is that those nations are not populated by Americans, whether its the selfish liberals who believe rules apply to other people but not themselves, or the conservative extremists who refuse to do anything that they're asked - no matter how sensible - as a matter of freedom, this country never had any ability to social distance properly.  Zero chance.  So yes, small European countries, that were more like managing a single state than a country  this big, sometimes had better results, but not consistently and NOT AS A RESULT of anything Trump could have done differently.  Heck if Trump had ordered the nation to wear masks no Democrat would have ever worn a mask again even if it killed them.


Seriati,

Germany and every other EU country and probably all but China and Russia would be interested in a functioning vaccine by Pfrizer.  The US expressing interest had zero impact on the vaccine development it was well under way long before the US agreement.

So there is a absolutely no reason to credit the Trump administration for its development.

Also funding vaccine development was something rather obvious given that most major countries were doing so well before the US announced Warp Speed.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.  Just a magic coincidence that Pfizer's costs of development were around $2Billion, and its advance sale contract under Warp Speed was around $2billion.  Never entered Pfizer's mind - at all - even in July when they signed the deal, while other companies were going full speed ahead and just as close to developing a vaccine, that the guaranty payment was material.  The history of vaccine development - absent a program like Warp Speed - is for a single company to get the vaccine contract, and where more than one is pursuing for any that drop of the pace to drop out and stop spending money because it's a sunk cost that you'll never recover if you aren't first to market.

Warp Speed literally changed that dynamic to provide incentives to all those companies to keep going to give us the best chance for a rapid result and multiple vaccines (which gives us the best chance for not discontinuing the most effective vaccine just because a good enough vaccine was first to market).  No telling how it plays out but it looks like Pfizer's may be the "first to market good enough" vaccine and others the best in class vaccines.  That is not the result from the entire history of vaccine development, but it is the result from Warp Speed.

Bet you big that any future administrations dealing with a pandemic draw deeply from the Trump play book and copy virtually all of what Trump did and leave plans like the Biden-Obama plans on the dust heap of history, even if they never admit it.  This was way too successful not to copy and they know it even if you keep falling for the false narrative.   
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 19, 2020, 05:30:29 PM
Was it following professional guidance to mock people for wearing masks?  Was it to mock people for wearing masks (checks calendar) just 2 weeks ago?

Was having indoor parties celebrating Judge Barrett's confirmation, maskless and without distancing, following professional guidance?  What about inciting people to rise up against their state governments' directives for reducing viral spread - what part of professional guidance was he following then?  What about travelling from state to state to state, with his entourage in tow, few of whom had respect for hygienic practices either... all the while encouraging people to crowd in and avoid wearing masks.

I don't think "followed the professional guidance" means what you think it means
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on November 19, 2020, 06:02:33 PM
Seriati.

 The vaccine was funded by the German government and created by a German company. The Germans gave 750 million Euro in vaccine development grants (mostly split between 2 companies - BioNTech and CureVac).

Vaccine development is fairly fixed cost.  I'm not sure why you think the US purchase agreement would have any impact at all.  They were already committed to developing the vaccine and had recruited recruited their phase 3 trial participants and medical personnel and had their phase 3 paperwork submitted prior to the US agreement.

So your theory that the US purchase agreement had any role at all is bizarre.

As to 'following Trumps playbook' - wow.  Trump did nearly everything wrong.  If the Obama admin 'playbook' had been followed then I'd expect a drastically lower infection and death rate.  It would almost be impossible to have done a worse job than Trump.



Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2020, 06:19:33 PM
LetterRip, is there any point in further discussion?  I don't see your position as viable, even if you can make a technical argument.  Getting $2B from Warp Speed is a big number, it's not true to claim there's no connection when that deal was signed in July.  No one has ever disputed that Pfizer didn't take funds up front to fund the development, almost certainly as you note because they were taking funds in Germany and couldn't commit to the upfront rights on the vaccine that Warp Speed asked for.  Big whoop, it's a literal technicality that they choose to finance it in that way and to get the Warp Speed dollars on the backhand with the purchase guaranty.  What economics book did you study where a $2B guaranty doesn't incent behavior?

It's just delusion and repeating of false news to claim the Trump admin did everything wrong.  Most of what you actually blame Trump for was tied to decisions actually made by primarily blue state governors or some fantasy level of federal control that Trump doesn't have and you'd have protested if he exercised.  Why don't you quote out the Obama "playbook" provisions that weren't followed that would have resulted in those lower numbers - my guess, by the way, and maybe I'm wrong, is that you've never actually looked at the playbook and have no idea where it could have diverged or why Biden didn't put forward the specific pieces that could have been saving lives for the media to pick up and demand. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2020, 06:20:13 PM
Quote
Centralizing and coordinating contact tracing?  Lol, sure, that's exactly what we need, a government program to record everywhere we go, everyone we speak to and everyone we interact with.   Nothing is going to go wrong with that (might want to take a look at AOC's calls for blacklists before you back that).  The biggest issue with contact tracing in the US is HiPaa and medical privacy.  Its a violation of that law (hmm... wonder who wrote those provisions and the policies under it) to share medical information - including a infectious disease results - without consent.

You're delusional. I'm not going to waste my breath with the rest of your insanity, so I'll limit my response to this one.

CDC: List Requirements for Protecting Health Information (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/list-requirements-for-protecting-health-info.html)

Congress: COVID-19: Digital Contact Tracing and
Privacy Law
 (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10511)

Maryland Department of Health: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID 19):
Frequently Asked Questions About Contact Tracing (https://www.umhealthpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/COVID-FAQs-Contact-Tracing_042920-FINAL-2.508.pdf)

Quote
Does contact tracing damage my privacy and violate HIPAA laws?
No. Contact tracers take extreme measures to protect the privacy of infected patients and
maintain strict adherence to HIPAA regulations. During a trace investigation, a person will be
notified that they may have come into contact with an infected individual, but the infected
person’s name is not disclosed and minimal information is conveyed.

Which should be obvious to anyone with even minimal analytical skills. Contract tracers don't say "Your pastor, Bob Dobbs, has covid and you need to get tested."

Even more clear, every single state has contact tracers operating. The federal part of it would be to add funds, manpower, and interstate data sharing.

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 20, 2020, 09:29:06 PM
Seriati,

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-joe-biden-donald-trump-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-76d1580f82b1586b207990396c1e3b5f

So Warp Speed had zilch to do with it.

Specifically Warp Speed participants get paid regardless, Pfizer is contingent on a functional vaccine.

You make me tired.  See my prior post, nothing about this is in disagreement with what I said.  Pfizer is participating in Warp Speed by signing a deal that is funded through Warp Speed's guarantees.  If we didn't have Warp Speed we'd have to have had a special act - lets call it the Trump was right and you were wrong Act - to sign that contract with Pfizer.  I never claimed that Pfizer took research money.

This is such pettiness, an inability to give any credit where its due, and a need to try and exploit any technicality - at all - to claim a major shift.  It's just a fact that every major biotech with the ability was going to be developing a COVID vaccine.  It's just a fact that there's big dollars out there available.  It's just a fact that Operation Warp Speed created a guarantee program that meant that even if a Pfizer competitor was first to market with a more available vaccine, Pfizer was still guaranteed a payment of nearly their entire sunk costs.  You don't think a program that provides funds widely and guaranties a market even if others develop a better cheaper product is relevant?  You don't think Pfizer was aware of the power from the minute Warp Speed was discussed and then went into force?

Do you have any understanding - at all - of market incentives?  Of the risks that developing a vaccine in a flooded market create for companies where there are significant sunk cost?

You're not supposed to point out the sales guarantees(even if they sign up in the 11th hour), or the approval processes, or the distribution side.

You're only supposed to buy into the part about the government and Warp Speed not playing an active role in Pfizers development of the vaccine.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on November 20, 2020, 09:58:52 PM
My God you guys make my head hurt.  They already had contracts being negotiated with similar sales guarantees from Canada, the UK, etc.  Also how the f*ck does a sales garuntee negotiated AFTER they had done all of the work for starting stage 3 retroactively impact them doing stage 3?  Is your theory that they would have abandoned stage 3 and their other contracts if the US hadn't sought to make an order at that time?

Trump administration had zero to do with the vaccine development.  Quit pretending and trying to deceive others that it did.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 20, 2020, 11:26:51 PM
Trump administration had zero to do with the vaccine development.  Quit pretending and trying to deceive others that it did.

Where did I say anything about being involved in the development directly? I actively said any involvement was indirect.

Where "Operation Warp Speed" comes into play for them is in the deployment of the drug within the United States. So it still has an impact for the United States.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on November 21, 2020, 09:55:38 AM
TheDaemon,

credit was being claimed for development of the vaccine.  As to deployment - US purchasing volume and ability to pay higher prices was always going to guarantee rapid access and seeking purchase agreements was something that every government that could afford to do so did.  If you think that is worthy of some special recognition or acknowledgement you have incredibly low standards.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: wmLambert on November 21, 2020, 07:26:31 PM
Yes, the average time for approval of vaccines is different than the companies creating them. The USA regulations and bureaucracy forced long development times. I remember when thalidomide was banned because of birth defects from it world wide. The slowness of the US regulations was praised as saving deformed babies. The rest of the world was called reckless. Trump is a regulation relaxer and bureaucracy breaker. His idea has always been to play safe - but don't let the slow inertia built in over the years last because no one ever looked at them for their efficacy.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 21, 2020, 08:12:32 PM
One thing I never would have predicted about a Biden Presidency while it's trying to get off the ground is that he would hit the ground not so much running as putting his hand out for money.

I never even imagined that could be a thing.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/joe-biden-trump-transition-fund-plea-035507178.html


"Here's the deal: Because President Trump refuses to concede and is delaying the transition, we have to fund it ourselves and need your help.

If you're able, chip in to help fund the Biden-Harris transition."

Needless to say, twitter and the internet were not having it.


Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on November 21, 2020, 08:17:02 PM
Is he wrong?  Is Trump's appointee not holding up the normal funding?

What about Trump's group asking for money to fight for recounts but about half going to pay off campaign debt?  In small print?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 21, 2020, 08:54:15 PM
Take out a loan. Trump's got a guy. Seriously, this is not about getting money, it's about publicizing the lack of acknowledgement. Pretty sure Soros would just give him a briefcase of money. Or China. Or the Ukraine. :)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 21, 2020, 11:02:02 PM
One thing I never would have predicted about a Biden Presidency while it's trying to get off the ground is that he would hit the ground not so much running as putting his hand out for money.

I never even imagined that could be a thing.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/joe-biden-trump-transition-fund-plea-035507178.html


"Here's the deal: Because President Trump refuses to concede and is delaying the transition, we have to fund it ourselves and need your help.

If you're able, chip in to help fund the Biden-Harris transition."

Needless to say, twitter and the internet were not having it.

People on the internet weren't well informed and instead had fun with mocking the request?!?

Quote
As head of the General Services Administration, Murphy plays a key role in the presidential transition — unlocking nearly $10 million in federal dollars for the president-elect to begin hiring staff, and providing office space and access to officials across government agencies.

In a typical election, it's a determination that's made within a matter of hours. But 12 days since President-elect Joe Biden was declared the winner of the election, the Trump appointee has still not signed off on the paperwork.

https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/11/19/936747641/do-the-right-thing-what-a-gsa-predecessor-told-trump-appointee-about-transitions (https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/11/19/936747641/do-the-right-thing-what-a-gsa-predecessor-told-trump-appointee-about-transitions)

But more than the $10 million which I think Biden could raise pretty easily (if he didn't have it left over from the campaign) is the lack of access to people in government. For example information about the plans to distribute the first 10-20 million doses of the vaccine that will likely start being available within weeks of the official transition of power.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 23, 2020, 03:21:37 PM
My God you guys make my head hurt.  They already had contracts being negotiated with similar sales guarantees from Canada, the UK, etc.  Also how the f*ck does a sales garuntee negotiated AFTER they had done all of the work for starting stage 3 retroactively impact them doing stage 3?  Is your theory that they would have abandoned stage 3 and their other contracts if the US hadn't sought to make an order at that time?

Yes actually, but you have the circumstances wrong.  Let's say, they're testing their vaccine and finding it 75% effective early on, and their competitors start announcing 95% effective early results.  Is Pfizer going to continue working without the guarantee where it's looks likely they may never sell a single dose into a market owned by their competitors?  You don't have to hurt your brain here, that model already plays out every single day, with many promising drugs abandoned because they are not worth the additional costs when a competitor owns the market.   You may think that's as it should be, but the goal with Warp Speed was to continue all those developing drugs in case some of those early promising ones didn't pan out and we all ended up needing the late bloomer.

Honestly, this Economics 101, combined with USA drug approvals 101, the only thing that's failing for you is that it contradicts propaganda 101.

Quote
Trump administration had zero to do with the vaccine development.  Quit pretending and trying to deceive others that it did.

Propaganda 101 is strong with you.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on November 23, 2020, 03:54:25 PM
Yellen as SecTre.

Just announced. I think she gets through the Senate.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on November 23, 2020, 04:02:08 PM
Yellen as SecTre.

Just announced. I think she gets through the Senate.

Solid choice.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on November 23, 2020, 04:56:27 PM
Yes actually, but you have the circumstances wrong.  Let's say, they're testing their vaccine and finding it 75% effective early on, and their competitors start announcing 95% effective early results.

So what is actually done is that dosing is tweaked to see if it can be improved.

Quote
Is Pfizer going to continue working without the guarantee where it's looks likely they may never sell a single dose into a market owned by their competitors?

It is impossible to know what sales will be for a reduced efficacy drug.

Tweaking the dosage and extending the trial is fairly cheap relative to the sunk costs - this is, in fact - exactly what one of Pfizers competitors (AstraZeneca) did their first dosing regimen was only 62% effective, so they tried a higher dosage and achieved 90%.  It is extremely common to go through multiple rounds of dosing regimens to get a desired efficacy.  Also you can still sell it poor nations even at reduced efficacy and there is reason to expect that something could go wrong with later testing of ones competitors.  So unless the vaccine was a complete failure they would continue to completion.

Also Pfizer was one of the first to stage 3 testing, so their testing would have been close to complete or complete prior to solid data on competitors.

So again, you seem to have a lack of knowledge on the topic and to have ignored the specific circumstances of the vaccine.

Also your understanding of the drug market in general seems incorrect - drugs are not abandoned regularly is they show significant efficacy during a stage 3 trial even if a competitor is first to market.  Bringing an inferior drug to market is quite common - it can have different side effects or be better tolerated for some people, and marketshare is often more a function of marketing that purely efficacy.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: kidv on November 23, 2020, 06:35:25 PM


It is impossible to know what sales will be for a reduced efficacy drug.

Tweaking the dosage and extending the trial is fairly cheap relative to the sunk costs - this is, in fact - exactly what one of Pfizers competitors (AstraZeneca) did their first dosing regimen was only 62% effective, so they tried a higher dosage and achieved 90%.  It is extremely common to go through multiple rounds of dosing regimens to get a desired efficacy.  Also you can still sell it poor nations even at reduced efficacy and there is reason to expect that something could go wrong with later testing of ones competitors.  So unless the vaccine was a complete failure they would continue to completion.



"The vaccine on average prevented 70% of COVID-19 cases in late-stage trials in Britain and Brazil. The success rate rose to 90% in a group of trial participants who accidentally received a half dose followed by a full dose. The efficacy was 62% if the full dose was given twice, as it was for most study participants."

https://www.ksl.com/article/50054092/astrazeneca-says-covid-19-vaccine-for-the-world-can-be-90-effective (https://www.ksl.com/article/50054092/astrazeneca-says-covid-19-vaccine-for-the-world-can-be-90-effective)

Weird world of medicine.  The 90% efficacy of AstraZeneca is achieved through a reduced first dose and then a full second dose, perhaps mirroring how the body would slowly ramp up its defenses instead of going full blast at the start.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 24, 2020, 06:08:10 PM
Yes actually, but you have the circumstances wrong.  Let's say, they're testing their vaccine and finding it 75% effective early on, and their competitors start announcing 95% effective early results.

So what is actually done is that dosing is tweaked to see if it can be improved.

Not when there's already 4 competitors with fully successful drugs in the market.  That's before you consider we're talking about a vaccine for a pandemic that is already triggering certain governments to indicate they may seize patents if they don't like the pricing. 

Sinking 2 billion into a drug that never sells in Europe or America because of better alternatives  and that never sells globally because of seized patents is a non-starter.  Giving up at $1.5 billion is a better alternative than spending $500 million more with no chance of hitting that in revenue.

Quote
It is impossible to know what sales will be for a reduced efficacy drug.

With a vaccine for a pandemic you're wrong.  It's in no one's interest to let a defective alternative vaccine be used, that just keeps the strain active in the third world to mutate and reinfect the first world.  That's an argument purely from a drug where efficacy is subjective not objective.  It works with many major label drugs because the specific chemical interactions they generate are not directly related to the conditions they treat.  For example, treating depression with an SSRI, which generally operates by increasing Seratonin - may or may not have the desired effect based on your particular body, it could also "treat" dozens of related and unrelated conditions.  Vaccines operate on a specific viral or bacterial condition, they may have components that can be reused for related (or even unrelated) viruses or bacteria, but they are not going to be used to treat unrelated medical or psychological conditions.  Accordingly, for most vaccines there is no profit in them.

Quote
Tweaking the dosage and extending the trial is fairly cheap relative to the sunk costs - this is, in fact - exactly what one of Pfizers competitors (AstraZeneca) did their first dosing regimen was only 62% effective, so they tried a higher dosage and achieved 90%.  It is extremely common to go through multiple rounds of dosing regimens to get a desired efficacy.

You talk so authoritatively even when you're essentially making things up.  Point out where - absent a Warp Speed program - these results occur?  Specifically, show the multiple pharma companies co-developing vaccines and doing so even after another competitor has already clearly developed a vaccine.  Heck they often drop out of such development when they just get word of another player in the development market.  It's not a mystery here either, some of the players got a head start because they picked up on vaccines they had previously stopped developing for novel viruses.

Quote
Also you can still sell it poor nations even at reduced efficacy and there is reason to expect that something could go wrong with later testing of ones competitors.

To treat a pandemic?  What first world virologist said that it would make sense to send ineffective vaccines to treat a global pandemic to the third world, and how does that make any economic sense?  Take a look at this chart https://howmuch.net/articles/pharmaceutical-trade-around-the-world (https://howmuch.net/articles/pharmaceutical-trade-around-the-world) for a visual representation on the relative markets there, and when you consider that even poor countries can tell the difference in which vaccines work and which work only sometimes, and that it's in everyone's interest to get them the best they're not taking the sub-standard product.  Not to mention, the way Big Pharma works, it's in their interest to sell the high quality drugs into poor markets at affordable prices, so there will be competition even there from known better products.

Quote
So unless the vaccine was a complete failure they would continue to completion.

Prove that with evidence.  I'll just flat out say it.  This is a made up statement, contradicted by reality, logic and history.  It is flatly false that such is a common practice, you may find an edge case on it here or there.

Quote
So again, you seem to have a lack of knowledge on the topic and to have ignored the specific circumstances of the vaccine.

Or you're talking out of your rear rather than thinking about it.

Quote
Also your understanding of the drug market in general seems incorrect - drugs are not abandoned regularly is they show significant efficacy during a stage 3 trial even if a competitor is first to market.  Bringing an inferior drug to market is quite common - it can have different side effects or be better tolerated for some people, and marketshare is often more a function of marketing that purely efficacy.

It's not uncommon to bring drugs to market where they have less clear results on treating a specific condition specifically because of the indirect connection between the method of operation of those drugs and the impact on the underlying condition.  For some people the drug interactions of the top line product do not result in a benefit for the condition, or cause bad side effects.  It's also the case that the specific chemical interactions caused by these drugs impact far more issues and conditions than the one for which they are approved.  This results in a huge market for "off label use," where an inferior drug for heartburn say can make a killing as a cheap substitute for something else off label, which market can far exceed on the on-label usage. That's a quirk of the impact of the interaction of most classes of modern drugs and body chemistry and has NOTHING to do with vaccines. 

It seems like you heard "Trump" and shut down your logical processing.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 24, 2020, 07:26:14 PM
Trump started no new wars and under his Presidency our military casualty numbers were very low.

It's going to be interesting on that front looking at how Biden compares over his four years. The way things look right now there shouldn't be any reason for Biden or Harris to start the types of military adventures for which Obama and Hillary were famous. If I remember correctly, Biden was supposed to be against at least some of them.

I'll give Biden props to some extent if he can do as well on that issue as Trump. It's sad though to see sometimes how much war our supposedly more peaceful Democrats can get themselves into like Obama did after his Nobel Peace Prize.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 24, 2020, 07:55:05 PM
Trump started no new wars and under his Presidency our military casualty numbers were very low.

It's going to be interesting on that front looking at how Biden compares over his four years. The way things look right now there shouldn't be any reason for Biden or Harris to start the types of military adventures for which Obama and Hillary were famous. If I remember correctly, Biden was supposed to be against at least some of them.

It depends on how much Trump destabilizes Afghanistan on his way out the door.

And things like the Arab spring with civil wars starting in Libya and Syria weren't foreseeable 2 years out or really even a year in advance. So we'll see what happens in the world and what Biden decides to do about it. Syria could escalate again, if Turkey and Russia bump into each other on the battle field in the wrong way, if one of the factions or Al-Assad's government collapses then things could get very chaotic again. Yemen is still a mess. There are several other northern African countries along the Muslim/Christian/traditional religion boundaries that could destabilize. Lukashenko is making a mess out of Belarus and his hand is strengthened by Trump's behavior.

Bigger risk lower probability events are around other major powers with territorial waters (Russia and China). Taiwan and Hong Kong are potential sources of conflict. Although no one on the outside is going to directly intervein for Hong Kong, if China stomps out the opposition there they may become more belligerent towards the island nation. The world is still full of risk even though things are tamped down because everyone is focused on covid for now.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 24, 2020, 07:58:49 PM
Adding on to the potential hot spots. Despite Trump's love affair with Kim, North Korea is still as crazy as ever.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 24, 2020, 08:08:55 PM
Quote
Trump started no new wars

Neither did Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. (They didn't start the war in Kosovo or Libya, wars were already taking place there)

Unless I'm forgetting something, the only living US president who started a war has been George W. Bush.

Quote
under his Presidency our military casualty numbers were very low.

Though my understanding is that under his presidency the military casualty numbers were higher than they were in 2011 and 2012 (Obama's last two years). And of course the reason the casualty numbers in Obama's earlier years were high, was that he had inherited the Iraq war from George W. Bush.

Or to put it differently, it's Obama that brought the casualty numbers low from Bush's peak, Trump merely didn't raise them back up.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on November 25, 2020, 12:16:15 AM
Neither did Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. (They didn't start the war in Kosovo or Libya, wars were already taking place there)

Come on, man, this statement is ridiculous. Both Bush 43 and Obama's Presidencies saw a tremendous amount of war, with various nations being knocked over. Whatever was ever happening in Libya over the years, it was not at war in any sense of the term prior to Europe + USA annihilating it. Nor was Syria "at war" with any recognized government prior to the attempt to knock them over. I still don't think Obama's regime was a preposterously bad as Bush 43's, but it's simply untrue to say that he did not start wars. With Clinton I might be inclined to agree, principally because I'm not sure America's attacks in Kosovo really amount to a 'war' (sorry, police action) in the traditional sense. Trump definitely gets the prize out of the last several Presidents specifically in this category.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 25, 2020, 12:30:44 AM
Whatever was ever happening in Libya over the years, it was not at war in any sense of the term prior to Europe + USA annihilating it.

There was a month and a half of civil war BEFORE any Western military involvement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_Civil_War_before_military_intervention

Nor was Syria "at war" with any recognized government prior to the attempt to knock them over.

"With any recognized government?" That's your issue, whether the people they were at war with was a "recognized government" or not?

Or you don't seem to think that civil wars can happen without America's involvement?

Are you blaming United States for the entirety of Arab Spring? Both the Libyan and Syrian civil war arose from the protests that began there. In both cases the USA gave support to the protesters against the regime -- *once* the civil war had started.

I mean the USA/Europe were probably wrong to get involved, yes, but they didn't start the wars.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 26, 2020, 02:17:35 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-promises-bill-providing-pathway-125726760.html

"Joe Biden vowed on Tuesday to send a bill to the Senate that would set up a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants."

Well good for him.

Just an observation though. Back when Republicans were talking about how this is amnesty and open borders and everyone was saying oh no, it's not that. Well, turns out yes it was and yes it is.

And that's fine. Just own it. Biden wasn't deceptive about it at least. He ran on it and he won and now he's doing it. Congratulations, I guess.

How about we finally just call it what it is though, at least.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 26, 2020, 03:08:26 PM
Too bad for Biden the Republicans have been clear for over 20 years now that no pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants will be granted again until the flow of illegal immigrants over the Southern Border is stopped.

As Democrats fight tooth and nail over not doing so, it's a dead agenda item. Republicans in the Senate will kill the bill.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 26, 2020, 04:45:29 PM
Why is that too bad for Biden?  Isn't that too bad for any number of refugees whose lives are being affected?  Isn't it too bad for the country, as the politics of decades past continue to degrade its very soul and morality?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on November 26, 2020, 06:32:36 PM
Why is that too bad for Biden?  Isn't that too bad for any number of refugees whose lives are being affected?  Isn't it too bad for the country, as the politics of decades past continue to degrade its very soul and morality?

If they're refugees and entered through legal means, they're not impacted in the least.

As to the millions of dreamers who are left in limbo, maybe the Dems should give that some thought when they consistently work to prevent any significant effort to limit human trafficking across our southern border. Experience has already taught anyone with sense that all an amnesty and pathway to citizenship would do right now is mean we're talking about legalizing another 10 million+ people who entered illegally in another 15 to 20 years time.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 26, 2020, 06:55:22 PM
As to the millions of dreamers who are left in limbo, maybe the Dems should give that some thought when they consistently work to prevent any significant effort to limit human trafficking across our southern border. Experience has already taught anyone with sense that all an amnesty and pathway to citizenship would do right now is mean we're talking about legalizing another 10 million+ people who entered illegally in another 15 to 20 years time.
Yes, I get it - people use the opposition party to excuse their own bad actions, ones that don't actually affect the putative target (read "excuse") but rather, completely independent victims.  Thus, the country losing its soul and morality.  That was you providing an excellent example of just how far the country has sunk.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 27, 2020, 05:17:18 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-covid-surge-holidy-travel-11606238690

"Border policies

International travel has been widely recognized as a risk factor in spreading the virus, helping turn the outbreak in Wuhan, China, into a global pandemic. Most of the world suspended cross-border travel for all but essential purposes this spring. Some Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan and Singapore, which have contained Covid-19 with greater success than the West, have kept tight restrictions on international travel, requiring visitors to test for the virus on arrival and often mandating a monitored quarantine."

It must be nice to have secure borders so you can actually have an enforceable border policy.

The thing about Biden announcing his mass amnesty right now which is essentially an open invitation for millions more people to come illegally across our border including hundreds of thousands in just the next few months is that very few of those "visitors" will be getting a test for the virus on arrival and even fewer will be subject to a mandated and monitored quarantine. And as an aside, where are all "the jobs Americans won't do" that will be waiting for them on arrival? How are they going to support themselves?

It's hilarious in a very tragic way how we're all making so many sacrifices to our standard of living, and rightfully so in my opinion, such as being begged not to travel to see family for the holidays, and meanwhile we have all of these people traveling with no absolutely no restrictions or oversight and that's no problemo. I guess it's the same as with the BLM protests. It's perfectly fine to violate all containment protocols if it's for a politically correct cause, apparently. The point is though that it's hard for people to take Democrat sincerity about the virus seriously when they refuse to take themselves seriously either.

Biden with his borders suck policy is as much of a super-spreader as Trump with his masks suck policy.

And maybe Biden is worse because while Trump was just super-spreading within America, Biden is super-spreading all across Latin America as well as these people travel from one end of it to the other on their way here, picking up and carrying the virus all along the way.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 30, 2020, 01:26:48 AM
Here's another prediction for the Biden Presidency:

White men need not apply.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-chooses-female-senior-white-221148413.html

Sure he may put in a few as tokens but that'll be about it.

Elections have consequences and all that I suppose.

But one line in this story really tickled my funny bone. The author has a real British penchant for understatement along with a certain dry wit with this keen observation:

"The choice of a number of Obama administration veterans — many with deep relationships with the Washington press corps — also suggests a return to a more congenial relationship with the press."

"...  a return to a more congenial relationship with the press." You can say that again.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 30, 2020, 05:32:12 AM
Quote
White men need not apply.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but the President himself will be a white man.
(As is the current president. And as were 43 of the 44 presidents before him.)

But your reaction certainly showcases how much Trump voters *do* understand the value of minority representation -- the actual problem is that Trump voters only care about minority representation when it concerns their own particular minority, rather than about minorities in general.

Your particular minority (white men) will indeed be underrepresented in Biden's press team -- but you're being a bit selective here, aren't you? White men are currently extremely overrepresented everywhere else in American politics (including Congress & the Supreme Court), so I think your particular minority can manage having just an underrepresentation in Biden's press team.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 30, 2020, 06:47:15 AM
Well it's one thing to have a situation in which all qualified potential hires are considered regardless of their gender or race and then the women win out. It's quite another what Biden appears to be doing which is to completely disqualify people based specifically on their race and gender. At least we're being honest about it now with Biden in charge. It's okay to be racist. In fact, it's fantastic. As long as you are racist against whites and especially white men. Then the media will laud your racism and gender discrimination. Maybe he'll win a Nobel Prize for it.

On the other hand, this probably saves a lot of white men a lot of time. At least now they don't have to waste their efforts in a futile attempt even applying. That can be annoying too. Most government jobs and many private sector jobs have to make a big show about letting everyone apply even when they've already decided who is getting the job. It's annoying and depressing getting your hopes up only to find out later that you never had a chance.

I'll confess that it was telling that Kavanaugh did the same thing by hiring only females for his law clerks. Is that really such a good thing? It seems like that's big time gender discrimination too and also gives the appearance of even maybe being a little pervy, only wanting females working under you.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 30, 2020, 07:03:10 AM
Well it's one thing to have a situation in which all qualified potential hires are considered regardless of their gender or race and then the women win out. It's quite another what Biden appears to be doing which is to completely disqualify people based specifically on their race and gender.

So, should I assume you were upset at Trump when he said that he'd choose a woman to replace Ginsburg in the Supreme Court, and he said "I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men."?

I'm assuming that was okay because, see, instead of Trump putting it forward as being done in the interests of minority representation and social justice and the good of the nation, he spoke of it instead as his personal privilege to put types of people that he personally likes more than types of people that he personally dislikes, right? In the same sense it'd be similarly okay if he said the SC court should be a redhead woman with big breasts because he likes redhead women with big breasts more than small-breasted brunette women.

So, if Biden had instead actually literally said: "I think all my press corps should be black women, because black women are awesome and white men suck balls", that'd be good and okay, right?

See, if we are discussing a population of 350 millions, the *direct* effect of whether 7 women will be chosen for the press corps or not is trivial on gender equality in the nation -- it's literally parts per million. The actual effect that matters is the indirect one: the various groups of the nation feeling represented in government. White men have the presidency, and the vast majorities in the Senate and Congress. You'll survive having other groups be overrepresented in one minor, and largely trivial thing, the press corps.

When you have racial and gender conflict, and a group feeling oppressed, a wise statesman takes steps in helping them not feel that.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on November 30, 2020, 07:34:11 AM
cherry,

illegal immigration occurs predominantly because the federal government ignores illegal hiring by employers.

Extending the existing wall would have zero impact on securing our borders. (Also most illegal permanent residents are visa overstays).

The only way to reduce illegal crossings are cracking down on employers - which Trump and every other Republican has refused to do.  And making amnesty applications allowable at US embassies rather than requiring people to be physically present in the US.

Also China has plenty of illegal immigration (from Vietnam, Africa, North Korea, Myanmar, etc).

One interesting aspect is illegal immigrant smuggling into China for brides,

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/inflow-of-international-immigrants-challenges-chinas-migration-policy/
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 30, 2020, 08:14:00 AM
On the other hand, this probably saves a lot of white men a lot of time. At least now they don't have to waste their efforts in a futile attempt even applying.

If someone had only told Antony Blinken, Ron Klain, Jake Sullivan, and John Kerry they could have been saved the time of getting top level jobs in the Biden administration.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 30, 2020, 08:33:44 AM
If someone had only told Antony Blinken, Ron Klain, Jake Sullivan, and John Kerry they could have been saved the time of getting top level jobs in the Biden administration.
It's true - only 5 of the 9 cabinet level appointees named to-date are white men.  How will white men survive this historical downgrading of their influence?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 30, 2020, 08:43:54 AM
Which could be contrasted with the Donald Trump cabinet, which was made up of 18 white men, 3 white women and one black man (oh, and one spouse of the senate majority leader)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 30, 2020, 10:32:23 AM
Well it's one thing to have a situation in which all qualified potential hires are considered regardless of their gender or race and then the women win out. It's quite another what Biden appears to be doing which is to completely disqualify people based specifically on their race and gender. At least we're being honest about it now with Biden in charge. It's okay to be racist. In fact, it's fantastic. As long as you are racist against whites and especially white men. Then the media will laud your racism and gender discrimination. Maybe he'll win a Nobel Prize for it.

You know, I get what you're saying, but I don't follow the level of angst or snark that is applied here. 

Yes, under ideal conditions, race or gender should not matter for federal job placement, IMO.  The problem is that politics is rarely an ideal situation.  You're constantly having to compromise to please special interests that make up your coalition.  It's pretty easy to corrupt the system, but some appointments are going to have to be made to make some people happy.  As long as the appointees are minimally qualified and the job isn't super critical, then I personally don't see a problem here.  This is the nature of politics.  You never get what you would like, but you may just get enough to keep the majority satisfied. 

Janet Yellen is perfectly qualified.  Maybe the most qualified to run Treasury.  I see no problem here. 

Avril Haines is qualified.  I would think if Biden were trying to throw a bone to the diversity crowd that he would have picked somebody else. More likely it is who he trusts from past experience in the Obama admin.  I see no problem here.  Maybe there is somebody more qualified, but in this case I suspect this is someone Biden knows will tell it to him straight.  That's important in that role. 

Alejandro Mayorkas is an old Obama admin veteran.  He is qualified since he was a former deputy secretary of the department he is now about to head.  No problem here. 

Honestly, I don't see a single bone thrown to the diversity crowd here.  Maybe the female complete communications department?  That's not exactly critical meat there.  State and NatSecAdv are being run by white dudes.  What's the problem?

So far there hasn't even been a bone thrown to the progressive democratic socialist crowd.  I would think that most conservatives, like myself, would be very pleased with the picks so far.  But I guess there is no pleasing some people. 



Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 30, 2020, 11:18:13 AM
I don't think Grant mentioned this, but ... the members of the Democratic party skew less white, and less male, than the general population.

The choices for Biden then would also skew more towards women and non-white ethnicities than the general population, all things being equal.  Yet the majority of Biden's cabinet picks are still White men, even though they comprise a minority of the population at large, and even a smaller minority of the Democratic party membership.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 30, 2020, 01:10:55 PM
I don't think Grant mentioned this, but ... the members of the Democratic party skew less white, and less male, than the general population.

I'm not sure exactly what this means.  Even the Republican party skews less white than the general population, and is only barely close to the male population percentage, and that's only if we're counting leans Republican.  If we're counting registered Dems and Repubs, then both parties skew less male, less female, less white, than the general population. 

I don't even think that it really matters demographically either.  I think what matters is that the Democratic party has a stronger philosophy of diversity than the Republican party, being more attached to affirmative action type policies, and having more special interests involved with affirmative action policies. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 30, 2020, 01:32:42 PM
I'm not sure exactly what this means.
The point being that suggesting that somehow, White men are disproportionately being discriminated against by Biden's picks is counter-factual on its face, since Biden, as evidenced by his cabinet picks to-date, is over-representing White men in the cabinet so far, both in comparison to Democratic party members and to the population in general.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 30, 2020, 01:53:34 PM

The point being that suggesting that somehow, White men are disproportionately being discriminated against by Biden's picks is counter-factual on its face, since Biden, as evidenced by his cabinet picks to-date, is over-representing White men in the cabinet so far, both in comparison to Democratic party members and to the population in general.

I think that you're responding to Cherry's conservative argument with a liberal argument.  Cherry's point, I believe, is that the most qualified personnel should get jobs, regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, etc, regardless of what their place in the demographics generally or party-wise.  I think your point does show that so far the Admin is not following the conservative view of the liberal argument that the demographics of a cabinet or any other group should match the general demographics of the population in order to be fair and equitable.  So nobody's view of what SHOULD be occurring is actually occurring.  The cabinet picks so far do not match the progressive ideal of it matching the demographics of the general population, and apparently Cherry believes that because some women and hispanics have been chosen that they could not possibly have been the best qualified for the job. 

My argument holds that when politics comes into play, you rarely get either one.  You may not always get the best qualified, and that it doesn't matter unless they are qualified period, and it does not seem, so far, that Biden is interested in having his cabinet be 50% female or 10% black or whatever. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 30, 2020, 02:23:53 PM
Yes, I was responding to Cherry's points, and showing that Biden's 'numbers' don't even support the idea that 'minorities' are being chosen above their representation in the population as evidence that they are being chosen as tokens, rather than on merit.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 30, 2020, 02:32:38 PM
Quote
We face great challenges as a country right now. To recover, we must restore the American dream—a society where each person can rise to their potential and dream even bigger for their children.

As Treasury Secretary, I will work every day towards rebuilding that dream for all.

Sounds like Yellen has some pretty traditional economic goals.  Not even a nod towards what the more radical elements of the Democrat left would like Biden to prioritize.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: wmLambert on November 30, 2020, 03:47:26 PM
What Biden Presidency?. I thought he was uncertified in enough states to leave him below the 270 electoral votes necessary. What ever happened to the Logan Act that Biden suggested be used against General Flynn, after Trump had been certified.

A huge majority of the population knows the Democrats tried to steal the election. We have hundreds of whistle-blowers' affidavits stating under penalty of prison that they saw vote-stealing at a level large enough to overcome Trump's huge land-slide victory. We all have heard of the DOD Special Forces that took over the servers at a CIA server Farm in Frankfort, Germany. We haven't heard that the CIA defended the servers with CIA-trained mercs. One CIA officer dead and five soldiers killed, but all being blamed on action in Somalia or the Middle East. This sounds like something we may not have clear knowledge on for a few decades - but it shows thw stakes that is up for grabs.

The vast majority knows the Dems have attempted to steal the election - not the pretend stuff that Hillary dreamed up to set up a Russian Collusion conspiracy against Trump to deflect from her email felonies. Three years of investigations vs, zero. Interesting how hypocritically the Dems think they can get away with thi9s.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 30, 2020, 03:49:16 PM
Whatever you're smoking, William, I'd like some as well.   Please email me the phone number of your dealer. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: wmLambert on November 30, 2020, 03:58:30 PM
Grant, are you denying the proven vote-scamming, or not? snarky insult is not an answer. Do you approve of the proven vote-scamming? Please explain why the battleground states stopped counting when Trump had an insurmountable lead. Never done before, yet these were synchronized and the poll-watchers sent home. Affidavits are evidence that ballots were filled in during parking lot crimes to the exact number needed to catch up, then were dumped in without poll-watchers. Do you agree with this action or not? Enough insult.
pretend you havr some honor and explain the facts.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 30, 2020, 03:59:50 PM
How have you been feeling lately, William?  Everything going good? 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on November 30, 2020, 04:05:31 PM
Grant, are you denying the proven vote-scamming, or not? snarky insult is not an answer. Do you approve of the proven vote-scamming? Please explain why the battleground states stopped counting when Trump had an insurmountable lead. Never done before, yet these were synchronized and the poll-watchers sent home. Affidavits are evidence that ballots were filled in during parking lot crimes to the exact number needed to catch up, then were dumped in without poll-watchers. Do you agree with this action or not? Enough insult.
pretend you havr some honor and explain the facts.

What facts? What proof? That's all debunked BS.

But if you would like me to take a shot at explaining one of them I will, take a specific allegation. Give me the state, voting district and which court cases where these affidavits filed in. Bonus points if you can also find where the judge scolds the Trump lawyers for bringing affidavits from people who had zero understanding of the relevant electoral processes.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on November 30, 2020, 04:06:20 PM
The whistle blowers affidavit's have almost to a one been dismissed as people not knowing how the system works. They were by people going to the counting centers (not the trained observers sent by the parties, so the complaints were based on not knowing the system, not fraud.

Wm, if this legal team is so good, why are they 1 for 39 in law suits?   Why are they being dismissed by conservative judges, both state and federal? Why have they never pled large scale fraud in any of these cases? At what point do you get that this is all smoke and mirror's on Trump's part to try and steal the election back? Which will not happen. There is no evidence.

They have had 4 weeks to put up and they have not.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 30, 2020, 04:43:18 PM
Remember that the FBI, CIA and NSA pursued a multi-year investigation into 2016 fraud after one guy repeated a 2nd-hand rumor in a bar in London - but mostly because of Clinton's opposition research.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 30, 2020, 05:35:52 PM
So Lloyd, you're agreeing with William, are you?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 30, 2020, 05:54:02 PM
cherry,

illegal immigration occurs predominantly because the federal government ignores illegal hiring by employers.

That's a simplistic answer, that ignores so much context as to be misleading.

It's not that the federal government ignores illegal hiring, its that the federal government, through decades of intentional bureaucratic action, administrative determinations and activist judicial decisions effectively requires illegal hiring and, depending on the administration still threatens to prosecute employers both for discrimination if they attempt to root it out and for illegal hiring.  Big employers are literally penalized both for failing on compliance with government mandated forms, but also for doing more than the minimum required (you can literally see those facets where a company is both cited for failing to catch illegal I-9's (illegal employment) and expressly restricted from requiring non-falsifiable support for I-9's (illegal discrimination).  That's exactly the kind of catch-22 that happens when Congress refuses to pass meaningful reform for decades and lets the bureaucrats fill in with regulations that can be used selectively to punish enemies no matter what they do.

Small employers?  I doubt that what you are really calling for, is for the federal government to put everyone that has hired an illegal domestic employee in jail.  Is it?  Without controlling the personal services space this solution is a bunch of hot air.

And you completely ignore that in several states an illegal immigrant can claim state benefits including welfare, housing and medical assistance, and I'm not aware of the state where they can't enroll children in schools.  Do you really believe access to US education and services isn't enough of a draw already?  That's massive incentive to immigrate, particularly if you've been fed the propaganda about how you'll be in the US for years, at a minimum, while your case is heard.

We have illegal immigration because there are lots of benefits to living here and almost no ability to remove someone from living here.

Quote
Extending the existing wall would have zero impact on securing our borders. (Also most illegal permanent residents are visa overstays).

"Most" is relative nonsense in this case.  Long term illegal immigrants from Mexico were heavily weighted towards migrant workers overstaying the program, short term visa holders overstaying their visas and true illegal border crossers.  The biggest single factor that's slowed illegal immigration is massive reduction in Mexican immigrants, period.  Not really what people think you mean by "visa overstays." 

But let's be specific, since you love calling out the overstays, why don't you point out which overstays are troubling you.  Here's the 2019 report, please cite to the country (or countries) you think we need to crack down on to make a real impact.  https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0513_fy19-entry-and-exit-overstay-report.pdf (https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0513_fy19-entry-and-exit-overstay-report.pdf).  It's also interesting to note that this overstates the number of overstays, you can look at the 2018 update that shows nearly half the overstays resolved over just the following 12 months.

In reality you're pretending that we have a massive problem from developed countries, with the soft undertone of implied racism, when for the most part the visa overstay percentage problems are the undeveloped countries.  That's for obvious reasons, and I seriously doubt you're going to call out the countries with bad overstay issues for reduced visas to be issued, that'd be directly contrary to the argument you're trying to make about letting asylum applications begin remotely.

Quote
The only way to reduce illegal crossings are cracking down on employers - which Trump and every other Republican has refused to do.

Is it?  Surely you're not denying reality?  You could even more easily "crack down" on the states providing welfare, housing and other benefits.  It'd be dead simple to deport people instead of providing them public housing for example.  It would also be completely simple to require proof of citizenship or legal status to access primary, secondary, college and graduate education.  I'm not adverse to bringing employers into it as well, how about the Federal system directly, and empower the states to, provide citizenship verification services.  Maybe you could change Form I-9 to require secure ID - instead of prohibiting employers from even asking for it.  Make it simple and have strict compliance, no discrimination because it would be required in all employment.

Fact is, there are thousands of ways this could be done safely and efficiently and yet, they've all been deliberately undermined.  It's pure nonsense (and politics) to pretend that businesses ALONE should be accountable when they didn't create the problem and the systems in place are designed to allow illegal immigrants to work, when neither the States nor the federal government holds themselves to remotely the same standard when providing services. 

Quote
And making amnesty applications allowable at US embassies rather than requiring people to be physically present in the US.

How would that work?  Walk into a US embassy in the middle of a foreign country and somehow expect the US government to remove you from the country while the local government resists?  Assuming this doesn't end in war or seizure of an embassy, how many persons can a US embassy take out of a country before US embassies will no longer be permitted to operate in said country?  And even that's assuming a lot, you'll note, for example, that while Assange was free to stay in the Argentinian embassy (at least until they kicked him out), he wasn't free to travel through the UK to get to the airport to go to Argentina.  Embassy's are surrounded by the host country.  Are you suggesting that the US embassy house all these people?

In fact, the very idea that you suggest is sophistry.  Asylum is not an immigration program.  It's not a free pass to any country you choose.  It's a temporary relocation to safety because of a threat by your own government.  If you are unsafe, other than from your own government, your recourse is to your own government.  If you require protection from your own government, claiming asylum as a first instance requires removing yourself to the country from whom you're claiming it - you're asking the sovereign whose power you find yourself in for safety, not some arbitrary country somewhere else.  Anything less would be something like an invitation to war or conflict between two countries.  Asylum is otherwise an exception both from deportation and from extradition.  Traveling through multiple safe countries undermines the case that one is fleeing from government persecution.   

Quote
Also China has plenty of illegal immigration (from Vietnam, Africa, North Korea, Myanmar, etc).

So what?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 30, 2020, 06:08:50 PM
Well it's one thing to have a situation in which all qualified potential hires are considered regardless of their gender or race and then the women win out. It's quite another what Biden appears to be doing which is to completely disqualify people based specifically on their race and gender.

Not sure what you're on about here.  Once you get high enough in experience the choice between multiple hires is little more than personality and preference.  I mean for an ordinary job there are millions of people that qualify, no way you could convince me that there is single person that's really the "best" for a middle management job, for example.  Even when you get to exceptional jobs there could be thousands upon thousands of people that could do it at the "best" level.  When there are that many, choosing from the pool based on optics is not likely to make a qualitative difference.   

I mean it'd be weird, but would it really be a problem if Biden only choose to hire people born in even numbered years, or even leap years for that matter?  Or only people whose last name begins with a letter in the first half or last half of the alphabet?  No, it wouldn't, it'd just be weird.  No different here.

Now if he carries through that policy beyond his discretionary top end jobs you have a point.  So if applications for government jobs submitted by white dudes are just pitched that's illegal and needs to be addressed.  But I'm not getting worked up just because apparently only good looking people have the "acting" talent to be mega star actors cast in blockbuster movies, or heck, that these days apparently being unattractive means that one can't sing well enough to sell music, and I'm definitely not getting worked up even if Biden decides to hire several hundred well qualified people selected from a pool of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands that are qualified selected primarily on the basis that they are not white men to serve in the White House.  I mean sure it's racist and racism, and sexist, but we all know that the DNC believes in racism, even if some of us don't admit it to ourselves.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 30, 2020, 06:11:17 PM
If we're counting registered Dems and Repubs, then both parties skew less male, less female, less white, than the general population. 

Just because I'm really curious, how does the bold part work?  Is this because there's a non-binary option meaning it's not an either/or?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on November 30, 2020, 06:28:57 PM
If we're counting registered Dems and Repubs, then both parties skew less male, less female, less white, than the general population. 

Just because I'm really curious, how does the bold part work?  Is this because there's a non-binary option meaning it's not an either/or?

I honestly don't remember.  I have no idea why I did that now.  It doesn't make any sense.  This is what happens when you get old.  I was probably having a stroke. 

Edit:  I see now that the bold part was your addition.  I'm still stroking.  It's late.  I'll think about this tomorrow. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 30, 2020, 07:51:41 PM
So Lloyd, you're agreeing with William, are you?

DonaldD, you sure like to put words into other peoples mouths.  I guess when you can't argue with facts, all that's left is to distract, obfuscate and attack.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on November 30, 2020, 08:50:20 PM
"are you"?

That is known as a question.  It's a bit leading, but really, it's just a question.  Are you disagreeing with William?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on November 30, 2020, 10:43:32 PM
Edit:  I see now that the bold part was your addition.  I'm still stroking.  It's late.  I'll think about this tomorrow.

I didn't add anything but the bold formatting, I think you borrowed the sentence from DonaldD and maybe meant to replace the reference to male?  Don't want to put words in your mouth on that one.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on November 30, 2020, 11:44:20 PM
There would also be other reasons to preferentially hire a diverse group. Perhaps you think they bring a much needed perspective to the job. A video game company might choose someone based on their desire to appeal to a female demographic that is being underserved. A marketing company might choose someone of color to voice that perspective. Likewise, might it not have inherent value to have a diverse cabinet? Might that not add value to group discussions?

I'm not yet going to take time to break down Biden's specific picks, I simply don't know enough about them. Maybe he specifically wants a counterpoint to his own perspective as an old white man. A good leader often picks people on their ability to challenge their views and fill in their blind spots. A bad leader chooses only people who think like they do.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 01, 2020, 12:56:12 AM
Diversity of body type /= to diversity of thought.  Picking 20 ideological clones that make a picture that's appealing like a rainbow is of no benefit.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on December 01, 2020, 01:16:36 AM
Small employers?  I doubt that what you are really calling for, is for the federal government to put everyone that has hired an illegal domestic employee in jail.  Is it?  Without controlling the personal services space this solution is a bunch of hot air.

It would seem that all that would be required would be to announce that this policy will begin as of some date, and that after that this will happen. I expect that in most cases the illegal labor would be let go. Some types of under the table employment would potentially still happen, such as perhaps personal services as you say, but the difficulty in eradicating that would seem to be a separate issue from how to discourage illegal immigration in general (unless you could show that the majority of illegal jobs are under the table jobs in peoples' homes, like a gardener). The argument at any rate is something to the effect that if the well runs dry of available illegal labor then the incentive to come would be far less. It is simply a mechanical question at that point whether in fact the other incentives to come aside from employment would still keep the problem as prevalent as it is. But I find it hard to believe that it could be predicted what would happen. I think an argument could be made that less dire actions with positive after-effects (removing employment) would be a superior solution to systematic deportation by force.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on December 01, 2020, 10:56:32 AM
I didn't add anything but the bold formatting, I think you borrowed the sentence from DonaldD and maybe meant to replace the reference to male?  Don't want to put words in your mouth on that one.

Yes.  When I originally saw the quote and the bolded part, I thought you were asking why I bolded that part, and I looked at it, and I had no idea why I bolded that part.  I know you didn't misquote or anything, I just got very confused.  Then I went back to the original quote and realized that I didn't originally bold that part and that you were asking about the original meaning of the part you bolded.  See?  Confused due to mental degradation. 

The whole thing is a mistake on my part reading the Pew numbers because I mistook the way they were presenting the data.  They presented the data as percentages of the population in general being registered Republicans rather than the makeup of the party being male or female.  I didn't even realize my error until just now.  Good catch. 

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on December 01, 2020, 03:09:33 PM
I don't even think that it really matters demographically either.  I think what matters is that the Democratic party has a stronger philosophy of diversity than the Republican party, being more attached to affirmative action type policies, and having more special interests involved with affirmative action policies.

I'd hit that two different ways from the Conservative side of things. On diversity, Democrats simply have the more overt platform on the subject.

Republicans/Conservative are more passive on the subject as an integrated and diverse people doesn't come about through force of law. If anything, the law arguably hampers it in a lot of cases. Jim Crow and Affirmative Action are two sides of the same coin, and neither side is a good one to be on. And Oddly enough, the Democratic Party is the party that has been a strong proponent of both practices. The Republicans were the first to oppose Jim Crow, and they are the ones fighting AA now even as they were part of the group that implemented it in the first place.

There was a situational need and use for AA, and that time has now past. There is grounds for an economic variant of AA, but the racial form of it needs to be placed in the dustbin of history and left there. At least the voters in California seem to agree with that sentiment, even if the DNC itself doesn't want to acknowledge that. That outcome is probably one of the best bright spots of this last election cycle.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on December 01, 2020, 03:23:26 PM
Also China has plenty of illegal immigration (from Vietnam, Africa, North Korea, Myanmar, etc).

One interesting aspect is illegal immigrant smuggling into China for brides,

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/inflow-of-international-immigrants-challenges-chinas-migration-policy/

Not particularly relevant to the US Situation and in their case, a rather specific consequence of decades under the One Child Policy paired with cultural biases in favor of having sons instead of daughters.

So long as the illegal immigrants are female and reproductively viable, I'd almost say the CCP is inclined to encourage it and would except for the matter of possible international condemnation for the related Human Trafficking and associated things that brings into play.

China is poised to see a rapid decline in the size of its workforce in the next decade, something they're already starting to try to stave off by raising the retirement age. They'll take any warm bodies they can get which can help grow their population in the long term.

Having them exist in a legal grey-zone is even better for the CCP as that means they can "detain" the guys wife at anytime for basically any reason as she isn't supposed to be there in the first place.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on December 03, 2020, 11:13:27 AM
... I fully expect they [Senate Republicans] suddenly remember they care deeply about the deficit. As a result they will demand cuts to government across the board to pay for Trump's tax cuts. They will refuse to pass any future covid related stimulus and we'll see a recession as states and local governments start to lay off police, teachers, and other government workers adding to the economic down turn. They will refuse generous unemployment benefits making that down turn even more severe. And we'll hear all the time about the massive deficit that is the result of their policies the last 3 years and blame it all on democrats.

McConnel isn't endorsing the 900 billion stimulus package put forward by a bi-partisan group of legislators. We're already seeing tells that the Republicans suddenly care deeply about the deficit again and that during a pandemic and a weak economy is the right time to attack a deficit. Exactly the opposite of what any competent economist would tell you. Spend during the crisis, in years like 2017-2019 with near full employment you work to reduce the deficit. But during those years the Republicans decided they really needed to give rich people and corporations tax cuts and greatly increase the deficit. Now before Biden even takes office during a pandemic weakened economy we're hearing things like:

Quote
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said he wants to see offsets such as required spending cuts as part of a deal to increase the debt ceiling next year.

“I think you can expect there to be conditions. At least some members will try to get them,” Cramer said. “I don’t think there’s any question that a lot of conservative Republican members are going to require some sort of conditions.”
Quote
Whoever is in the White House, I hope they realize how serious the debt crisis is and how important it is that we put measures in place to address it,” said Thune. “And hopefully when that vote comes around, we’ll have some of those reforms.

So we're already back to Republicans planning on using defaulting on the debt to negotiate for policies. Nothing like negotiating with a gun to the head of the economy.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on December 03, 2020, 11:22:57 AM
I just wonder where all of the inflation is that they have been warning is just around the corner for the past 10 years?

And any time we start to cut the deficit and maybe get a surplus to start paying down the debt, they start calling for tax cuts, because if we are running a surplus, why are we still taxing at that level?  We are bringing in more money then we are spending, so cut taxes.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 10:35:13 AM
Sometimes it shocks me at how bad the Democratic leadership is at laying out issues. There have already been 1,000,000 state and local jobs lost. The Republicans are refusing to send money to state and local governments. No one is doing more to defund the police and schools than the Republican senate. I get that message doesn't play great to their far left base but it plays well with 75+% of the public.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on December 05, 2020, 01:33:33 AM
I just wonder where all of the inflation is that they have been warning is just around the corner for the past 10 years?

What gas been going on with Covid relief funds is going to cause inflation. We're not seeing it at present because the economy is being artificially crippled at present. Once the brakes are released because Covid "is under control" and the economy stops staggering, we're going to run headlong into it.

Of course, as anyone who has studied economics can also point out, there is a strong correlation to inflation and job creation as well. So there is that.

Quote
And any time we start to cut the deficit and maybe get a surplus to start paying down the debt, they start calling for tax cuts, because if we are running a surplus, why are we still taxing at that level?  We are bringing in more money then we are spending, so cut taxes.

There are some other factors in play than just that, such as the Corporate Tax rate on money brought in from foreign sources for one such example. But on the broad strokes, I'd generally agree that a higher priority should be given to paying down debt rather than cutting taxes during years with great growth numbers.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on December 05, 2020, 07:35:29 AM
The conservatives keep saying that, but they have been saying that for the past 10-15 years, when we have had decreasing unemployment, that is in fact at historic lows, and practically no inflation. Hell they have lowered the Fed Rate to 0 and still no inflation.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on December 14, 2020, 09:15:30 PM
What is the Republican case against aid to states and cities and extended unemployment benefits? Do they just want the economy to tank in the first months of Biden's presidency? They are nominally holding out for making sure no business is at all responsible for any COVID related lawsuits.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on December 17, 2020, 09:39:16 AM
The Republicans are holding up aid to unemployed people, to states and cities for teachers, police, first responders, and vaccine distribution. They are doing this so no company is at all accountable for COVID lawsuits, even companies like Tyson whose managers had betting pools on which employees would get sick. I get why Tyson and companies employing people who did such things would really want immunity from any type of lawsuit, I just don't understand why the Republicans are willing to tank the economy to give it to them. Maybe they are willing to harm the economy so they can blame Biden for the down turn. Guess they need to change their slogan from America first to Republicans first.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on December 17, 2020, 09:47:06 AM
Supposedly McConnell is now going for $600 one time payments to every one since the 2 GA senators are telling them they are getting killed at rallies when people ask them where the aid is. Since they are hurting their base with this standoff  they are getting worried about the results of the run off election.

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on December 17, 2020, 09:59:05 AM
Supposedly McConnell is now going for $600 one time payments to every one since the 2 GA senators are telling them they are getting killed at rallies when people ask them where the aid is. Since they are hurting their base with this standoff  they are getting worried about the results of the run off election.

Not that $600 isn't nice, extended and expanded unemployment aid and money to states and cities to keep people employed and getting the vaccine out should be a priority over getting $600 out to everyone. There is a big group of people who have had reduced hours and wages that $600 will help out a lot, but to the unemployed its not a great solution and for people who have been able to continue working it isn't needed. Republicans are settling for the most expensive option to make sure everyone knows they did something, even if it was the most ineffective use of the money.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on December 17, 2020, 10:25:26 AM
the other issue is many of the people who will get this money do not need it.  My wife and I do not need it. We did not need the $1,200 we got the first round.  My wife used all of her money to donate to local charities.  I am sure she will do the same with this.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: rightleft22 on December 17, 2020, 11:09:12 AM
I think the theory is that the money will be spent, hopefully locally (rent, food, donations or what ever) and in this way provide fuel for the economy. Trickle up as it were 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on December 17, 2020, 11:11:18 AM
We might. We are getting carry out from local places usually 3 times a week and normally tipping fairly well.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on December 17, 2020, 11:32:49 AM
I think the theory is that the money will be spent, hopefully locally (rent, food, donations or what ever) and in this way provide fuel for the economy. Trickle up as it were

I agree its helpful and stimulates the economy. However, unemployment, aid to states and cities to keep people from becoming unemployed all seems like it should be a higher priority. Also the size is too small, a 2 trillion dollar stimulus today would support the economy through vaccination and help us pick up with a strong economy. With a 2 trillion dollar price tag there would be enough money for states, cities, and small businesses to add onto the $600 for individuals. If it weren't for the two Republican senators still needing to get votes I bet we wouldn't be seeing any action from Mitch.

As I predicted the minute Biden was elected Republicans went for austerity after 3.5 years of cutting taxes and spending. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on December 17, 2020, 01:40:00 PM
Coming up with means testing would be complicated, slow down the process, invariably people will fall through the cracks and others would end up repaying later, even some who do need the money.

Best just to give the subsidy to everyone without trying to figure out who shouldn't get it.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on December 17, 2020, 02:03:08 PM
Coming up with means testing would be complicated, slow down the process, invariably people will fall through the cracks and others would end up repaying later, even some who do need the money.

Best just to give the subsidy to everyone without trying to figure out who shouldn't get it.

Long term I'm with you. A UBI to replace most (or all) other forms of government aid would be preferable. But right now I don't see $600 to everyone as nearly as a high priority as expanding and extending unemployment benefits and aid to state and local governments for police, teachers, and vaccine distribution. If we were doing all the rest I would be on board with another round of stimulus for all to catch all the tip/gig workers who aren't making nearly as much but don't qualify for traditional unemployment either. But the $600 is really only going to get those who need it through a month (if we're being generous about their thriftiness). Its fireworks when we need a real bang.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 18, 2020, 03:47:09 PM
Now we know what Biden offered Mayor Pete to drop out and help him get the nomination. This appointment stinks. There is no way on earth that he's qualified, any more than Betsy was qualified to run the DOE.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 18, 2020, 06:11:44 PM
Or Dr. (actual) Ben Carson as the head of HUD.

"Carson has no experience with any of these programs-nor any experience in government at all. When rumors circulated last month that Trump might appoint the physician to his cabinet, Carson's close friend and sometime spokesperson Armstrong Williams told The Hill: "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience. He's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."

When Trump did tap his one-time rival to run HUD, Williams declared that one of Carson's chief qualifications was that he had once lived in public housing-a claim that news outlets, including The New York Times, initially repeated. On Monday morning, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee likewise tweeted that "Ben Carson is first HUD Sec to have actually lived in gov't housing." But by Monday afternoon, Williams had retracted his statement, telling the Times that Carson was never a public housing tenant after all."

https://prospect.org/economy/trump-picked-ben-carson-hud-secretary/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the good news is that it's going to be difficult for Trump supporters who didn't say anything about Trump's qualification challenged appointments to make hay about Biden's. Of course the Trump critics who did make a big brouhaha about it now need to follow up on Biden for consistency. As one who didn't make a big deal out of Trump's appointments I'm willing to give Mayor Pete a chance to see how he does. It is a little sad though that these have become like higher level political favors compared to ambassadorships that are handed out like candy now as essentially completely legal bribes for donations in the case of ambassadorships and in the case of cabinet appointments as a reward for being some of the first people willing to kneel and kiss the ring.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on December 18, 2020, 10:55:43 PM
Pete strikes me a big proponent of transit options, especially trains. But not knowing if Biden has been in contact with any other people who have some political influence and also would shamelessly plug for trains. It seems logical enough in that context.

He's there to head up the Department of Trains, and the expansion of their use in daily life. (Not that I think certain investments in High Speed rail, especially along the Eastern Seaboard and along the Great Lakes is a bad idea, it's probably a very good one all things considered... But as for the rest of the country, that's a boondoggle waiting to happen, even in Cali. Probably especially in Cali.)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 19, 2020, 12:03:00 PM
It's great to be a cheerleader, you don't make em the head coach.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: wmLambert on December 19, 2020, 08:42:21 PM
Now we know what Biden offered Mayor Pete to drop out and help him get the nomination. This appointment stinks. There is no way on earth that he's qualified, any more than Betsy was qualified to run the DOE.

No, Biden probably didn't offer Pete any gifts to drop out. That was just the way the voting among the Democrats worked out. The power brokers in the DNC were afraid of a socialist Sanders nominee, so had to create a nominee out of Biden. Pete was not a part of that. Biden is definitely selecting from a list of minority groups, and avoiding quality as the prime factor. The slap at Betsy DeVos is an example of following the lead of the Teachers' Unions. DeVos has been studying education for decades and has proved many concepts through working groups and appointed studies to fix what is wrong. Did you ever actually read the works of John Dewey that explained why the Democrats wanted to make education a Marx/Engels designed activity? I've read them, and so has DeVos. Again, the probably worst possible appointee would be someone that was corrupted by the existing Dewey teaching machine. We don't need to keep the failure of this system - but to correct it.

With the latest lawsuits and the latest documented theft of votes, Trump now is close to being re-elected. I sure hope so. No one thinks Biden is competent enough for the office. No one here is that daft or naive. I wonder how some here get the data they argue with, when the MSM and big tech denies them them anything worth looking at. Face it, The DNC is again deflecting and projecting the Biden fake vote totals, when Trump broke every vote record in the book, and also had enthusiasm and a legacy of success, not to mention four actual Nobel Peace Prize awards he should have been awarded. Trump probably received ober 80 million votes, but the vote stealing took enough away from him and gave them to Biden. The whistleblowers have not been repudiated - they have been ignored. The affidavits are legal documents that prove that Trump won. What the Democrats didn't count on was that his numbers would be so huge that their original vote-scams coiudn't catch him, so they had to take risks to close the gap. There were enough witnesses of those moves to send the Democrat election officials to prison.  I don't know how insulated the deep-staters are, but many are burning candles at the altar for a Biden win to stop any real investigations. The best thing for our nation is for these vote-scammers at the top to go to prison - not just the normal Democrat cannon-fodder.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 19, 2020, 08:56:13 PM
Any update on when we're gonna get those 'goods' you claimed the good guys to possess from the raids in Frankfurt and Spain when the DoD supposedly battled CIA mercenaries?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on December 19, 2020, 09:19:05 PM
Wm what are you going to do when Biden is sworn in on Jan 20?  Or will this be like your previous predictions of the end of the world?  Or that the earth is only 6,000 years old? 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: kidv on December 20, 2020, 05:55:34 AM
May as well post this here -

Apparently in response to a retraction demand letter from Smartmatic company, Fox News (the news part of it) has put together a news package to air inside Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs, and Maria Bartiromo's shows this weekend without the participation of Dobbs, Pirro, or Bartiromo, rebutting the claims made on their programs about election fraud and Smartmatic having any connection to Dominion voting, or even that Smartmatic is used anywhere in the U.S. but one county in California. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/business/fox-smartmatic-news-package/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/business/fox-smartmatic-news-package/index.html)

I went to Fox News' site to see if I could see this retraction package, but I didn't see any story listed in the site.  So I scrolled through Saturday's Jeanine Pirro show listed on the site, and sure enough the last two minutes (37:01 to 39:54), is a completely surreal dropped in story having an off-air voice ask a series of questions about Smartmatic and have them all denied.  No input from Pirro.

edit:
ok, here is the fox news insert interview:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6217367139001#sp=show-clips (https://video.foxnews.com/v/6217367139001#sp=show-clips)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on December 20, 2020, 08:54:07 AM
Yeah I saw the Dobb's part.  At least it is something. The higher ups must  know they are on thin ice with what their people have been doing and are doing CYA.  I wonder what OAN and Newsmax are gong to do.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 20, 2020, 10:01:27 AM
Hard to argue that the blatant and unsupported slander against both Dominion and Smartmatic haven't caused these companies material damage. I hope they sue the fake news networks of Fox News & the other various far-right media that have sprung up recently for all they're worth.

Could Trump also get sued about his slander of the companies, the moment he leaves office?

But let's hear it from Seriati & others how it's supposedly the Democrats that want the people to be uninformed and misinformed, how it's supposedly the liberal media that are lying. Because they said that... hmm, strange I can't actually remember a single lie they've spoken about Trump. (They *probably* said something false about him at some point, it'd be miraculous if they didn't, but I can't actually remember a single one.)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 21, 2020, 02:21:21 PM
Don't you realize how the liberal media portrays Trump in a bad light by quoting him verbatim and not making excuses for him, like that he was just joking, or that he simply misspoke, or that he was exaggerating?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: wmLambert on December 21, 2020, 05:30:46 PM
Don't you realize how the liberal media portrays Trump in a bad light by quoting him verbatim and not making excuses for him, like that he was just joking, or that he simply misspoke, or that he was exaggerating?

No, they misquote and edit his statements. Not verbatim. He rarely misspeaks, Far less than Democrat talking heads who are ignored.

Look at Biden. He has lied about his crime family. Does anyone here really want to defend him?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 21, 2020, 05:31:20 PM
What is the Republican case against aid to states and cities and extended unemployment benefits?

Those are completely different funding buckets.  The "case" against the latter is that increasing unemployment benefits (adding extra to the payments) is slowing the recovery (which is true).  Not sure I'm aware of the Republicans wanting to prevent an extension of the benefit period.  We're currently around the same number of unemployed persons per job opening as Obama was in Jan 2015 (start of year 7 of his Presidency).  If you believe what you've claimed about Obama's economy, hard to understand your concern about this now.  https://www.bls.gov/charts/job-openings-and-labor-turnover/unemp-per-job-opening.htm (https://www.bls.gov/charts/job-openings-and-labor-turnover/unemp-per-job-opening.htm)

You can also see how far off we are from the unemployment highs that just occurred in the peak of Covid.  https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm (https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm).  You may note there are an awful lot of historic low unemployment numbers in Trump's term, and now because of COVID and the state reactions there are an awful lot of historic highs as well.

State and local "aid" on the other hand because its a lie.  Tax revenues are off but not enough to cause the problems they're having in the blue states and cities.  All they're looking for is a federal bailout to pay off years of buying votes on credit.  Can't imagine why Republicans would have an issue with paying for bills run up to keep Democrats in power.  Pretend outrage all you want but that's all it is, a useful excuse to get out from under voting buying and pandering policy consequences.  No thanks.

Quote
Do they just want the economy to tank in the first months of Biden's presidency?

Biden should be thanking them.  He's poised to show superb numbers as a direct result of Trump's and the Republicans efforts.  Plenty of room for him to stifle the economy with ridiculous regulations and still look like a hero - which is exactly how the media is going to pitch the case and exactly what is going to be parroted here.

Quote
They are nominally holding out for making sure no business is at all responsible for any COVID related lawsuits.

Which should be a no brainer.  Places of employment should be exempt from lawsuits.  Let OSHA fine them for violations of protocols if they didn't comply with COVID restrictions, but turning the post COVID period into class action hunting season is one of the most ridiculously self destructive things we could do as a country.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 21, 2020, 08:28:41 PM
The regulations get put in place to curb the unethical behavior of businesses, including safe workplaces. I guess we just let the free market run wild, and we can go back to the good old days where miners got buried alive and kids lost their hands in machinery. Or perhaps allow the selling of snake oil as medicine, or deliberately misleading account holders.

Think that is over the top?

Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster. Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing. Removal of a rule that farmers should be able to sue meatpackers for anti-competitive behaviour. Rolling back protections for workers to get paid overtime. Rescinded 72 policy documents outlining the rights of disabled students. Allow food to be less safe. Prevent federal student aid from going to scams like Trump U. Delayed a rule aiming to prevent accidental chemical releases. Limited liability for civil rights violations when employees work on-site at other companies (ie most security, janitors, cafeteria workers, gardeners) Employers no longer report their injuries, so now no one will know which companies are dangerous to work at.

Do all of those things "help the economy get bigger", well sure. That doesn't mean it is such a hot idea.

Rolling rolling rolling (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-rolling-back-obama-rules/)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: wmLambert on December 21, 2020, 08:52:42 PM
The regulations get put in place to curb the unethical behavior of businesses, including safe workplaces. I guess we just let the free market run wild, and we can go back to the good old days where miners got buried alive and kids lost their hands in machinery. Or perhaps allow the selling of snake oil as medicine, or deliberately misleading account holders.

Think that is over the top?

Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster. Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing. Removal of a rule that farmers should be able to sue meatpackers for anti-competitive behaviour. Rolling back protections for workers to get paid overtime. Rescinded 72 policy documents outlining the rights of disabled students. Allow food to be less safe. Prevent federal student aid from going to scams like Trump U. Delayed a rule aiming to prevent accidental chemical releases. Limited liability for civil rights violations when employees work on-site at other companies (ie most security, janitors, cafeteria workers, gardeners) Employers no longer report their injuries, so now no one will know which companies are dangerous to work at.

Do all of those things "help the economy get bigger", well sure. That doesn't mean it is such a hot idea.

Rolling rolling rolling (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-rolling-back-obama-rules/)

Nothing in this post is correct.

First, the image of children being treated like animals was a myth from thye Sadler Rerport of 182:

Quote
The biggest divergence from reality sprung from a simple mistruth offered up in 1832. If there ever was a simple causation for all belief in the benevolence and value of a strong centralized government, then this is it.

In a review of fourth and eighth grade history books, all of them get it wrong. None of them were honest about big government vs. big business. Each book spent much effort painting a picture of successful government monopolies in the Fur trade, building canals and railroads. The historical truth is that these government monopolies were uncontested failures - Failures so severe that the populace rose up in anger, ended the political forces that fed them, and turned them over to successful entrepreneurs. The books all preached to the young that big government was the savior and Robber Barons the nemesis, when in all actuality, it was the opposite that held true.

What caused this was a reliance on the historical works of John L. and Barbara Hammond, who influenced all the school books that followed. They relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Charles Dickens' novels helped to codify this image.

Would modern day Leftists feel less secure promoting big government to solve social and economic problems, if they knew in their hearts that what they learned as children was a lie? An historical review by Dr. Burton W. Folsom (http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=238) points out that
Quote
Mr. Sadler, we know today, lied in his report. He was a member of Parliament and made up much of his report to gain support for a bill he wanted to see Parliament pass. Economist W. H. Hutt has described Sadler's falsification of evidence. Even Friedrich Engels, comrade of Karl Marx, concluded that "Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his noble enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."

The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat.
Quote from: Folsom
The school books give the impression that robber barons stepped in to exploit whatever they could, and were a negative point in history. The lesson the books should be teaching is that in the world of commerce, the profit motive, the structure of incentives. and the stifling tendencies of bureaucrats are such that those businesses run by entrepreneurs will consistently outperform those run by the government. Instead, the authors had a bias for a strong central government. When the authors were called on these reports, they agreed that they were not reporting fact, but incorrect, unsubstantiated ideology.

As a prime example, what happened in Michigan, my home state, is the rule and not the exception.

Quote from: Based on Grace Kachaturoff, author of [i]Michigan[/i], Folsom
When the state builds a project, the incentives are different from those of private enterprise. Satisfying political interests is often more important to legislators than building a railroad that is financially sound and well constructed. State builders use taxpayers’ money, not their own. If the road fails, it’s the state, not the builders, with empty pockets. The Michigan story is full of accounts of padded vouchers, illegal bidding, cost overruns, and the stealing of materials by contractors and even by the citizens themselves. Since no one actually owned the railroads, no one felt the responsibility to take care of them.

Judge Thomas Cooley, Michigan’s most famous 19th-century lawyer and a president of the American Bar Association, observed this waste firsthand. He wrote about it later and said, "By common consent it came to be considered that the State in entering upon these works had made a serious mistake." The people of Michigan, Cooley reported, became convinced "that the management of railroads was in its nature essentially a private business, and ought to be in the hands of individuals." In 1846, therefore, the state of Michigan abandoned all the canals and sold the Central and Southern Railroads, which were only partly completed, to private investors. The new owners promised to do some rebuilding and to expand the lines to the Chicago area. From this distress sale, the state recovered one-half of its $5 million investment and ended its headaches from being in the railroad business.

Once the railroads had been privatized, they were rebuilt with care and extended across the state. At last, Michigan citizens had the roads they needed to trade and thrive. This turnaround was so startling that its implications were not lost on Michigan voters. They learned from history.

In 1850, Michigan threw out its old constitution and wrote a new one. It read, "the State shall not subscribe to or be interested in the stock of any company, association, or corporation." Furthermore, "the State shall not be a party to or interested in any work of internal improvement, nor engaged in carrying on any such work" except to provide land. The heavily taxed voters were determined to learn from their mistakes and chart a better future for the state. In the years of laissez-faire that followed, Michigan’s entrepreneurs developed the state’s natural resources—lumber and iron ore—so effectively that Michigan soon became a major industrial state.

This is a root principle that denies the Liberal belief that is inculcated into their belief systems as school children. How can you dismiss the honor and veracity of a Liberal who believes what he was taught in school?

Going deeper into disinformation, consider the tendency of the Left to disparage the right as religious extremists and strongly anti-science. Once again, how can one begrudge a poor Leftist who learned Columbus almost never discovered America because the religious zealots said he was a heretic? The Dems learned in school that the church decreed the Earth was flat and that was that. Going back farther, who hasn't learned that the great enlightened civilization of Greece and Rome ended when the Church entered the picture, and then began a "Dark Ages" That lasted until The Rennaissance? This disinformation is all wrong, yet believed devoutly by the Left.

Rodney Stark in How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0109.html) presents the accepted and unargued true history that is unreported in school books.
Quote from: It was Andrew Dickson White who
The warfare of Columbus [with religion] the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta bested him in Portugal,; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him with the usual quotations from Psalms, from St, Paul, and from St. Augustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had greatly strengthened the theory of the Earth's sphericity... the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray... the theological barriers to this geographical truth yielded but slowly. Plain as it had become to scholars, they hesitated to declare it to the world at large... But in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his famous voyage. He proves the Earth is round, for his expedition circumnavigates it... Yet even this does not end the war. Many conscientious [religious[ men oppose the doctrine for two hundred years longer.
Every history book recounts how Columbus fought the religious extremists who used the Bible to decree the Earth was Flat. Name a Leftist who knows any different!

White lied. He was running for President of Cornell and admitted he wrote this to "get even with his Christian critics of his plans for Cornell." Every educated person of Columbus's time knew the earth was round. This includes Roman Catholic theologians. The Venerable Bede (ca. 673-735) taught that the Earth was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (ca. 720-784). Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), and all four became Saints. It was part of an ages-old conspiracy of atheists to portray Religion as being anti-Science. Columbus was not argued out of sailing off the edge of the world. The scientist of his day knew the world was round - but much larger than Columbus estimated. He put Japan at being only 2,080 miles from the Canary Islands, but the "sundry wise men of Spain" knew it was over 14,000 miles. Had Columbus not run across an unsuspected continent - his crew would have all died at Sea.

But then again, the entire "Dark ages" is a crock. Christianity actually inspired science. There was no science in ancient Greece or Rome. Aristotle thought the weight of objects were proportional to the speed with which they dropped. A simple test by dropping two different weights off a cliff never occurred to him. Guesswork without empiricism is not science. It was only at the birth of Christianity, that a wise God appeared who fostered the idea that science could be done and should be done. The Church understood there was a duty to understand God's handiwork, the better to marvel at it.

As for a time of barbarism, superstition, and widespread ignorance - there was no "Dark Ages." The march of progress was sure and steady, and sparked by the Christian concept of the world as an understandable creation following understandable laws which needed to be studied. The phrase,  "Dark Ages," was a myth, first used in the early 19th century by atheists to claim credit for a sudden "enlightenment" that occurred against the Church's wishes. In fact it was the Church that fostered science. Quintus Tertullian instructed in the second century, "Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason — nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason." The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.

Yet, every good Liberal knows Gibbons wrote The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and blamed the Fall of Rome and the rise of barbarism on Christianity. Historians disagree - yet the schools still distort the truth. The New Columbia Encyclopedia (1975) says the term "Dark Ages" is no longer used by historians because this era is no longer thought to have been so dim. The Encyclopedia Britannica concurs.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: wmLambert on December 21, 2020, 09:41:35 PM
Following that, the Free Market doesn't run wild. That would be the government elites trying to run everything and failing, only to blame their failure on others. As for Global Climate Change, that is a crock. We are in an inter-glacial period within an ice age, and science says to be grateful for the short reprieve with some warmth. Once we get back to the ice age we are in, China's purchase of farmlands on the equator will be seen as a huge future investment. In the mean time, hypocrites like Al Gore will get rich planting tree farms for polluters.

The regulations that Trump rolled back were offset by better regulations already on the books. The stultifying results of over-regulation were ended. Again, the Free Market fixes such things better than greedy politicians creating carve-outs for their fundraisers. BTW; what are Policy documents? Are they some kind of dictatorial fiat that are not laws made by congress? Just look at the sheer stupidity of the body of Obama Executive Orders. Once eliminated, the economy started working again. Do not create false dilemmas.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 21, 2020, 10:05:59 PM
So now you're denying that child labor existed in the US, even when it was legal? And we have plenty of contemporary examples of what goes on in countries where child labor is legal, and plenty of records of it here in the US.

They didn't have photoshop back in those days. (https://www.history.com/news/child-labor-lewis-hine-photos)

18% of the labor force in 1900 were kids under 16. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say they were treated like animals, they were doing dangerous work for long hours. Now you can argue that Obama's were not as necessary as the ones back then, but regulations aren't bad by definition even when they do slow down the economy.

Government mandates for overtime slow down the economy too, I suppose you'd just pitch those overboard as well. Anything that will boost the bottom line, no matter who it hurts.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: wmLambert on December 21, 2020, 10:58:00 PM
...18% of the labor force in 1900 were kids under 16. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say they were treated like animals, they were doing dangerous work for long hours. Now you can argue that Obama's were not as necessary as the ones back then, but regulations aren't bad by definition even when they do slow down the economy.

Government mandates for overtime slow down the economy too, I suppose you'd just pitch those overboard as well. Anything that will boost the bottom line, no matter who it hurts.

No, they weren't doing dangerous work for  long hours. Please refer to the Sadler Report of 1832 I mentioned to understand that. Most jobs that kids did were simple ones without danger or long hours. But you believe what you falsely learned in grade school, if you prefer. The hardest jobs were always those in agriculture, just as they are today. Yes, regulations aren't bad by definition - just those put on by politicians wanting to benefit their fundraisers. Y'know, like Obama did throughout his Presidency. You do realize that safety in the workplace is better fixed by the exigencies of the Free Market, than by politically crafted rules that tend to have unintended consequences.

As for dangerous work conditions being fixed by regulations, please discover OSHA. We have many overlapping regs that need to be pruned. Trump did not unilaterally sweep them away - he just asked agencies to look at them and get rid of stupid ones and duplicate ones. He even allowed new regs as needed, but to get rid of two old, unnecessary ones for every new one.

Science does not tell us to protect the Snail Darter. It tells us that thousands of species vanish from the Earth yearly, as successor offshoots replace them. It seems spotted owls prefer Kmart signs to trees in the forest.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 21, 2020, 11:49:17 PM
The regulations get put in place to curb the unethical behavior of businesses, including safe workplaces.

Not even remotely true.  Regulations get put in place to control people, with a nod to anything that makes them appear credible.  I mean heck you can look at the COVID mess and see that it's been completely arbitrarily implemented.  The science on transmission was largely unproven guess work (remember how you guys railed about the unproven use of Hydroxychlorquine, yet had no problem with destroying the economy with restrictions that have even less science behind them, ah good times), and that means the restrictions were almost completely guesswork.  I mean we still have regulations that effectively shut down small businesses and concentrated everyone in large stores, yet the evidence is that big box stores are a transmission vector and small businesses not so much.

We have regulations that limit 10k seat arenas to less than 100 people, yet that permit favored political rallies to gather.  We actually had to have a court order the police to stop recording the license plates of socially distanced cars in a church parking lot attending services.

But its not just COVID, without fail, bureaucrats expand and expand their regulatory mandates to cover things that they find politically important without any regard to whether they have a safety element. 

And its a flat lie that most regulations are controlling unethical business behaviors.  Most are nanny state over governance of good people who want to do the right things created by people with less situational knowledge that the people they regulate.  And that's before you even lead the factory context and start in on the regulations that exist in other walks of life.

Quote
I guess we just let the free market run wild, and we can go back to the good old days where miners got buried alive and kids lost their hands in machinery. Or perhaps allow the selling of snake oil as medicine, or deliberately misleading account holders.

Think that is over the top?

It's just logical fallacy to assume that it's all or nothing.  Nothing requires that we make it legal to bury miners - why would that be an advantage economically, are you burying them when their shift is over - or to use kids hands in machines - as what some weird form of lubrication? - or to allow the selling of snake oil - though we do have people in the neighborhood that sell liquid collagen to drink and several whole stores premised on selling "not FDA approved" natural supplements.

Go to google and type in "regulations governing" followed by anything at all, you'll get something that comes up.  Sometimes it'll be short and to the point, other times it will be beyond detailed and specific to the point of absurdity, but something will almost always come up.  Just for fun, I looked for "clothes for miners" and discovered their helmets must have a non-metallic base paint; "naming of bicycles" where I discovered the EPA does have naming conventions and that we have a 20 part code of for the regulation of bicycles https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title16/16cfr1512_main_02.tpl (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title16/16cfr1512_main_02.tpl) bizarrely housed in the hazardous substance regulations passed by the consumer product safety commission; so I decided to check on "bird watching" and I thought aha... here there are only ethical codes... but no, dig a little deeper and there are dozens of laws that impact the hobby of bird watching, like it being illegal to keep a bald eagle feather you find on the ground or to make bird calls in certain locations, and if you find an injured bird and try to help it you may be violating the law requiring that such efforts be made by licensed professionals.

I don't care how well meaning you think regulators are, where there are rules that "govern" every single activity in which you can engage (and I didn't dare to look at whether there are "in the bedroom" regulations,  which I hope is not the case), it's just a trap for selective prosecution.  No one is actually able, or even bothers, to read the regulations that apply to every activity they engage in.

Quote
Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster.

Demonstrable false.  In fact, it's beyond a lie to make that claim.  It's beyond even hyperbole.

Quote
Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing.

Maybe you can point to the parts of this order that you disagree with.  It literally contradicts your claim about "wiping out sustainable fishing regulations" by in fact requiring them and that they be consistent with our environmental laws and UN policies.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-economic-growth/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-economic-growth/)  Do you somehow object to actually promoting efforts to engage is sustainable fishing?

Did you do any research on any of this stuff is it all just repeating what you "heard" Trump did?

Quote
Removal of a rule that farmers should be able to sue meatpackers for anti-competitive behaviour.

Farmers are still able to sue, there's a hundred year old act that governs that relationship.  The Obama era rule (among lots of other things) was trying to change the standard that applied under the rule.  Meanwhile, here's anti-Trump article that walks through how Trump's administration is actually bringing serious investigations into the industry and it's fairness, literally the title says it all.  https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/u-s-meat-giants-face-biggest-attack-in-century-from-trump-probe-1.1450567 (https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/u-s-meat-giants-face-biggest-attack-in-century-from-trump-probe-1.1450567)

Is it even worth looking into anything else you claim?  I can read Politico for myself, and if you can't see the bias in the articles you're looking at you're not analyzing them at a level that engenders trust in your conclusions.

Quote
Do all of those things "help the economy get bigger", well sure. That doesn't mean it is such a hot idea.

Everything I looked at that you cited was pretty not only a "hot idea" that was helping the economy get bigger but actually addressing the problems you claimed they were adding to.  Pretty a total fail.

Trump killed a lot of regulations that claimed to be doing something good but weren't.  Its the very principle behind the old maxim, actions speak louder than words.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on December 22, 2020, 10:39:42 AM
Quote
They are nominally holding out for making sure no business is at all responsible for any COVID related lawsuits.

Which should be a no brainer.  Places of employment should be exempt from lawsuits.  Let OSHA fine them for violations of protocols if they didn't comply with COVID restrictions, but turning the post COVID period into class action hunting season is one of the most ridiculously self destructive things we could do as a country.

It depends, did employers take reasonable precautions to prevent their workers from being sick? Or did they have plant managers creating betting pools to see who would get COVID next?

The original Republican language for the exemption covered both categories of employers. I'm fine if they want to exempt businesses that took all reasonable precautions but that doesn't mean every business should be exempt from anything COVID related.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on December 22, 2020, 11:24:46 AM
It depends, did employers take reasonable precautions to prevent their workers from being sick? Or did they have plant managers creating betting pools to see who would get COVID next?

The original Republican language for the exemption covered both categories of employers. I'm fine if they want to exempt businesses that took all reasonable precautions but that doesn't mean every business should be exempt from anything COVID related.
Of course... whether an employer took reasonable precautions becomes a point of litigation.  I can't see how you get away from that.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 22, 2020, 12:25:53 PM
It depends, did employers take reasonable precautions to prevent their workers from being sick? Or did they have plant managers creating betting pools to see who would get COVID next?

The original Republican language for the exemption covered both categories of employers. I'm fine if they want to exempt businesses that took all reasonable precautions but that doesn't mean every business should be exempt from anything COVID related.
Of course... whether an employer took reasonable precautions becomes a point of litigation.  I can't see how you get away from that.

Precisely this. If you are a business who lets employees and customers mill around without masks on, you deserve to pay for the hospital and funeral bills. If you can't operate your business safely, then don't operate it at all. I don't see why this is any different than suing a restaurant for getting sick due to improper food handling.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 22, 2020, 12:44:41 PM

Quote
Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster.

Demonstrable false.  In fact, it's beyond a lie to make that claim.  It's beyond even hyperbole.

DOD: About two-thirds of the 79 installations addressed in this report are vulnerable to current
or future recurrent flooding and more than one-half are vulnerable to current or future drought.
About one-half are vulnerable to wildfires. It is important to note that areas subject to wildfire
may then experience serious mudslides or erosion when rains follow fires. Impacts are dispersed
around the country. Not surprisingly, impacts vary by region for coastal flooding, with greater
impacts to the East coast and Hawaii than the West coast. Desertification vulnerabilities are
limited to the sites on the list with arid soils; these are in California, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Drought vulnerabilities are more widely dispersed across the country. Wildfire and recurrent
flooding impacts are the most widely dispersed.

report that backs up what I'm saying. (https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/sec_335_ndaa-report_effects_of_a_changing_climate_to_dod.pdf)

I'm not sure if its worth it to respond to everything else that you wrote when you are this wrong. Sure, I was exaggerating when I said he dumped every regulation, but he pitched aside dozens of Obama era regulations almost entirely.



Quote
Quote
Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing.

Maybe you can point to the parts of this order that you disagree with.  It literally contradicts your claim about "wiping out sustainable fishing regulations" by in fact requiring them and that they be consistent with our environmental laws and UN policies.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-economic-growth/  Do you somehow object to actually promoting efforts to engage is sustainable fishing?

Did you do any research on any of this stuff is it all just repeating what you "heard" Trump did?;

That's not at ALL the impact of that EO.

Quote
American fisheries management thrives because of its rigorous science-based approach and regulations—not in spite of them. Yet the Trump administration views these regulations, which have rebuilt stocks and ushered in the end of overfishing, as burdensome. Its new executive order solicits “recommended actions” from the regional fisheries management councils to “reduce burdens on domestic fishing” and to “increase production.”

But production is not the problem; demand is. Boats laden with fish and shellfish are being turned away by seafood buyers because with global supply chains in disarray and so many restaurants closed, there is no way to process, store, or sell more product. More than two-thirds of the money that Americans spend on seafood is spent at restaurants, and sales in that sector have plunged by more than 90 percent. In these dire circumstances, it is puzzling that the Trump administration would pull the councils’ attention—a finite resource given that they still must conduct their regular business—away from these immediate and complicated problems.

Additionally, the administration’s focus on simply increasing production ignores the hard-earned lessons of the past few decades. Returning to the days of collapsing stocks; hundreds of thousands of dead seabirds, turtles, and sharks; and flattened bottom habitat that can no longer support juvenile fish is not in anyone’s best interest.

This contradiction is particularly apparent in Hawaii, where fish prices have fallen so low that boats cannot afford to leave the dock. Yet immediately after the executive order was released, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC) made the disappointing decision to push to allow commercial fishing in the Pacific marine national monuments. With nowhere to sell the fish they are catching now, it seems likely that WESPAC’s letter—and the fisheries management section of President Donald Trump’s executive order—has much more to do with its long-standing push to allow industrial fishing in the few areas now protected from it and far less to do with aiding the communities devastated by COVID-19.

You tell me how production can be increased without killing more fish. The impact makes fisheries less sustainable than they were prior to the order, by definition.

They might well combat illegal fishing, by just making less fishing illegal. There may have been people breaking the law by fishing in marine national monuments, but now it's perfectly legal!
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 23, 2020, 11:25:16 AM
Quote
They are nominally holding out for making sure no business is at all responsible for any COVID related lawsuits.

Which should be a no brainer.  Places of employment should be exempt from lawsuits.  Let OSHA fine them for violations of protocols if they didn't comply with COVID restrictions, but turning the post COVID period into class action hunting season is one of the most ridiculously self destructive things we could do as a country.

It depends, did employers take reasonable precautions to prevent their workers from being sick?

That seems exactly what OSHA or another regulator should be handling.  Using aggressive lawyers to police consequences -after the fact- without regard to the underling mistake is an error.  Why should an employer that did nothing and lucked out with no one sick face no consequences and one that did everything they could think of in good faith be bankrupted because they were wrong about something (or maybe not) and someone got sick working there?

Quote
Or did they have plant managers creating betting pools to see who would get COVID next?

You've brought that up several times.  It's callous and inhumane, but exactly what safety protocol do you think it violates?

Can you honestly say you didn't do the equivalent about people getting sick at Trump rallies?  Or inside the Trump Whitehouse?  We all know mean spirited speculation about those rallies was rampant, with commentators even writing and saying they hoped people got sick, and celebrating when certain people got sick and died.   

Quote
The original Republican language for the exemption covered both categories of employers. I'm fine if they want to exempt businesses that took all reasonable precautions but that doesn't mean every business should be exempt from anything COVID related.

By "both" you mean employers that employed people who said mean things and those that failed to implement safety protocols?  I don't know about you but every business I've been in or had contact with implemented some kind of safety protocols, but there was a lot of variation.  Some places it was clear that the staff was choosing not to follow the protocols (wearing masks pulled off their noses for example).

Employers should be liable for failing to implement safety regulations, which properly handled through fines that are balanced to deter the conduct and not through litigation lottery enforcement that holds them accountable for the costs of a COVID illness, which may or may not actually have resulted from their actions.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 23, 2020, 11:32:02 AM
Precisely this. If you are a business who lets employees and customers mill around without masks on, you deserve to pay for the hospital and funeral bills. If you can't operate your business safely, then don't operate it at all. I don't see why this is any different than suing a restaurant for getting sick due to improper food handling.

Well big difference is you can actually prove the food poisoning came from the restaurant.  COVID is highly infectious and it will often be impossible to prove causation from a specific policy failure.  Did an employee "catch it at work" or catch when they went to dinner at a co-worker's house?  Did they catch it at the grocery store or at a rally?  The very reason we have safety regulations and things like workers comp is to make the process into a "no fault" process.  Litigation requires fault, and substituting empathy for the harm caused for requiring proof of the harm is not a good thing.

Plus the nature of these kind of claims is not in fact that only businesses that allowed milling around without masks get sued.  In fact there will be hundreds of claims by people like an employee that got cited multiple times for not wearing their mask properly who got sick where they'll claim that the supervisor should have forced them to comply.  Or claims where 6 foot social distance rules were implemented and enforced where someone claims they were required to walk by someone else's station. 

Litigation is NOT a good way to test whether policies were the proper policies for something where the medical guidance shifted constantly.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 23, 2020, 12:06:35 PM

Quote
Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster.

Demonstrable false.  In fact, it's beyond a lie to make that claim.  It's beyond even hyperbole.

DOD: About two-thirds of the 79 installations addressed in this report are vulnerable to current
or future recurrent flooding and more than one-half are vulnerable to current or future drought.
About one-half are vulnerable to wildfires. It is important to note that areas subject to wildfire
may then experience serious mudslides or erosion when rains follow fires. Impacts are dispersed
around the country. Not surprisingly, impacts vary by region for coastal flooding, with greater
impacts to the East coast and Hawaii than the West coast. Desertification vulnerabilities are
limited to the sites on the list with arid soils; these are in California, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Drought vulnerabilities are more widely dispersed across the country. Wildfire and recurrent
flooding impacts are the most widely dispersed.

report that backs up what I'm saying. (https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/sec_335_ndaa-report_effects_of_a_changing_climate_to_dod.pdf)

I'm not sure if its worth it to respond to everything else that you wrote when you are this wrong. Sure, I was exaggerating when I said he dumped every regulation, but he pitched aside dozens of Obama era regulations almost entirely.

We have thousands of regulations that Trump did not "dump" designed to address climate change.  Your lie was the hyperbolic statement that he dumped them all.

There's no question he dumped many Obama regulations.  You never read the regulations in question or the regulations Trump's admin promulgated, nor detailed analysis of the pros and cons.  Obama was an activist, if you look at any regulation his admin passed closely you'll find hundreds of embedded policy preferences that have nothing to do with the stated aims.

You really really should do your homework on these kind of claims.  You've been wrong just about every time I've looked about what you are claiming.

As to the report "backing up" what your saying, that to is not true.  The report says nothing at all about Trump's regulatory changes.  In fact it directly undermines even the implication that I think you want to make - that Trump is ignoring climate change - by literally being a report of his administration that acknowledges climate impacts, studies their effects and documents that this is being done.  It is literally agreement that climate change occurs and we need to be prepared, and that's even though the focus of the report is not actually climate change - most of the bases that are impacted by climate change in a specific vector are already at risk and always were at risk on that vector.  Bases in a flood plain already are at risk of flooding, and that's the majority, the report adds that several additional bases may become at risk and details steps they are taking to protect against it.  Both on structural levels - building higher - but also on environmental ones - seeding oyster reefs to create natural erosion protection and new habitats.

You skip over - probably because it's not highlighted in the summary - that for certain conditions, like coastal flooding at bases the bigger impact is land subsidence and not rising sea levels, but there is a fairly complex interaction there.

Again, you've cited to report that directly undermines your claim and has next to nothing to do with your original premise related to Trump removing all regulations related to climate change.  Are you just planning on the fact that no one is actually going to look for themselves?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing.

Maybe you can point to the parts of this order that you disagree with.  It literally contradicts your claim about "wiping out sustainable fishing regulations" by in fact requiring them and that they be consistent with our environmental laws and UN policies.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-economic-growth/  Do you somehow object to actually promoting efforts to engage is sustainable fishing?

Did you do any research on any of this stuff is it all just repeating what you "heard" Trump did?;

That's not at ALL the impact of that EO.

So are you going to point out the sections you think are wrong?  Even cherry packing past the majority which directly contradicts your claim I think you're going to have a tough time pointing out what you disagree with.

Quote
American fisheries management thrives because of its rigorous science-based approach and regulations—not in spite of them. Yet the Trump administration views these regulations, which have rebuilt stocks and ushered in the end of overfishing, as burdensome. Its new executive order solicits “recommended actions” from the regional fisheries management councils to “reduce burdens on domestic fishing” and to “increase production.”

I know what the industry regulators claim.  Yet they overlook that they have to promulgate a regulation to open and close each fishing season, and that they have multiple conflicting regulations and unnecessary regulations.  Nothing Trump directed them to do even plausible is read as not regulating stocks and fishing, it was directed at their business as usual process that is premised on an arcane process that favors certain players (and the close relationships they have with regulators) over others.

Honestly, if you're going to put up a propaganda spiel by the very people being asked to be efficient on why they shouldn't have to because you can't review a straight forward executive order you are being part of the problem.  There should be no tolerance for having a "strong position" that is nothing more than repeating someone else's "analysis" written to serve political and personal goals.

Quote
You tell me how production can be increased without killing more fish. The impact makes fisheries less sustainable than they were prior to the order, by definition.

Maybe you should look at the parts of the executive order that direct discuss that.

Quote
They might well combat illegal fishing, by just making less fishing illegal. There may have been people breaking the law by fishing in marine national monuments, but now it's perfectly legal!

Or you could actually look at the executive order where it lays out the details on illegal fishing and what should be done about it.

I get it, it's too hard to be bothered to look at the primary materials and the facts before you form an opinion.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 23, 2020, 03:18:55 PM
Actually there are no details about combating illegal fishing, just a lot of flowery language.

" encourage public-private partnerships and promote interagency, intergovernmental, and international cooperation in order to improve global maritime domain awareness"

Give me a break.

He's got more recent stuff also.

Trump Removes Atlantic Ocean Protections to Expand Commercial Fishing (https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-removes-atlantic-ocean-protections-expand-commercial-fishing-2020-06-05/)

Opening up 5000 square miles to commercial fishing isn't removing a complex or confusing regulation. It's purely designed to turn as many fish into dollars as possible, and damn the consequences! Who cares if dozens of species have to disappear, as long as we can pump out more cans of tunafish and more lobster baskets! It's dreamy because it creates jobs! Never mind whether those jobs can be sustained 15 years from now. It's all about today, baby!
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 23, 2020, 05:03:40 PM
Actually there are no details about combating illegal fishing, just a lot of flowery language.

I mean a bunch in there, but directly contradicting your claim:

Quote
Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the Federal Government to:

(b)  combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing;

 Sec. 5.  Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing.  (a)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shall issue, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, a notice of proposed rulemaking further implementing the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing, which entered into force on June 5, 2016 (the Port State Measures Agreement).

(b)  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the extent permitted by law, encourage public-private partnerships and promote interagency, intergovernmental, and international cooperation in order to improve global maritime domain awareness, cooperation concerning at-sea transshipment activities, and the effectiveness of fisheries law enforcement.

(c)  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, consistent with applicable law and available appropriations, prioritize training and technical assistance in key geographic areas to promote sustainable fisheries management; to strengthen and enhance existing enforcement capabilities to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; and to promote implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement.

Quote
Give me a break.

Quit posting false information.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 23, 2020, 06:25:13 PM
Show me one concrete thing in there? He orders a bunch of people to talk to a bunch of other people. How does that translate into a reduction of illegal fishing? Not to mention that PSMA predates Trump in the first place, and has already been well under way. This really strikes me as similar to Trump yelling at the FDA to approve vaccines.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 29, 2020, 10:33:24 AM
Prediction on the Biden Presidency: The vast majority of the mainstream media will roll over and play dead or sit up and beg as commanded like the good little dogs they are. There will be a few exceptions, those in the media who were extremely critical of Trump and may choose to display such a high level of criticism and skepticism toward the Biden administration and it will be interesting to see what happens to them, if they are applauded by the resistance or canceled instead.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/12/media-after-trump/617503/

"Nuzzi can already tell that the dynamic will be different in the incoming administration. “On a purely social level, I don’t know that reporting critically on Joe Biden will feel as safe for reporters,” she told me..."

"... One cable-news anchor told me that praise from anti-Trump celebrities on Twitter has become like a “narcotic” for some of his colleagues. “It’s important to people that George Takei likes their monologue,” the anchor said, requesting anonymity to speak candidly about his peers (and presumably to avoid alienating George Takei)."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We see this already though, the media rolling over for Biden. It's hilarious how many questions they lead off with an insult to Trump as the preface, just to make sure Biden knows they are on his side. And it's even funnier how often Biden gives them the back of the hand anyway and they just smile and say thank you sir may I please have another?

I guess one consistent thing to be said for them though is that they lied about Trump and now they will also lie about Biden. The only difference is that their lies before were against and now they will be in favor, and I'm counting lies by omission in this more than other lies but there are enough of those to go around as well.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on December 29, 2020, 10:43:40 AM
Cherry, Trump from before the time he took office consistently called the media the enemy of the people. Given that Biden isn't calling the media the enemy I'm sure they'll be a little less inclined to go negative immediately.

Trump was fawned over by Fox news, Hannity had a direct line to the white house. Fox and Friends let Trump say whatever he wanted. I'm sure we'll see the Fox position relative to the president change more than any other major news agency.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 29, 2020, 03:55:00 PM
cherry, strange how you keep whining about media supposedly "lying" about Trump, and yet I never see you give the slightest damn about all of Trump's lies or his own fawning media, even when they've spent the last month and a half lying about election fraud in order to do a coup and overthrow American democracy.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 29, 2020, 09:10:38 PM
There you have it Cherry, the media lying for Biden and lying against Trump was all perfectly good.  The important thing is that the media continue to "report" in ways that give cover for politically palatable fallacies so that cognitive dissonance doesn't set in for the mislead.

And Aris please, please keep repeating the canard about all Trump's lies, which overwhelming are nothing more than statements the left disagrees with as a political matter and can't actual disprove.  Of course, there are enough one off statements to play the motte and bailey game, while ignoring the open lies from your own team.

The left is literally all about propaganda and misinformation.  I mean, Kamala Harris will never take a vaccine made under the Trump admin right?  She said that repeatedly, yet she took it today.  Of course she did, so did AOC with all her "socialist" beliefs she jumped straight to the front of the line (of course that's always how it works in socialism).  I mean AOC is literally from NYC, Cuomo is threatening to put people in jail for "jumping" the line at a Brooklyn clinic - the "line jumpers" in question?  Apparently people with co-morbidities and high risk conditions, but Cuomo has only authorized first responders and the few remaining elderly people living in nursing homes that he didn't kill.  Totally hate white privilege right, we all have to take it seriously, except of course for the President's son Hunter who is the literal poster boy of white privilege and abuse of connections, he of course must be protected at all costs no matter how abusive the situation has to be. 

Can't argue with conservatives talking facts?  Why bother, so much easier to deplatform them so that only the "good facts" remain to be consumed by the market.  No reason to demonstrate correctness or true, just label your opponents racists and never let them defend themselves.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 29, 2020, 11:31:13 PM
The left is literally all about propaganda and misinformation.  I mean, Kamala Harris will never take a vaccine made under the Trump admin right?  She said that repeatedly, yet she took it today. 

What a lovely example. Do please provide a citation, because I just tried to google it and found out she'd said something significantly different (https://youtu.be/p7WD8l0Dc1I), which gee, actually makes you the liar and not her. She'd said she'd take the word of medical professionals, and not of Trump. And that she'd be first in line to take it if the medical establishment said it was okay. She'd just not trust Trump on it,

So, why don't you try again with an actual lie by her, rather than prove my words with a lie by you?

As for lies by Trump, gee let's start with today: "“Breaking News: In Pennsylvania there were 205,000 more votes than there were voters. This alone flips the state to President Trump.”

And then let's proceed with his entire life history. Let me quote from wikipedia:
Quote
Trump has promoted a number of conspiracy theories that have lacked substance. These have included Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories from 2011. Known as "birther" theories, these allege that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.[64][65][66] In 2011, Trump took credit for pushing the White House to release Obama's "long-form" birth certificate, while raising doubt about its legitimacy,[67] and in 2016 admitted Obama was a natural-born citizen from Hawaii.[68] He later falsely stated that Hillary Clinton started the conspiracy theories.[68][69][70]

Within six months of Trump's announcement of his presidential campaign, FactCheck.org declared Trump the "King of Whoppers" stating, "In the 12 years of FactCheck.org's existence, we've never seen his match. He stands out not only for the sheer number of his factually false claims, but also for his brazen refusals to admit error when proven wrong."[71]

In 2016, Trump suggested that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He also claimed that he lost the popular vote in the 2016 election only because of "millions" of illegal voters.[72][73]

During his campaign, Trump claimed that his father, Fred Trump, had given him "a small loan of a million dollars," which he used to build "a company that's worth more than $10 billion,"[74] denying Marco Rubio's allegation that he had inherited $200 million from his father.[75] An October 2018 New York Times exposé on Fred and Donald Trump's finances concludes that Donald "was a millionaire by age 8," and that he had received $413 million (adjusted for inflation) from his father's business empire over his lifetime, including over $60 million ($140 million in 2018 currency) in loans, which were largely unreimbursed.[76]

Was Ted Cruz's father involved in the assassination of JFK, Seriati? But I guess according to you that lie is just perfectly, same as all other Trump lies and same as your own lies - as long as they serve Trump.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 30, 2020, 12:25:01 AM
Probably most of the media's lies are when they are lying about Trump lying.

Looking up the birther thing again, not that I want to get sucked back down that rabbit hole, but it's another fine example of the media lying by calling Trump a liar when he's the one actually telling the truth. A bunch of stories say that Trump is lying when he says that Hillary started it.

https://observer.com/2016/09/media-fact-checkers-erase-sidney-blumenthal-key-role-in-obama-birther-muck/

"Actually, he did not expressly say Clinton and her campaign started it; he merely noted how they allegedly pushed it. The misleading summation linked to a Politifact round-up of the issue. It noted that a Clinton campaign volunteer, later fired, circulated an email claiming Obama was born in Kenya.

But the Poltifact story completely omitted new claims by former McClatchy Washington Bureau chief James Asher that in 2008, Hillary Clinton’s top advisor Sidney Blumenthal convinced him to send a reporter to Kenya to investigate the possibility that Obama was born there.

In sum, the NBCNews.com item was an incomplete account of Trump’s own words linked to a misleading and separate fact-check of the issue in order to discredit something he didn’t really say."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Key words there: incomplete account. That pretty much sums up our media in two telling words.

By the way, it may have actually been Obama's literary agent who started it all anyway.

In 1990 as the president of the Harvard Law Review, the student yearbook includes a biography of Obama saying that he was “born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

And in 1991 Obama's literary agency, Acton & Dystel, while promoting sales of “Dreams of My Father” published a promotional booklet with Obama's biography stating he was “born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

And as for Biden being more respectful toward the media, that's hardly the case either.

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/joe-biden-mocks-drug-testing-in-response-to-reporters-cognitive-assessment-question/

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden seemed to mock the concept of drug testing in an interview published on Wednesday, despite his role in advancing drug testing expansion legislation during his time in the Senate.

Pressed on whether he’s taken a cognitive test like President Trump has, Biden scoffed at the question and made the drug testing comparison.

“No I haven’t taken a test. Why the hell would I take a test? C’mon man,” he said.

“That’s like saying, ‘You—before you got on this program did you take a test whether you’re taking cocaine or not, what do you think? Huh? Are you a junkie?'” he added, directing the hypothetical question to interviewer Errol Barnett of CBS News.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden slaps them around and triggers drug policy reform advocates and they all just lap it up and ask for more please.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 30, 2020, 12:56:09 AM
Probably most of the media's lies are when they are lying about Trump lying.

Looking up the birther thing again, not that I want to get sucked back down that rabbit hole, but it's another fine example of the media lying by calling Trump a liar when he's the one actually telling the truth. A bunch of stories say that Trump is lying when he says that Hillary started it.

https://observer.com/2016/09/media-fact-checkers-erase-sidney-blumenthal-key-role-in-obama-birther-muck/

"Actually, he did not expressly say Clinton and her campaign started it; he merely noted how they allegedly pushed it.

Go to the video in https://www.c-span.org/video/?415375-1/donald-trump-president-obama-born-us
Near the end, time 33:54

Video & audio of Donald Trump, word for word saying: "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy."

So, where does that leave your claims, cherry? Again a claim that the media lied and paraphrased Trump. In fact it turns out that the media quoted him exactly, they didn't even use any exaggeration, and what's in fact a lie is... that the media supposedly lied.

Gee, first Seriati, and then you, proving my words. Will you realize that it's actually your side that are the liars?

Or will you actually find an actual lie next time? I mean, I have to assume that the media must have lied about him *some time*, it'd be strange if he was the one celebrity that never a lie was spoken about, but you guys are having a very big trouble actually finding such a one.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 30, 2020, 01:11:59 AM
"But the Poltifact story completely omitted new claims by former McClatchy Washington Bureau chief James Asher that in 2008, Hillary Clinton’s top advisor Sidney Blumenthal convinced him to send a reporter to Kenya to investigate the possibility that Obama was born there."

How is getting a reporter sent to investigate Obama's possible Kenyan birth not starting it?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 30, 2020, 01:47:57 AM
"But the Poltifact story completely omitted new claims by former McClatchy Washington Bureau chief James Asher that in 2008, Hillary Clinton’s top advisor Sidney Blumenthal convinced him to send a reporter to Kenya to investigate the possibility that Obama was born there."

How is getting a reporter sent to investigate Obama's possible Kenyan birth not starting it?

Wtf?

Are you changing your claim, cherry? Previously you quoted claims that Trump had never said Hillary's campaign started it, and that it was a lie when the media said he did: now you're instead saying that he did say it but it was true?

Can you get your own story straight?

And btw, in response to your question, someone secretly investigating a possibility isn't "starting" a controversy, if they don't go public about it or try to convince others about it. That's not what the word "controversy" means. If e.g. Hillary's campaign actually secretly investigated the claims, and decided they weren't true and so didn't make any such false claims in public, then how did they start a controversy?

Now, there did exist individual Hillary supporters back in 2008 who made the claim, but you yourself just argued a post back that "By the way, it may have actually been Obama's literary agent who started it all anyway."? Are you walking back on that idea? So, why are you now instead assuming Hillary and her campaign herself started it, and that her supporters got it from her, just when you needed to concede that Trump did actually say Hillary's campaign started it -- while previously you said that perhaps people (including Trump himself?) got the idea from Obama's literary agent?

You would call it a "lie" if the media said that Trump & his campaign are the one who did anything that individual supporters of him (unconnected to his campaign) did. And you'd actually might have a point.

But you don't hold the same standards for Trump's statements, do you? He's allowed to say whatever, accuse everyone of everything, and it doesn't need to be true or have any evidence backing it.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 30, 2020, 03:10:14 PM
The left is literally all about propaganda and misinformation.  I mean, Kamala Harris will never take a vaccine made under the Trump admin right?  She said that repeatedly, yet she took it today. 

What a lovely example. Do please provide a citation, because I just tried to google it and found out she'd said something significantly different (https://youtu.be/p7WD8l0Dc1I), which gee, actually makes you the liar and not her. She'd said she'd take the word of medical professionals, and not of Trump. And that she'd be first in line to take it if the medical establishment said it was okay. She'd just not trust Trump on it,

Which is exactly the essence of great propaganda.  She said, and was widely reported as saying -  "But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it. I’m not taking it."  There's no process in the United States where a vaccine can be administered based on that standard.  So why did she say it?  literally to undermine public confidence in a vaccine produced in record time by the Trump admin for her own political gain. 

Lest you have any doubt on her goal, here's the comment from the follow up, where she deliberately undermines even the public health officials signing off on a vaccine (again for here own gain).

Quote
When asked by Bash whether she thought that public health experts and scientists would get the last word on the efficacy of a vaccine, Harris predicted that they will not.
"If past is prologue that they will not, they'll be muzzled, they'll be suppressed, they will be sidelined," Harris said. "Because he's looking at an election coming up in less than 60 days and he's grasping to get whatever he can to pretend he has been a leader on this issue when he is not."

And while undermining that any approval will be the result of the good faith decisions of the public health officials she talks out of the otherside of her mouth about trusting Dr. Faucci.  It's literally double speak where she says both things - "don't trust a vaccine approved by Trump's admin" and "trust the vaccine approved by this prominent Democrat doctor," even though its exactly the same vaccine in exactly the same process on both tracks.

The media wants to cover for her so they widely broadcast the attack portion to target any Trump benefit on the vaccine and undermine confidence.  Effectively, don't vote for Trump because he oversaw a record breaking vaccine development (less than a year, apparently the prior record was 4 years for the Mumps), because he only did by "cutting corners."  Oh but hey, now that I have to take the vaccine totally safe because you know it was approved by "process" and Dr. Faucci says so.

That's the essence of propaganda, media handlers selectively using even contradictory quotes to support the person they want to support and undercut the person they want to cut down.

Thank you for bothering to look, but please next time hold your research to the same standard you would apply in Trump's case (you know, like for example, continually citing to his "failure" to condemn racism in Charlottesville, when that lie was refuted in the very same speech).

Quote
So, why don't you try again with an actual lie by her, rather than prove my words with a lie by you?

Sure, here's a classic Harris lie:  "The president said it was a 'hoax.” referring to the Coronavirus. 

Or, how about, her classic lie about who she was listening to when she smoked pot (an album that hadn't been released at the time).

I found this fun write up of 24 lies in a single debate, backed with references, most of the claims were not actively fact checked by the supposedly neutral fact checkers for some reason.  Gee I wonder why.  https://thehayride.com/2020/10/the-24-lies-kamala-harris-told-at-last-nights-debate/ (https://thehayride.com/2020/10/the-24-lies-kamala-harris-told-at-last-nights-debate/)

I would suggest getting off Google and trying a less filtered search engine if you want balanced information, Google biases searches for Harris's lies to favor debunking by fact checkers of easy ones.  Effectively,  Google is running a giant strawman fallacy engine.  Try Duck Duck Go with a politically sensitive search and see if you don't get shockingly different results.

Quote
As for lies by Trump, gee let's start with today: "“Breaking News: In Pennsylvania there were 205,000 more votes than there were voters. This alone flips the state to President Trump.”

Is that a Trump quote?  As I understand it that's something that was tweeted on his account and that the media believed was a quote from someone else.  In any event, the media promptly claimed to debunk the underlying basis of the quote, though it's not clear that's what they did, more like they mansplained it.

As I understand it, at the moment, there are statistically more votes recorded in PA than there are voters recorded as having voted.  The explanation is that certain counties (and it won't surprise anyone if they go look at the names of the counties involved) have not actually updated the required records onto a second system that the state maintains on voter history.  Therefore, it's literally true that it appears there are more ballots than voters.

How then is that a lie?  It's not.  It could a misrepresentation if it were willful, but for Trump to retweet it?  At worst its wishful thinking and not being informed.  If you want to presume bad faith you could recast in a similar vein to Kamala's knowing false propaganda statements.

Quote
And then let's proceed with his entire life history. Let me quote from wikipedia:
Quote
Trump has promoted a number of conspiracy theories that have lacked substance. These have included Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories from 2011. Known as "birther" theories, these allege that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.[64][65][66] In 2011, Trump took credit for pushing the White House to release Obama's "long-form" birth certificate, while raising doubt about its legitimacy,[67] and in 2016 admitted Obama was a natural-born citizen from Hawaii.[68]

You guys really have TDS over this.  It will never be true that it can be proven that Obama was born in Hawaii or born in Kenya.  It will always be true that Hawaii certified him as born there.  No matter how much you wish it, the latter doesn't guarantee the former. 

I mean in the history of "dirty tricks" this controversy barely rates a 10% on the scale of most unfair tricks of all time.  Obama and his allies contributed to it for years with some of them using his "Kenyan" birth for marketing before it was relevant to his Presidential aspirations.  Here for example here is a link to one such instance being "explained," though there's literally no reason that the error would have been made in the first place if it didn't come from Obama, nor that he wouldn't have corrected it.  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566).  Compare that to falsely claiming someone is a Russian agent?  Or a Racist? as you guys like to do.  This just shows how double standards work, with anything eggregiously pro left being "fair" and even basic attacks fed by the person on the left and leftist operatives are "crimes of the century."

Honestly, given the real history where do you even get off claiming that no one could reasonably have questioned this?  Materials that Obama would have approved said.  Are you going to say its unfair going forward to claim that Hillaria Baldwin said she was born in Spain now that the lie has been blown up?

Quote
He later falsely stated that Hillary Clinton started the conspiracy theories.[68][69][70]

Okay... given it's widely known and was reported real time that Clinton allies were heavily involved in spreading it as an initial matter, and that even her campaign manager acknowledged they had to fire a staff member for spreading emails about it what is actually your beef?  Literally everyone in politics knew the "expanded" team Clinton was pushing the story even if they were taking pains to be make sure no one on "official" team Clinton could be connected.  They did the same thing against Trump and countless other times to undermine negative press.  There's a reason that "friends of Bill" is a widely known concept.

The Clintons have a lot of hanger arounds that do their dirty work in a coordinated fashion without any paper trails.

Quote
Within six months of Trump's announcement of his presidential campaign, FactCheck.org declared Trump the "King of Whoppers" stating, "In the 12 years of FactCheck.org's existence, we've never seen his match. He stands out not only for the sheer number of his factually false claims, but also for his brazen refusals to admit error when proven wrong."[71]

Shrug.  FactCheck.org is in my opinion a left biased organization.  Most "fact checkers" are, they are literally journalists pretending to have more credibility.  Journalists are overwhelmingly left.  Anyone remember when reporters were actually supposed to be fact checkers, lol.

Quote
In 2016, Trump suggested that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He also claimed that he lost the popular vote in the 2016 election only because of "millions" of illegal voters.[72][73]

Sigh.  Really?

Quote
During his campaign, Trump claimed that his father, Fred Trump, had given him "a small loan of a million dollars," which he used to build "a company that's worth more than $10 billion,"[74] denying Marco Rubio's allegation that he had inherited $200 million from his father.[75] An October 2018 New York Times exposé on Fred and Donald Trump's finances concludes that Donald "was a millionaire by age 8," and that he had received $413 million (adjusted for inflation) from his father's business empire over his lifetime, including over $60 million ($140 million in 2018 currency) in loans, which were largely unreimbursed.[76]

I read the expose.  I found it to spend a lot of time mischaracterizing values.  By being a "millionaire" at age 8, for example, it seems to have meant that his father had transferred to him some less than   $100,000.    In "today's value" circa 2018, those payments are "worth" a million dollars.  So for example Trump was receiving "$200,000" a year by age 3, really means he was receiving less than $18,000 a year in reality. 

Big whoop. 

You should read the critiques of the Times piece as well.  Forbes for one really tore apart much of the claims the NYTimes passed off on the valuation "illegalities" as nothing to write home about.  What Forbes covered, is literally the case in hundreds of thousands of valuation decisions every year that have never been questioned, never will be questioned, and would hold up in tax court or any other court, but the NYT can rephrase them to sound nefarious.

Honestly, when the headline has repeatedly been that Trump's father "gave" him at least $413 million dollar, yet much of that comes from Fred's estate when he died and all of it has been inflated to present value (circa 2018, regardless of when the transfers were made - generally at times where the multiple ranged from 13:1 to 6:1, very little at less than a 2:1 ratio).  It ignores that often times these transfers were not of cash at all, or even necessarily of accessible assets.  Forbes also pointed out that by the same measure Trump's worth was still a very large increase and that Trump had never been shy about spending money, which means the actual revenues involved were greater still.

Is the point that rich kids have a leg up?  No question.  Getting hire straight out of school by the family companies for highly compensated positions, totally an advantage.  Having parents set up trusts, partnerships and companies to facilitate wealth transfers to their kids, totally an advantage.

Pretending that just being rich is enough to explain Trump?  Delusional.  There are countless stories of rich kids that never did and never could have replicated that success.  Heck, his own siblings are in that number. 

On the million dollar loan, if I recall that was a claim in connection with a specific company set up by Donald Trump for Manhattan Real Estate, separate from his father's companies.  There's no question as a priviliged person Trump had other advantages, not least of which was access to better banking relationships and an experienced guide on government subsidy programs.

Quote
Was Ted Cruz's father involved in the assassination of JFK, Seriati? But I guess according to you that lie is just perfectly, same as all other Trump lies and same as your own lies - as long as they serve Trump.

Maybe you can pull your quote.  The articles I've seen have Trump highlighting a National Enquirer article with a picture that purported to be Ted Cruz's father with Lee Harvey Oswald.  Is there something more or specific?

Is everyone that links to dubious source somehow "lying" in your mind as well?  Trump has repeatedly retweeted others words, and somehow that translates in your head into Trump not only stating those words but also additional made words attached to them?

I thought you were disputing the idea of propaganda above, and yet you seem to be relying on it here.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on December 30, 2020, 06:04:49 PM
Quote
Is that a Trump quote?  As I understand it that's something that was tweeted on his account and that the media believed was a quote from someone else.  In any event, the media promptly claimed to debunk the underlying basis of the quote, though it's not clear that's what they did, more like they mansplained it.

He tweeted it, therefore he said it.

WE article (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/confusion-trump-tweets-nonexistent-vote-discrepancy-pennsylvania)

The article likes to go on and on about how Trump was "misconstrued" which is a common complaint in the crazed right press like WE.

Clarity matters, which is probably why you shouldn't pop off with either deliberately or accidentally false statements.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DJQuag on December 30, 2020, 06:43:13 PM
"You guys really have TDS over this.  It will never be true that it can be proven that Obama was born in Hawaii or born in Kenya.  It will always be true that Hawaii certified him as born there.  No matter how much you wish it, the latter doesn't guarantee the former."

Just so everyone is aware Seriati is the half brother of Kim Jong Un. Through his father. His mother is Chinese and therefore he is working for the CCP as we speak. I guess one day some "state" can certify him as being born there but we will all know the truth. Like the man said, hard to impossible to prove a negative, right?

PS. God help Seriati after these shocking accusations if he dares to have brown skin.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on December 30, 2020, 07:12:48 PM
Lol.  Sure go with it.  The amazing thing about the internet is anyone of us could in fact be Kim Jong Un's illegitimate brother, or we could be someone else.

The fact that Obama got a benefit from the claim to have been born in Kenya and a different benefit from claiming to have been born in Hawaii, each at a different time in his life.  The fact that the information on where he was born either came from him, or was literally one of the most racist assumptions of all time - I can't even imagine the flack that should have resulted on that.  The fact that his allies, and even family members spread the claim that he was born in Kenya. 

Yep, all exactly the same as the "benefit" I'm getting from your claim there... oh wait I'm not getting a benefit?  Must be the exact same thing.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on December 30, 2020, 07:28:56 PM
Lol.  Sure go with it.  The amazing thing about the internet is anyone of us could in fact be Kim Jong Un's illegitimate brother, or we could be someone else.

I'm actually the illegitimate son of Milton Berle.  I'd like to request that my screen name be changed to Grant Exanaconda. 

I'm sorry to hear that you're related to Kim Jong Un, Serati.  My advice is to keep it quiet.  Siblings of KJU don't really have a great life expectancy.  I promise to keep your secret.  I imagine this can psychologically explain some of your attraction to mentally unstable strongman leadership. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 31, 2020, 02:31:35 AM
The fact that Obama got a benefit from the claim to have been born in Kenya and a different benefit from claiming to have been born in Hawaii, each at a different time in his life.  The fact that the information on where he was born either came from him, or was literally one of the most racist assumptions of all time - I can't even imagine the flack that should have resulted on that. 
Where does Trump's accusation of Hillary Clinton starting the birther controversy fit in with your obsession about blaming Obama himself over it?

Btw, when the next non-white person appeared in a presidential ticket, wow, Trump again argued that perhaps they're not eligible (https://www.vox.com/2020/8/13/21366668/trump-campaign-birtherism-kamala-harris-born-in-oakland).

It's so very amazingly coincidental that Trump has gone for this tactic 2-for-2 for every non-white person on the two times they appeared on a presidential ticket, and never does it for white people, is it not? It's almost as if he consistently wants to signal that he's a racist and get the racist vote.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 31, 2020, 03:45:34 AM
The fact that Obama got a benefit from the claim to have been born in Kenya and a different benefit from claiming to have been born in Hawaii, each at a different time in his life.  The fact that the information on where he was born either came from him, or was literally one of the most racist assumptions of all time - I can't even imagine the flack that should have resulted on that. 
Where does Trump's accusation of Hillary Clinton starting the birther controversy fit in with your obsession about blaming Obama himself over it?

Btw, when the next non-white person appeared in a presidential ticket, wow, Trump again argued that perhaps they're not eligible (https://www.vox.com/2020/8/13/21366668/trump-campaign-birtherism-kamala-harris-born-in-oakland).

It's so very amazingly coincidental that Trump has gone for this tactic 2-for-2 for every non-white person on the two times they appeared on a presidential ticket, and never does it for white people, is it not? It's almost as if he consistently wants to signal that he's a racist and get the racist vote.

Though, btw, I'll note, that it's ludicrous that we're still even discussing the moral quality of your beloved psychopath dictator-wannabe, when Trump just pardoned *censored*ing war criminals.

Trump is morally depraved, and ANYONE who defends him or supports him is either just as morally depraved as he is, or an utter and complete idiot.

And to compare and contrast with that, the sin of Harris that you managed to pinpoint is... that she may have confused music she was listening to 30 years ago with music she was listening to 25 years ago. Or perhaps she lied about what music she was listening to. Such a lie, much wow, really compares with Trump pushing conspiracy theories (racist and otherwise), Trump trying to overthrow democracy, and Trump pardoning mass murderers (it's okay to be a mass murderer, thinks Trump, if you're a white mass murderer killing brown people).

But as I said: the moral depravity of the Trump supporters really shows.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 31, 2020, 06:36:04 AM
Holy cow you're right about Harris. I hadn't realized that. Maybe Obama was actually born in America but if that story about Harris is correct then she was not born in America. Not even close. Apparently she was actually born in California.

But the point as far as the birther thing goes is that Trump didn't start it. He just finished it.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 31, 2020, 06:43:21 AM
Another thing that's likely to change with a Biden administration is that the whole pound me too movement is going to get the silent treatment from the media and the idea that women should be believed is out the window too as we can see from the treatment the woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her against a wall in a Capitol Hill corridor received by the media and Democrats in general which is exactly the same treatment the Bill Clinton accusers received. Some even say they believe her but they don't care. That whole thing was always so much more about just being against Trump and Republicans in general than it ever was about being for women being treated with dignity and respect.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 31, 2020, 07:05:30 AM
Quote
But the point as far as the birther thing goes is that Trump didn't start it. He just finished it.

Nobody sane gives a *censored* about who "started it" -- except the Trumpist apologists who found that cute little excuse... that doesn't actually mean anything.

Hint, hint: If it was actually OKAY for Trump to be pushing the birther conspiracy, you wouldn't have actually cared if he started it or not, because that would have ALSO been okay -- in fact it'd have been a point of honor that he brought the issue to people's attention if it was okay. The very fact that you guys AND Trump himself are so very much focusing on the fact that he didn't "start" it, means you actually understand very well that he was morally on the wrong in the whole issue, as the entirety of the birther conspiracy movement.

For years and years Trump was the main proponent and pusher of it, same as he was the pusher of a bunch of other ludicrous conspiracy theories which he keeps pushing with LIE AFTER LIE, and which LIES he never takes back or apologizes for.

Do you think he'll apologize or retract about his accusation for the non-existent brother of Georgia's Secretary of State?

No. Neither will wmLambert apologize for pushing the idea that servers in Frankfurt and Spain were raided, neither will any other Trump apologists apologize for any other lie they're pushing, in their support of Trump's attempt to overthrow American democracy.

Another thing that's likely to change with a Biden administration is that the whole pound me too movement is going to get the silent treatment from the media and the idea that women should be believed is out the window too as we can see from the treatment the woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her against a wall in a Capitol Hill corridor received by the media and Democrats in general which is exactly the same treatment the Bill Clinton accusers received. Some even say they believe her but they don't care. That whole thing was always so much more about just being against Trump and Republicans in general than it ever was about being for women being treated with dignity and respect.

The more one lowers the standard of proof in regards to rape accusations, the more likely one is going to incentivize actually false rape accusations, which eventually is going to lead to a pushback, and get people to realize they need to increase the standard of proof required again to reasonable levels. I welcome some people reverting to sanity, after going too far into one direction, (which was the correct direction, but again pushed too far, because some people have no sense of moderation.)

But the idea that "that whole thing", which if anything I gather started from the abuse of actresses in Hollywood, was supposedly about "Trump and Republicans", is ludicrous.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on January 05, 2021, 01:45:56 AM
Where does Trump's accusation of Hillary Clinton starting the birther controversy fit in with your obsession about blaming Obama himself over it?

Exactly where it always fit?  Clinton's dirty tricks team is without question the best in the business.  The fact that Obama most likely was the source of the original claims has little to do with how Clinton's team would have found the references.  We already know they're more than happy to make things up to distract.  What ever you think about Clinton's team inventing the fake Russian collusion story, there's hardly ever been any doubt about their strategy to make up the "vast right wing conspiracy" as the explanation for every attack, or to label everyone that ever accussed Bill of sexual abuse or rape as nothing but a bimbo and engage in open character assasination. 

Quote
It's so very amazingly coincidental that Trump has gone for this tactic 2-for-2 for every non-white person on the two times they appeared on a presidential ticket, and never does it for white people, is it not? It's almost as if he consistently wants to signal that he's a racist and get the racist vote.

Technically, he also used it to attack Ted Cruz, or weren't you going to count that?  And it was used to attack McCain when he ran (Panama) and several other candidates going back for quite some time.  But oh yeah, totally just a Trump thing.

But what's most funny is that by using this tactic, you mean he commented as follows:

Quote
“I heard it today that [Harris] doesn’t meet the requirements. And, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer. I have no idea if that’s right. I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked that out.”

Is something about that inaccurate?  He had just heard it, the idea was explored in a Newsweek Article on 8/12, Trump commented on it on 8/13 and Newsweek put a disclaimer on it 8/14 telling people that it was never intended to support racism or birtherism.  You can still however read it.  https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483 (https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483)

It's an interesting hypothetical argument, that never had any chance of holding up in court.

But mostly I love it.  You're all in an outrage over Trump promoting it and running with it based on the media telling you that was what was going on.  Yet I bothered to look it up.  It's from the back end of the WhiteHouse briefing for the day, and 100% a response to the media asking about it before Trump ever said a thing on it (he'd literally talked for more than 30 minutes on numerous consequential things at this point and already been harrased with insults from "reporters" several times).  Here's the "full exchange" on Harris:

Quote
Q    There are claims circulating on social media that Kamala Harris is not eligible to be — to run for Vice President because she was an “anchor baby,” I quote.  Do you or can you definitively say whether or not Kamala Harris is eligible — legal — and meets the legal requirements to run as Vice President?

THE PRESIDENT:  So, I just heard that.  I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements.  And, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.  I have no idea if that’s right.  I would’ve — I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for Vice President.

Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  But that’s a very serious — you’re saying that — they’re saying that she doesn’t qualify because she wasn’t born in this country?

Q    She was.

Q    No, she was born in this country, but her parents did not — the claims say that her parents did not receive their permanent residence at that time.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, I don’t know about it.  I just heard about it.  I’ll take a look.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-briefing-august-13-2020/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-briefing-august-13-2020/)

Wow.  The Press asked the President about something they were reading on social media, and he answered that he just heard about, accurately stated that the lawyer that wrote the piece is a smart guy (and if you read the piece, I doubt you'd think he was trying to disqualify Harris by it) and that he doesn't have any idea if that's true but he'll look into it?

The Washington Post Headline on the same day is that "Trump Promotes false claim that Kamala Harris may not be a natural born citizen." 

Looks like a pretty clear case of fake news from the Washington Post and the AP, with a headline that they'd written before the question was even asked.  Buried pretty significant sucesses from the Press conference that people might have really cared about behind yet another made for the liberal sheep story faithfully misrepresenting reality.  Quite literally "news" the media made up by asking a question that Trump honestly responded to and running with a widely mischaracterizing headline, that over time has let you make an assertion that Trump was promoting a Harris birther story without the least bit of need for facts or proof.

Maybe spend less time calling me a liar, and more reviewing original source material.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on January 05, 2021, 02:27:54 AM
Though, btw, I'll note, that it's ludicrous that we're still even discussing the moral quality of your beloved psychopath dictator-wannabe, when Trump just pardoned *censored*ing war criminals.

Not a fan of the pardon of the Blackwater contractors.  Not an expert on it either.  Seems if he was going to do anything a commutation would have been preferable.  I don't think you're going to accept that there were two sides to that story even though that seems to be the case.  Still I agree these convictions don't seem to have needed  to have been overturned.

Quote
And to compare and contrast with that, the sin of Harris that you managed to pinpoint is... that she may have confused music she was listening to 30 years ago with music she was listening to 25 years ago. Or perhaps she lied about what music she was listening to. Such a lie, much wow, really compares with Trump pushing conspiracy theories (racist and otherwise), Trump trying to overthrow democracy, and Trump pardoning mass murderers (it's okay to be a mass murderer, thinks Trump, if you're a white mass murderer killing brown people).

So, you clearly didn't look up Harris's lie.  It wasn't that it was a lie about the music, it was about the context.  Harris trying to "normalize" herself as pro drug by claiming she was smoking pot in the past and it was no biggie.  The same Harris who was a district attorney of San Francisco and attorney general of California and responsible for putting other people into prison for smoking pot.

So was she a total hypocrite jailing others for crimes she was committing?  Or was she trying to recast her record for a party that believes in "defunding the police" as someone who didn't put thousands of people into prison?

I get it, you only see what you want to see in a situation.  And can't help yourself but to throw garbage against the wall to see what sticks when it comes to Trump.

Quote
But as I said: the moral depravity of the Trump supporters really shows.

Totally, shows.  How I can be patient while you hurl baseless insults time and again.  While I research the random diatribes you throw without even cursory research so I can be patronized by hearing the same nonsense again and again (by the way reference to the Nissour massacre was a good reference, not at all your typical garbage).
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on January 05, 2021, 12:39:22 PM
Quote
Is something about that inaccurate?  He had just heard it, the idea was explored in a Newsweek Article on 8/12, Trump commented on it on 8/13 and Newsweek put a disclaimer on it 8/14 telling people that it was never intended to support racism or birtherism.  You can still however read it.

In this case, I don't think you can call it inaccurate. I think I have to believe that Trump likes using any negative ammunition against opponents. Do we really think the Trump election team never thought to investigate that angle? Plus, it fails on Trump's part to recognize that someone born in the US is a US citizen for all purposes, including the Presidency. An appropriate response that doesn't fan flames would be something like, "I see no reason to believe that Harris is ineligible."

But I do agree, there is nothing substantive to point out that Trump was lying or spreading a false statement. I don't think it is wrong for the news organizations to comment on how it does encourage negativity and racism. Since the article, he's had four months to have someone look into it, including the white house counsel. He hired Eastman who wrote the ludicrous op-ed. In December. He's not bothered to correct the record in any way that I'm aware. I'm not aware of him ever correcting the record on his false statements.

I did read the piece, and I'm not sure what other purpose he could have had than disqualifying Harris.

Quote
It would be an inauspicious start for any campaign for the highest offices in the land to ignore the Constitution's eligibility requirements; how else could we possibly expect the candidates, if elected, to honor their oaths to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and...to the best of [their] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"

A direct challenge not only to her eligibility, which the rest of the piece suggest she is not based on his interpretation. He then goes on to suggest that because of this we can't expect her to defend the Constitution. It's basically a wistful desire that she would go away, despite acknowledging fully that he is in the minority on this interpretation and that his arguments will be dismissed.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 05, 2021, 12:46:13 PM
But I do agree, there is nothing substantive to point out that Trump was lying or spreading a false statement. I don't think it is wrong for the news organizations to comment on how it does encourage negativity and racism. Since the article, he's had four months to have someone look into it, including the white house counsel. He hired Eastman who wrote the ludicrous op-ed. In December. He's not bothered to correct the record in any way that I'm aware. I'm not aware of him ever correcting the record on his false statements.

For what it's worth you seem to have two separate standards going at once, one of which is whether Trump is a damned liar (which is the point Seriati was addressing) and the other of which is whether he is unusually virtuous and has gone out of his way to dismiss false claims about his opponents. While it would be nice, it is not something I would expect at the moment that a politician would make public statements with the express purpose of following up on random claims made against their opponents, to refute those claims. That would be extraordinarily charitable in the current political climate. I think Trump probably has his hands full refuting claims made against him on a daily basis, to hold him accountable for not refuting claims made against Harris.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Seriati on January 05, 2021, 04:44:48 PM
Well there's both of those Fen, but I'd actually like to point out a third point.  The claim was that Trump was promoting the Harris story in the same manner he was behind the Obama birther claims.  The point I was making is that that specific claim was false. 

This was a "controversy" invented by the media.  Trump responded to a media question rather neutrally and the media immediately published hundreds of articles implying Trump was pushing this narrative.  Go look at some of the articles published that day, long stories with multiple sections primarily written to remind people of Trump's interaction with Obama and to link the two "stories."  The entire point wasn't to convey that Trump was pushing Harris had a birth problem (which was objectively false) but to write lengthy negative diatribes about Trump's pushing the Obama birther story - which was completely stale as a new news item - by giving it a new "tie-in". 

Its no mistake that they also originated the racism version implying or flat out stating that Trump raised theses against the two candidates of color.

Looks like a premeditated hit job, and apparently that works.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on January 14, 2021, 09:58:54 AM
https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2021/01/14/956620254/his-cabinet-still-unconfirmed-biden-looks-at-plan-b-for-early-days-in-office (https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2021/01/14/956620254/his-cabinet-still-unconfirmed-biden-looks-at-plan-b-for-early-days-in-office)

Quote
Former President Barack Obama had six cabinet members confirmed by the Senate before his Inauguration Day in 2009. President Trump had two. But when President-elect Joe Biden takes office next week, it's unclear whether he'll have any cabinet members in place.

After he won the election, Biden rolled out his picks for top officials quickly. But between Trump's protracted political fight over election results and the future control of the Senate up in the air until the Jan. 5 Georgia runoffs, the Republican-controlled Senate was slow to schedule hearings for them.

The Senate may have hearings and confirm a few on the 19th. Many of his appointments are easy to confirm, they've been through the process before. After the 20th when power shifts from McConnel to Schumer I expect things will speed up dramatically. Most of his cabinet are moderates so once Republicans lose the leverage of obstruction by holding things up I expect most of them to get 70+ votes for confirmation.

IMO Biden's most controversial pick is for defense and not because the nominee isn't qualified but he picked someone who needs a recent military retiree waiver again. I heard Republicans complain about his pick for OBM but the main objection seemed to be that she was politically active on twitter. I didn't actually see any highly inflammatory tweets, but they could be out there. After the 20th I expect things will pick up, but that partially depends on the impeachment trial. McConnel could help make things easier. He could go more mainstream or he could follow the early Obama years approach slow down everything as much as possible to "make Biden a one term president."
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 17, 2021, 12:50:16 PM
Any predictions on what the national debt will look like by the end of Biden's first term?

Obama's thoughts on the subject have not aged very well:

On July 3, 2008 Barack Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was irresponsible and "unpatriotic":

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

It almost seems childish how naive he was, and maybe all of us. I mean I didn't actually think Obama was going to do anything about the national debt but I guess I had some small sliver of hope that it might be a remote possibility. Nope. Not a chance. It was just never going to happen.

Obviously I don't expect Biden to bring the national debt under any sort of control. I don't think he's promised to do so and it's not very realistic to believe he would especially under these circumstances so having said that I'll also say that if the national debt at the end of his first term is any lower than it is when Trump leaves office that would be a fantastic achievement by Biden and his administration and I'd tip my hat to him.

I very seriously doubt that will happen though so how about predictions on how high the national debt will actually go in the next four years, just for fun and bragging rights?

I don't want to go home so I'm going to go big. It seems like both Obama and Trump each raised the national debt by almost ten trillion smackers, give or take a trillion or two. If Biden only raises it by another ten trillion I guess that's actually kind of respectable. Can't fault him much for not doing any better than his predecessors. But I'm going to call it at twenty trillion. Biden will raise the national debt a little over another twenty trillion dollars so it'll be just shy of 50 trillion dollars by the time he leaves office in four years or even if Harris takes over before that.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on January 17, 2021, 12:54:51 PM
There is no way the total debt is going to be the same or any smaller.  I would love to see the rate of increase slow, but until the pandemic ends, that will not, and probably should not happen.

In other words I would like to see a decrease in the rate of the increase in the annual deficit, but as you said, I Biden has not campaigned on that so it might not be a good measure of his term in office.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on January 17, 2021, 01:47:13 PM
There are differences, of course.  Obama came into power at the very beginning of the world-wide 'great recession', and although the economy recovered over the next few years, it was a slow recovery.

Obama was then in power for 8 years, over which the debt increased by about $9 trillion.

Contrast that to Trump, who inherited an improving economy and who increased the national debt by about $8 trillion in only 4 years.  Yes, COVID happened in 2020, but the majority of the increase in debt occurred prior to the pandemic.

As Mark observed - under Biden, the debt will continue to increase, and it almost certainly should increase over the next several years - it would be completely irresponsible to do otherwise.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 17, 2021, 02:00:23 PM
Biden team already holding talks with Iran on US return to nuclear deal (https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-biden-team-already-holding-talks-with-iran-on-us-return-to-nuclear-deal/)

If true, Isn't this what Flynn was accused of doing?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 17, 2021, 08:50:22 PM
Biden team already holding talks with Iran on US return to nuclear deal (https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-biden-team-already-holding-talks-with-iran-on-us-return-to-nuclear-deal/)

If true, Isn't this what Flynn was accused of doing?

Yes, but we already knew those rules only apply to people who aren't members of the Democratic Party.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 19, 2021, 04:40:54 AM
Another prediction for the Biden Presidency and this one seems pretty easy:

Border chaos. Again.

Was the Biden administration joking when they put out this line about the caravans not getting in immediately?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/incoming-biden-administration-migrant-caravan-don-t-come-you-won-n1254550

"Incoming Biden administration to migrant caravan: Don't come, you won't get in immediately"

And why shouldn't they get in immediately? Why shouldn't anyone and everyone be able to come to America now that our official policy is one amnesty after another with a path to citizenship for people who get here no matter how?

Who is going to believe that there won't be another amnesty down the road after this one? Who in the world is going to respect our laws when our own President and the majority of our Congress say they don't deserve any respect by rewarding the people who break them with green cards and American citizenship? Nobody. That's who.

I don't feel sorry for what's about to happen to our country since our people voted and that's what they voted for but it is sad watching the problems caused in Latin America by Biden's open borders policy and promise of citizenship as a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The least Biden could have done was wait until after the Covid crisis had abated before bragging about ending Trump's Muslim travel ban while at the same time also blocking Trump's plan to lift COVID-19 European travel restrictions. How does that make any sense? Ban travel from Europe but keep the people flowing from everywhere else? He obviously understands that travel needs to be carefully controlled right now and yet he's encouraging masses to travel, slowly, all through Latin America to get here and there is no doubt they will be making the Covid problem worse just as all travelers have been doing since the outbreak started.

Grant had brought up the idea that we should celebrate the arrival of all the people who could survive the journey of hundreds or even thousands of miles even as they braved and endured Covid to do it. That misses the point though. It's not about the 99% who are fine with Covid. It's about the small percentage but still very large numbers of people who are suffering because the ones who don't have as much of a problem aren't protecting the ones who do.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 19, 2021, 07:40:35 AM
The least Biden could have done was wait until after the Covid crisis had abated before bragging about ending Trump's Muslim travel ban while at the same time also blocking Trump's plan to lift COVID-19 European travel restrictions. How does that make any sense? Ban travel from Europe but keep the people flowing from everywhere else?
Presumably unlike you, Biden has seen a map about which areas of the world suffer the most from the epidemic, and which ones suffer very little.

You should be asking yourself instead why the *censored* Trump wants on his final day to ease travel from the most covid-infected regions (Europe and Brazil), rather than why Biden wants to ease travel from the least covid-infected ones and keep the restrictions on the worst.

Of course I don't have much hope of you realizing that it's because Trump is an actively evil man, to such an extent we'd only previously seen in cartoons.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on January 19, 2021, 10:33:45 AM
You should be asking yourself instead why the *censored* Trump wants on his final day to ease travel from the most covid-infected regions (Europe and Brazil), rather than why Biden wants to ease travel from the least covid-infected ones and keep the restrictions on the worst.

The obvious answer is that Trump had no expectation that his executive order would come into effect.  What he wanted was either to use his EO as a signal to certain parties, or to force Biden to take an action that could be used to damage his administration in the future.  Whether that calculation is correct is another story.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on January 19, 2021, 11:20:37 AM
Biden team already holding talks with Iran on US return to nuclear deal (https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-biden-team-already-holding-talks-with-iran-on-us-return-to-nuclear-deal/)

If true, Isn't this what Flynn was accused of doing?

Flynn was accused of lying to the FBI about doing this. So if the FBI has concerns about any contacts with Iran I suggest anyone on the Biden team that contacted Iranians that they not lie about it.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 19, 2021, 01:03:41 PM
Biden team already holding talks with Iran on US return to nuclear deal (https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-biden-team-already-holding-talks-with-iran-on-us-return-to-nuclear-deal/)

If true, Isn't this what Flynn was accused of doing?

Flynn was accused of lying to the FBI about doing this. So if the FBI has concerns about any contacts with Iran I suggest anyone on the Biden team that contacted Iranians that they not lie about it.

This is why the FBI was interviewing Flynn in the first place though, because they were spying on his phone call, correct?  Are you agreeing that the Biden teams actions, if the reports are true, are at least as suspicious?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on January 19, 2021, 01:11:53 PM
Biden team already holding talks with Iran on US return to nuclear deal (https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-biden-team-already-holding-talks-with-iran-on-us-return-to-nuclear-deal/)

If true, Isn't this what Flynn was accused of doing?

Flynn was accused of lying to the FBI about doing this. So if the FBI has concerns about any contacts with Iran I suggest anyone on the Biden team that contacted Iranians that they not lie about it.

This is why the FBI was interviewing Flynn in the first place though, because they were spying on his phone call, correct?  Are you agreeing that the Biden teams actions, if the reports are true, are at least as suspicious?

The FBI was spying on the Russian ambassador. The content of the call, discussing nullifying sanctions that were to punish the Russians for acting on behalf of Trump during the campaign were what made it suspicious.

Biden has people with serious government experience. I suspect the extent of the Biden team's calls are hey, when we take power we would like to have meetings ASAP to discuss a new iteration of the nuclear deal.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2021, 04:54:48 PM
At this point I'm waiting for the mass closings/bankruptcies of small businesses across the country as the Democrats try to stimulate the economy with a new $15/hour federal minimum wage. Due to Covid19 many are barely hanging on as it is, a $15 minimum wage will destroy them. But hey, that'll boost profits even more for Amazon, Walmart, and a select list of national restaurant chains. Those wonderful Democrats, always looking out for the little guy.

I'm also "eagerly awaiting" the Alien and Sedition Act version 3.0 now with "red flag" gun control provisions. Passing a law that violates the first amendment isn't enough, let's violate the 2nd amendment while we're at it.
 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 21, 2021, 01:39:04 AM
Fringier prediction, but one I can see happening.

The House enacts legislation to "keep America safe" and either the Senate obstructs, or Biden vetoes the bill.
Giving even odds on unironic left-wing led riotsmostly peaceful protests in response. Where any destructive mayhem that results will be blamed on "right wing agitators."
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on January 21, 2021, 09:44:30 AM
Fringier prediction, but one I can see happening.

The House enacts legislation to "keep America safe" and either the Senate obstructs, or Biden vetoes the bill.
Giving even odds on unironic left-wing led riotsmostly peaceful protests in response. Where any destructive mayhem that results will be blamed on "right wing agitators."

I would bet against it. The house is narrowly divided. The whole democratic caucus has to be behind almost every bill. The Senate is 50/50. Biden is pretty much a moderate. Pelosi is smart enough to not force the few swing district members she has left to cast difficult votes on legislation that isn't going anywhere.

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on January 21, 2021, 09:50:39 AM
Fringier prediction, but one I can see happening.

The House enacts legislation to "keep America safe" and either the Senate obstructs, or Biden vetoes the bill.
Giving even odds on unironic left-wing led riotsmostly peaceful protests in response. Where any destructive mayhem that results will be blamed on "right wing agitators."

Protests that criminals may turn into riots and looting are going to follow the next horrific police killing caught on video.

Maybe the protesters learned this summer, go home before the sun sets because the provocateurs come out at night and will co-opt your protest for anarchy and destruction.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 21, 2021, 02:41:29 PM
Fringier prediction, but one I can see happening.

The House enacts legislation to "keep America safe" and either the Senate obstructs, or Biden vetoes the bill.
Giving even odds on unironic left-wing led riotsmostly peaceful protests in response. Where any destructive mayhem that results will be blamed on "right wing agitators."

I would bet against it. The house is narrowly divided. The whole democratic caucus has to be behind almost every bill. The Senate is 50/50. Biden is pretty much a moderate. Pelosi is smart enough to not force the few swing district members she has left to cast difficult votes on legislation that isn't going anywhere.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-new-domestic-war-on-terror-is

Quote
The more honest proponents of this new domestic War on Terror are explicitly admitting that they want to model it on the first one. A New York Times reporter noted on Monday that a “former intelligence official on PBS NewsHour” said “that the US should think about a ‘9/11 Commission’ for domestic extremism and consider applying some of the lessons from the fight against Al Qaeda here at home.” More amazingly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal — for years head of Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and the commander of the war in Afghanistan — explicitly compared that war to this new one, speaking to Yahoo News:

Quote
I did see a similar dynamic in the evolution of al-Qaida in Iraq, where a whole generation of angry Arab youth with very poor prospects followed a powerful leader who promised to take them back in time to a better place, and he led them to embrace an ideology that justified their violence. This is now happening in America….I think we’re much further along in this radicalization process, and facing a much deeper problem as a country, than most Americans realize.”

Anyone who, despite all this, still harbors lingering doubts that the Capitol riot is and will be the neoliberal 9/11, and that a new War on Terror is being implemented in its name, need only watch the two short video clips below, which will clear their doubts for good. It is like being catapulted by an unholy time machine back to Paul Wolfowitz’s 2002 messaging lab.

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1351134715177283584
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/06/john-brennan-james-claper-michael-hayden-former-cia-media-216943
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 21, 2021, 10:01:34 PM
Fringier prediction, but one I can see happening.

The House enacts legislation to "keep America safe" and either the Senate obstructs, or Biden vetoes the bill.
Giving even odds on unironic left-wing led riotsmostly peaceful protests in response. Where any destructive mayhem that results will be blamed on "right wing agitators."

I would bet against it. The house is narrowly divided. The whole democratic caucus has to be behind almost every bill. The Senate is 50/50. Biden is pretty much a moderate. Pelosi is smart enough to not force the few swing district members she has left to cast difficult votes on legislation that isn't going anywhere.

That didn't take long:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/portland-protest.html
Quote
In Portland, about 200 people clad in black marched to the local Democratic headquarters, where some of them smashed windows and tipped over garbage containers, lighting the contents of one on fire.

Those who took to the streets on Wednesday said they were a mix of anarchists, anti-fascists and racial justice protesters. One of their signs said, “We don’t want Biden — we want revenge” for killings committed by police officers and “fascist massacres.”
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 21, 2021, 10:25:58 PM
Fox just putting into clear words and pictures my own thoughts on the subject since Biden first made his promise of open borders, mass amnesty, and no limits to immigration, illegal and otherwise.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-administration-100-day-moratorium-114111710.html

At the height of the pandemic now with deaths at record levels Biden is so right about masks but so wrong about his open borders invitation. Whatever good results we're going to get from increased masking is going to be more than offset by the chaos Biden is sowing at the border.

Like the border agent there said, when you get thousands of people crossing and some of them have Covid-19, what are you supposed to do about that? The short answer is with Biden there is nothing you can do. You're just going to have to spread it around.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 24, 2021, 04:38:02 PM
Here's kind of a crazy prediction that I hope does not come to pass.

China takes Taiwan.

I give it a low probability of actually happening but it seems like it has a much greater chance of happening now under the weakness Biden is projecting especially since he's already in China's pocket, bought and paid for. China also sees that Russia got away with taking Crimea under Obama. Sure there were some repercussions but they own it right now and that's not changing. Of course there are huge differences and that's why this prediction is crazy. If it happens though that will mark a massive failure of the Biden administration though it won't stop our media from making excuses for him and treating him as the greatest anyway.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 24, 2021, 07:41:28 PM
Taiwan is a problem for the US regardless of the outcome, biggest issue is there is no strong viable exit scenario for the US should it insert itself into things.

Beyond that, I've been inclined to believe that if China is going to invade Taiwan, they're going to do it in the next 5 years. And with Biden as PotUS and the nation being in the political condition it's in, the next 4 is entirely possible, and they're probably hard at work crunching numbers on the odds of an invasion working this year specifically.

As they have to be nominally aware that for their best chance of not getting the United States involved, they need either a friendly or luke-warm Democratic Congress which is in a position to advocate doing nothing. As such, invading in an election year (2022) is a bad idea, as it would make China's invasion of Taiwan the topic that Democrats couldn't avoid, they'd have to respond strongly from the onset. But where it comes to an invasion this year? They can limp-wrist the initial response, and once China's dug in they can make excuses for why going in to dig them out is a bad idea.

And 2023 becomes potentially more problematic for them if they believe that a Republican House and Senate is likely to happen. As the Republicans are unlikely to stand idly by as China invades, even if they have to ram something down Biden's throat. So I guess basically it's this year, maybe 2023 if the Democrats keep control of Congress by some means, or 2025 if the Democrats have control of everything once again.

In any case, weather patterns being what they are in the region, China won't be likely to do anything until the end of March at the earliest, the prevailing sea conditions at this time of year is more likely to result in troops making an amphibious landing being combat ineffective by the time they made landfall. And they need a window of opportunity that is measured in days/weeks for landing everything they'd need, not one measured in fractions of a day.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on January 24, 2021, 08:26:15 PM
I give it a low probability of actually happening but it seems like it has a much greater chance of happening now under the weakness Biden is projecting especially since he's already in China's pocket, bought and paid for.

Where is this coming from?

Even without American intervention, China is going to have a rough time taking Taiwan.  Invading islands is pretty difficult, even if they are in seeing distance.  See 1940.  Even if everything goes right at first and the PLA is able to take out ROC's air forces, air defenses, and navy, they still have to deal with a million screaming Taiwanese. At this point I honestly believe that Japan, Australia, and the Phillipines are going to back Taiwan up, even without America helping out, which is traditionally what they would wait for and what they really want to see.  America being in the game makes it not a gamble for them.  China on the other hand would be gambling EVERYTHING on America not intervening, and being able to knock Taiwan out fast enough that Japan and Australia really can't help or are too scared to do so. 

I hate to generalize or use stereotypes, but the Chinese are some pretty good gamblers.  They know that American foreign power in general and American military projection in particular has been on the wane since 2004.  We're at an all time low since 1897.  They probably don't see that trend changing anytime soon.  So however good their chances of success are NOW, they will only continue to improve the longer they wait.  China is playing a long game and they have been since the 1980s.  Very much like Russia, they are very slowly turning up the heat on the the little frogs in the pot, little by little, to the point that by the time the water starts to boil, they never noticed and are cooked. 

I still don't know where you're getting that Biden is in China's pocket.  So far he's been projecting strengthening ties with allies that had been strained by The Perfect Caller's gangster/extortionist foreign policy. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 24, 2021, 09:34:31 PM
Even without American intervention, China is going to have a rough time taking Taiwan.  Invading islands is pretty difficult, even if they are in seeing distance.  See 1940.  Even if everything goes right at first and the PLA is able to take out ROC's air forces, air defenses, and navy, they still have to deal with a million screaming Taiwanese. At this point I honestly believe that Japan, Australia, and the Phillipines are going to back Taiwan up, even without America helping out, which is traditionally what they would wait for and what they really want to see.  America being in the game makes it not a gamble for them.  China on the other hand would be gambling EVERYTHING on America not intervening, and being able to knock Taiwan out fast enough that Japan and Australia really can't help or are too scared to do so.

Uh... When was the last time you looked at what the various defense think-tanks and DOD has been putting out there?

In a Taiwan invasion scenario, any help that's going to be sent in basically has hours to get into Taiwan before the risk starts to become unacceptable. After that, it will likely be weeks before the United States could regain air supremacy over the region, and that still doesn't address the matter of China's missile defense umbrella which extends well beyond Taiwan already.

If the Americans expect to take the better part of a month getting to Taiwan as their best case once China initiates hostilities(Airfields are currently the limiting factor, China can put more planes in the air in the region with shorter turn-around times than the US + Allies can).

Any coalition forces without American Air support(or the US bases in the region) is unlikely to be able to do anything particularly effective. About the only thing Australia, Japan and the Philippines could do at that point is block China's ability to use the Straits of Malacca and some other access routes into the Indian Ocean. In either case, Taiwan is effectively on its own, nobody is getting Taiwan-friendly troops on the ground in Taiwan in anything resembling timely manner without the Americans being involved.

For Japan specifically, that also opens them up to a wide range of threats and problems of their own as well, as most of their trade is also going to need to divert away from the reach of Chinese forces, never mind China using their involvement as an excuse to gobble up some more real estate. Given in this scenario you're presuming Japan went in but America did not, this also means that the mutual defense pact with the US is presumably off the table as well so because Japan involved itself in a war with China that the US opted out of, the United States will not protect Japan from anything China does to Japan as a consequence.

The Philippines likewise has risks to contend with as well, but as China already controls their "9 dash line" claims thanks to Obama, they're possibly reasonably safe from outright ground invasion, bombings and missile strikes might be another matter.

Quote
I hate to generalize or use stereotypes, but the Chinese are some pretty good gamblers.  They know that American foreign power in general and American military projection in particular has been on the wane since 2004.  We're at an all time low since 1897.  They probably don't see that trend changing anytime soon.  So however good their chances of success are NOW, they will only continue to improve the longer they wait.  China is playing a long game and they have been since the 1980s.  Very much like Russia, they are very slowly turning up the heat on the the little frogs in the pot, little by little, to the point that by the time the water starts to boil, they never noticed and are cooked.

See above comment, their Air Force is rather large already, albeit not up to the standards of the US, Japan, Australia and other NATO forces, but Gen 3 and Gen 4 aircraft are still plenty formidable, and China has the airfields to support their craft in the region. We don't. Right now, it is believed it would take us anywhere from 4 to 6 weeks to knock out the Chinese PLAF. And US battle doctrine doesn't like to send surface forces into areas where we don't control the skies.

On top of that we have Chinese Surface to Air Capabiliies to contend with, as well as their DF-21 and DF-26 "carrier killer" missiles to keep the US Navy at a respectful distance.... Which also brings us to their PLAN, where they have more combat hulls than the US Navy does now, although the US Navy still reigns in terms of gross tonnage. And there is the matter some of the PLAN ships still date back to World War 2.

China's expectation is that their Area Denial Capabilities will hold a United States response at bay long enough that they can complete the conquest of Taiwan before US Troops are on the island in any kind of numbers. At which point the US will take it at a "fate accomplished" scenario for Taiwan and sue for peace before our manpower and equipment casualty count goes even higher.

That and they're pretty confident in their "kill chain" for the DF-21 and DF-26. They're inclined to believe that if they can knock out one or two of our super-carriers, and shoot down a couple F-35's, we'll be begging for an end to hostilities in short order. In a lot of respects, they're thinking a lot like General Lee during the early part of the US Civil War, or the Japanese when they went after Pearl Harbor... Or to some extent, Santa Anna when he went after the Alamo.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 24, 2021, 09:40:57 PM
All of that type of analysis also goes apart from the issue of technological supremacy. Since it has been quite a while since the U.S. had to wage an all-out war in which there was any doubt of the outcome, I can only imagine whether game-changing techs have been developed and never yet deployed. Imagine, for example, if either side actually had the conspiracy-theory orbital microwave weapon; or a new stealth technology; or something else that would render the rest of the calculus obsolete. The more technology grows, the worse it will be to finally see it unleashed. I hope we never do...
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 24, 2021, 10:12:00 PM
All of that type of analysis also goes apart from the issue of technological supremacy. Since it has been quite a while since the U.S. had to wage an all-out war in which there was any doubt of the outcome, I can only imagine whether game-changing techs have been developed and never yet deployed. Imagine, for example, if either side actually had the conspiracy-theory orbital microwave weapon; or a new stealth technology; or something else that would render the rest of the calculus obsolete. The more technology grows, the worse it will be to finally see it unleashed. I hope we never do...

I'm remembering some reporting at what the United States used in Serbia back in the 1990's, which is the last time the US waged war against someone who was a near-peer in terms of technical capabilities. I'm sure that "toy box" is larger and more varied now, it just hasn't had reason to be used again. The secret/"experimental" toybox the US has to work with is one I'm pretty sure China is not going to appreciate being on the receiving end of. I agree that some of those items are likely to be quite devastating to any reasonably modern infrastructure.

The other problem in all of this is hubris, mostly on China's part. The last actual war they fought was in the late 1970's against Vietnam, and the PLA is more of a good old boys club for the CCP than it is a military meritocracy, as the recurring purges of their ranks, and who some of the generals are, also points toward. Going by what I've seen elsewhere, they already have most of their population on a Nationalistic Frenzy, and one that is also convinced that war with the US is inevitable because the United States will not allow another nation to surpass it as the world's leading economy.

Reunification with Taiwan plays directly into that narrative. As it can be claimed that it is the United States preventing Taiwan from unifying with China "peacefully" because of the threat that a unified China would present to the United States. (Never mind that many in Taiwan find the CCP to be repugnant, and that's why they won't unify; the people on the Chinese mainland can't wrap their heads around that one, and the CCP doesn't want them to)

So for the people in mainland China, a Taiwan invasion will instead be a "liberation" for the people of Taiwan from the oppression of American tyranny. The United States getting involved militarily is simply further proof that the Americans are tyrants that fear China's potential.

Of course, on the flip-side, the last ground war fought against a near-peer force was Operation Desert Storm. The last air-war with near-peer air defenses was the NATO operation involving Kosovo/Serbia, where Serbia kept their planes on the ground. And really, the last time the Military was fighting a near-peer Air Force which did fight back was in Korea back in the 1950's.

But then, the United States regularly does joint training between it's two(three) different service branches with fixed wing fighters, and additionally trains with it's dozens of allies as well. So it should be a little less moribund in terms of operational capabilities. It does get challenged by outside parties regularly. Meanwhile for China? They get whatever training Russia offers, and whatever they might manage to gather on the rare occasion they're invited to participate in multi-national training events like RimPac.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on January 24, 2021, 10:42:58 PM
Uh... When was the last time you looked at what the various defense think-tanks and DOD has been putting out there?

Not this crap again.  OK, I call.  Show your defense think tanks and DOD estimates. 

Quote
In a Taiwan invasion scenario, any help that's going to be sent in basically has hours to get into Taiwan before the risk starts to become unacceptable. After that, it will likely be weeks before the United States could regain air supremacy over the region, and that still doesn't address the matter of China's missile defense umbrella which extends well beyond Taiwan already.

Explain your invasion of Taiwan. 

There are two scenarios.  First, China takes a month to get everything ready.  Troops are moved to staging areas.  All the supplies they need for a cross strait invasion are prepared and stockpiled.  The ships they need are all at embarkation points.  The planes are armed and finally air defense patrols around Chinese airfields and ports are stepped up.  All this we can see.  All this we can hear about.  All this gives time for the US, Japan, and Australia to mobilize and get things in place. 

Scenario 2:  China goes for a surprise attack to knock out as much air defense and naval forces around Taiwan with ballistic missile attacks.  They can do that quickly without getting everything else ready.  They can knock out some of Taiwan's air defenses and navy with a surprise attack.  Flip side is Taiwan has been ready for this for 50 years.  All their hangers are hardened.  Their aviation fuel underground.  Some of their hangers are built into the sides of mountains.  The air defense is mobile, how is China going to get all of them?  Blanket the entire island.  Even with their 2000+ ballistic missiles, they couldn't do it. 

Then, you have to establish air superiority over Taiwan.  You're still going to have to deal with hundreds of ROC fighters and their SAMS.  But China could eventually wear the ROC down if they are alone. 

But then you have to cross the straight with your invasion force.  The ROC army will be waiting on the beaches.  There are only so many beaches on Taiwan that are capable of landing on.  They can also launch an airborne attack, but the PLAs airborne forces are not large enough to do the job alone.  You have to land on the beaches.  Then they're going to be slogging against ROC troops for a week to months. 

If the PLA launches a surprise attack, it's still going to take weeks to get the PLA in position with the supplies they need to sustain an invasion force.  If they don't go for surprise, then we've already had time to move forces into the area.   Now they have to deal with additional naval forces from Australia and Japan.  Additional fighter and bomber attacks from Australia and Japan.  Maybe the UK and Canada decide to fight with Australia.  Maybe the US comes in.  Chinese naval forces will be attrited and cross strait supply and troop movement will become hazardous for the PLA.  If the USA comes in with 2 carrier groups and F-35s from Guam and Okinawa, Chinese air bases and ports will become targets.  The invasion will be non-sustainable. 

Quote
If the Americans expect to take the better part of a month getting to Taiwan as their best case once China initiates hostilities(Airfields are currently the limiting factor, China can put more planes in the air in the region with shorter turn-around times than the US + Allies can).

If China takes the long buildup scenario, allies will probably already be in the area, including the US. 

Quote
Any coalition forces without American Air support(or the US bases in the region) is unlikely to be able to do anything particularly effective. About the only thing Australia, Japan and the Philippines could do at that point is block China's ability to use the Straits of Malacca and some other access routes into the Indian Ocean. In either case, Taiwan is effectively on its own, nobody is getting Taiwan-friendly troops on the ground in Taiwan in anything resembling timely manner without the Americans being involved.

Australia, Japan, and the Philippines have enough naval forces and can project just enough air defense to keep the strait too dangerous to cross.  That makes the invasion unsustainable.  That's all they have to do.  They don't have to land troops.  They just need to make it impossible for China to stay. 

Quote
For Japan specifically, that also opens them up to a wide range of threats and problems of their own as well, as most of their trade is also going to need to divert away from the reach of Chinese forces, never mind China using their involvement as an excuse to gobble up some more real estate. Given in this scenario you're presuming Japan went in but America did not, this also means that the mutual defense pact with the US is presumably off the table as well so because Japan involved itself in a war with China that the US opted out of, the United States will not protect Japan from anything China does to Japan as a consequence.

Japan has more to worry about an aggressive China winning Taiwan than it does from trade loss.  They know that.  Why do you think they have a Navy and Air Force?  To protect them from Kiribati? 

Quote
See above comment, their Air Force is rather large already, albeit not up to the standards of the US, Japan, Australia and other NATO forces, but Gen 3 and Gen 4 aircraft are still plenty formidable, and China has the airfields to support their craft in the region. We don't. Right now, it is believed it would take us anywhere from 4 to 6 weeks to knock out the Chinese PLAF. And US battle doctrine doesn't like to send surface forces into areas where we don't control the skies.

It's all a matter of range.  US carrier groups can sit back far enough from Chinese airfields so that if their bombers came for them, they would do so without fighter support and be running into a literal nest of Hornets.  After you attrit their bomber forces, you can move in closer and go after establishing air superiority over Taiwan, allowing strike packages to hit the PLA forces landed on the island, their airheads, their beacheads, strangle their supply lines, strike their C2 capabilities.  F35s can basically sneak up from wherever and bushwack PLA CAP.  You attrit their fighter forces.  Then you send in B-21s to hit PLA supply points and infrastructure.  Sure, it will take weeks. 

Quote
On top of that we have Chinese Surface to Air Capabiliies to contend with, as well as their DF-21 and DF-26 "carrier killer" missiles to keep the US Navy at a respectful distance.... Which also brings us to their PLAN, where they have more combat hulls than the US Navy does now, although the US Navy still reigns in terms of gross tonnage. And there is the matter some of the PLAN ships still date back to World War 2.

Chinese DF-26s are only a problem if and when they know where our carriers are.  They can't just shoot them into the Pacific and hope for a lucky hit.

Quote
China's expectation is that their Area Denial Capabilities will hold a United States response at bay long enough that they can complete the conquest of Taiwan before US Troops are on the island in any kind of numbers. At which point the US will take it at a "fate accomplished" scenario for Taiwan and sue for peace before our manpower and equipment casualty count goes even higher.

Land conquest of Taiwan would take 2-3 weeks at a minimum from landing, if the PLA gets lucky and don't get massacred on beaches and dropzones.  It's basically the exact opposite for a fait accompli.  Whatever the PLA has left on Taiwan is going to be vulnerable and as I stated before, you don't even have to invade, you just have to make it impossible for the PLA to stay on Taiwan. 


All this being said, every day the PRC gets stronger and the USA withdraws more from a desire to spend blood and treasure to defend friends and allies .  As I stated in the previous post, China's chances get better every year.  Why attack now when the issue is a gamble?  In 10 years it may be much easier. 4-8 Chinese carriers could dissuade and make any assistance from Japan and Australia futile and create a very tough fight for the US.  China can wait. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 24, 2021, 11:03:13 PM
TheDeamon, I don't think any of those military events you name come anything close to all-out war, including Iraq 2.0. There was no doubt of the outcome of any of those, other than the amount of friendly losses. If they used secret advanced weapons, it would only have been as an opportunity to test them, not because they needed to use them to win. The last time the U.S. fought to win was 1970, so we're talking 50 years of tech upgrades in the "use only when desperate" category. Whatever those are.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 24, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
"Where is this coming from?"

https://news.trust.org/item/20210124091524-55023

"Taiwan reports second day of incursions by Chinese air force"

The story didn't go into many details as far as how often this has been happening lately and how many times it happened in the past as well as what China's justifications are but I didn't let any lack of knowledge on the subject stop me from leaping to the conclusion that China is hoping to prompt a response to their own belligerence and then use that as a justification for war and invasion. America has used that tactic often enough. In the months before the attack on Pearl Harbor our Navy constantly violated Japanese territorial waters hoping for a confrontation that would lead to an excuse for war. I'm actually having trouble finding information on that online so if I'm wrong about it forgive me but I believe I remember reading about it in WWII magazine. I checked their online version but didn't find the story. Anyway, it's a pretty straightforward tactic of provocation with a bad couple of options for Taiwan to either react and risk an incident that becomes an excuse or don't react and look weak and ripe for the plucking and the timing right after Biden takes office doesn't leave a lot to the imagination especially with it looking like Biden is already compromised by China in just the way people accused Trump of being compromised by Russia. By all appearances China has the goods on Biden and can release information proving the corruption of "the big guy" at any time. That wouldn't be primarily why Biden wouldn't defend Taiwan militarily though. He's just weak, and even if he's not weak personally he is controlled by a Democrat party that is now hard left and is projecting weakness militarily and now would be the time for adversaries to take advantage. Adding Covid to the situation to it and our domestic political situation with our government focusing on "domestic extremists" aka holdover Trump supporters just means there won't be a better time than soon.

Like I said though, I'm giving this a very, very, very low probability of actually ever happening. Just kind of throwing a wild prediction out there. Maybe with enough of them one of them might get "lucky".
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on January 24, 2021, 11:39:13 PM
"Taiwan reports second day of incursions by Chinese air force"

No, dude.  I understand China is screwing with Taiwan.  They been doing it for months.  They also been pissing off Australia which is probably the wrong thing to do right before they launch an attack. 

I'm asking where are you getting the intel that Biden is in China's pocket.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 24, 2021, 11:42:50 PM
Oh, I got that from Hunter's laptop.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-54553132

"Another purported email, which Fox News said it had confirmed, reportedly refers to a deal pursued by Hunter involving China's largest private energy firm. It is said to include a cryptic mention of "10 held by H for the big guy".

Fox News cited unnamed sources as saying "the big guy" in the purported email was a reference to Joe Biden. This message is said to be from May 2017. Both emails would date from when the former US vice-president was a private citizen.

A former business associate of Hunter has come forward to say he can confirm the allegations.

Tony Bobulinski told Fox News that, contrary to Joe Biden's statements that he had nothing to do with his son's business affairs, Hunter "frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals" in China.

Mr Bobulinski, who is reportedly a US Navy veteran, separately told Fox News' Tucker Carlson that he met on two occasions with Joe Biden to discuss business deals with China, the first time in May 2017 when the former vice-president was a private citizen.

He claims he asked Joe Biden's brother, James, whether the family was concerned about possible scrutiny of the former vice-president's involvement in a potential business deal with a Chinese entity. Mr Bobulinski told Fox News that James Biden replied: "Plausible deniability."
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 25, 2021, 01:11:53 AM
Uh... When was the last time you looked at what the various defense think-tanks and DOD has been putting out there?

Not this crap again.  OK, I call.  Show your defense think tanks and DOD estimates.

I didn't bookmark it, I know I've seen it, I know generally where to look to find it. But it is not proving to be as easy to find as I'd hoped.

This gets close to what I was looking for, and might even be the launching pad for what I'm talking about:
https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html

Quote
Quote
In a Taiwan invasion scenario, any help that's going to be sent in basically has hours to get into Taiwan before the risk starts to become unacceptable. After that, it will likely be weeks before the United States could regain air supremacy over the region, and that still doesn't address the matter of China's missile defense umbrella which extends well beyond Taiwan already.

Explain your invasion of Taiwan.

Just going from the RAND scorecard linked above ("closer to Taiwan" scenario; 2017):
China has an advantage on attacking US Air Bases within "Easy strike range of China" (because they're also in easy strike range from China)

China was deemed to be at parity with US Forces in "the Taiwan scenario" in 2017 when it came to Air Superiority.

China was deemed by Rand to have an advantage in ASW near Taiwan, not sure I believe that one. But they're claiming it.

They go into other fields where again they're scored as near parity for the most part.

And poking around a little more, the sub-article on Air Superiority seems to be very close to what I was looking for:
Quote from: RAND
...As shown in the light-shaded bars, only two U.S. wings would have been required in theater to maintain 24/7 air dominance from the outset of a conflict over Taiwan in 1996. By 2010, improvements in Chinese air forces and missile capabilities increase this requirement to between nine and 20 wings (depending on how far away U.S. forces must be based). The higher requirement exceeds the total number of U.S. fighter wings, and basing within range of operational areas would almost certainly have been insufficient to support even the smaller number (especially given the significant requirements for tanker basing). By 2010, achieving 24/7 air dominance at the outset of a conflict was, and remains, unsustainable.

The United States would have better prospects of prevailing in an attrition campaign designed to defeat a Chinese air offensive over time. Nevertheless, PLA Air Force modernization has made such a campaign more challenging. ... Even in the attrition case, the United States would face increasing difficulty meeting its objectives in 2017, as more aircraft would be required, and there would be fewer bases to offer safety from Chinese missiles.

The results should be understood in context. China cannot achieve air superiority in any of these cases, and U.S. fighters achieve high kill ratios throughout. Relaxing the 21-day time requirement would reduce U.S. in-theater force requirements to levels that might be supported more easily by the available basing infrastructure. However, until U.S. forces achieve air superiority, the PLA air forces would largely have a free hand in attacking targets in Taiwan. A ground campaign in Taiwan would likely be decided relatively quickly, and the inability of U.S. air forces to achieve air superiority during that time would deprive U.S. and friendly forces of much-needed air support.

That was RAND speaking on conditions in 2017. China has continued to greatly expand its capabilities in the interim.

There are two scenarios.  First, China takes a month to get everything ready.  Troops are moved to staging areas.  All the supplies they need for a cross strait invasion are prepared and stockpiled.  The ships they need are all at embarkation points.  The planes are armed and finally air defense patrols around Chinese airfields and ports are stepped up.  All this we can see.  All this we can hear about.  All this gives time for the US, Japan, and Australia to mobilize and get things in place.

But our putting troops on Taiwan would itself be considered an act of War. China has been very vocal about that, they will go to war if the United States has a US Navy ship so much as tie up to a pier in Taiwan. Landing a combat brigade in Taiwan is likely to be received just as warmly. So if you're trying to get China to back down, you might have forces on high alert to deploy, but they cannot be in Taiwan until China starts to move on Taiwan. 

Quote
Scenario 2:  China goes for a surprise attack to knock out as much air defense and naval forces around Taiwan with ballistic missile attacks.  They can do that quickly without getting everything else ready.  They can knock out some of Taiwan's air defenses and navy with a surprise attack.  Flip side is Taiwan has been ready for this for 50 years.  All their hangers are hardened.  Their aviation fuel underground.  Some of their hangers are built into the sides of mountains.  The air defense is mobile, how is China going to get all of them?  Blanket the entire island.  Even with their 2000+ ballistic missiles, they couldn't do it.

In a pinch, just cratering the runway will do. Gravel and jet aircraft don't mix well. And even Guam is within the estimated range of attack by the DF-26, so there are considerable first/second strike options for China against the US should it declare it is getting directly involved. So assuming that Guam and Okinawa don't get hit in a first strike by China at the onset, the Untied States may only have use of those airfields for part of a day before China potentially knocks them out of service for a few days(anything that lands there won't be taking off again until repairs complete).

Quote
Then, you have to establish air superiority over Taiwan.  You're still going to have to deal with hundreds of ROC fighters and their SAMS.  But China could eventually wear the ROC down if they are alone.

China has thousands of aircraft, and they have anti-air missiles that have range sufficient to target aircraft over Taiwan from the mainland. Granted, missiles used on the ROC fighters are missiles that can't be used against US Aircraft later on. But China has enough missiles that even if they're using multiple missiles per ROC fighter shot down, they'll have plenty left over for when the Americans turn up.

Quote
But then you have to cross the straight with your invasion force.  The ROC army will be waiting on the beaches.  There are only so many beaches on Taiwan that are capable of landing on.  They can also launch an airborne attack, but the PLAs airborne forces are not large enough to do the job alone.  You have to land on the beaches.  Then they're going to be slogging against ROC troops for a week to months.

Not going to disagree, the ROC should be a tough nut for them to crack open, but the ROC can't defend every potential beach head, and if they've lost aerial supremacy(if only in select places), holding the beaches becomes that much more of a challenge.

Quote
If the PLA launches a surprise attack, it's still going to take weeks to get the PLA in position with the supplies they need to sustain an invasion force.  If they don't go for surprise, then we've already had time to move forces into the area.   Now they have to deal with additional naval forces from Australia and Japan.  Additional fighter and bomber attacks from Australia and Japan.  Maybe the UK and Canada decide to fight with Australia.  Maybe the US comes in.  Chinese naval forces will be attrited and cross strait supply and troop movement will become hazardous for the PLA.  If the USA comes in with 2 carrier groups and F-35s from Guam and Okinawa, Chinese air bases and ports will become targets.  The invasion will be non-sustainable.

I'm not going to disagree, but it will be a war of attrition from the onset. The Good news for Taiwan is that if the US is involved the reality is nobody will be likely to control the skies over Taiwan for any meaningful length of time for several weeks, which gives the defender a huge advantage. But getting to the point where the United Sates can devote air power to removing Chinese Amphibious assault capabilities is still likely to take weeks.

The bad news for Taiwan is China's military hubris and confidence in their gear and available technology may lead them to believe they're far more capable than they actually are.

Quote
Quote
If the Americans expect to take the better part of a month getting to Taiwan as their best case once China initiates hostilities(Airfields are currently the limiting factor, China can put more planes in the air in the region with shorter turn-around times than the US + Allies can).

If China takes the long buildup scenario, allies will probably already be in the area, including the US.

Airfields aren't exactly something which can be built overnight, especially for the aircraft in the Jet Age of aviation. And there are wild-cards in the mix. There is no guarantee that the Philippines will stick its neck out for Taiwan, even if the US is involved. There is no assurance that South Korea would get involved either. If they "don't play," then those potential bases are off the table, so that means fewer planes on station at any given time as they spend more time in transit instead(and wracking up massive flight hours which triggers maintenance needs as well).

Quote
Australia, Japan, and the Philippines have enough naval forces and can project just enough air defense to keep the strait too dangerous to cross.  That makes the invasion unsustainable.  That's all they have to do.  They don't have to land troops.  They just need to make it impossible for China to stay.

Their air defenses don't help them much if they're put up against some of the stuff that was designed to counter the US Navy, the only counter the United States has for that is basically THAAD and/or other anti-satellite capabilities that none of those nations are believed to have.  Getting near Taiwan may make things dangerous for Chinese ships, but it makes things far more dangerous for the ships of Japan and Australia. As to the Philippines, their Navy is barely adequate for self-defense, they may have the range to reach Taiwan, but the capabilities they bring to table basically consist of providing more things for China to shoot at. Most of their stuff is badly out of date... Which puts them about on par with the older ships of the PLAN.

Quote
It's all a matter of range.  US carrier groups can sit back far enough from Chinese airfields so that if their bombers came for them, they would do so without fighter support and be running into a literal nest of Hornets.  After you attrit their bomber forces, you can move in closer and go after establishing air superiority over Taiwan, allowing strike packages to hit the PLA forces landed on the island, their airheads, their beacheads, strangle their supply lines, strike their C2 capabilities.  F35s can basically sneak up from wherever and bushwack PLA CAP.  You attrit their fighter forces.  Then you send in B-21s to hit PLA supply points and infrastructure.  Sure, it will take weeks.
 
B-21's won't be doing anything if China moves this year. But I'd also strongly suspect that for the opening portion of hostilities, no Carrier will be getting closer than 2,000 miles from Taiwan to start with. They might creep in as close as 1,500 miles but that's going to be about their limit until they get a better picture of exactly what China's capabilities are, and where China's stuff is either known to be at, or where they're known to not be present at. Roughly 2,000 miles out is where the carrier aircraft can at least lob some air-launched cruise-missiles at Chinese forces. If we can get some tankers in the air they even escort the tanker's in to aound the 1,000 mile point, refuel and move in closer to Chinese forces. But as the navy has no Carrier-launched tankers in service at present(a drone is in development though), they'd be relying on the Air-Force for that... Or using Super-hornets doing the "buddy tanker" thing which would reduce available combat craft by anywhere from half to even a third(1 buddy to get them out, another buddy to get them back) of normal capabilities. 

Yes there should be "warning signs" and indicators that something is going on, but some of those things are going to be much harder to detect than others. And given China's close proximity to Taiwan, a lot of that may not be noticeable until just days or just a week or so before they pull the proverbial trigger. In other words, China will be invading while the US and allies are still working out the logistics of the detailed response(and that's with a contingency plan in the first place).

But that's what the US has contingency plans for. It means the response force in Japan goes on high alert and start loading on planes the moment they have confirmation China is attacking. Get those guys over there ASAP and hope they can help Taiwan hold on until we can get more help on the way.

Quote
Chinese DF-26s are only a problem if and when they know where our carriers are.  They can't just shoot them into the Pacific and hope for a lucky hit.

Fully agreed, they're only as good as "the kill chain" allows, which means they need to have "eyeballs on the carrier," otherwise they're just firing blindly into the sea. But "eyeballs on the sea" take a great many forms, and given the PLAN's "militia" of fishing boats, among other such things, that is a major counter-intelligence problem. How do you know that fishing trawler is really from the nation the flag they're flying indicates? Granted wartime in that scenario, and most of the "allied nations" would likely be granting permissions on that front. No civilian boat is going to be able to be allowed to come anywhere close to somewhere an Aircraft Carrier is operating. Of course, that creates it's own of intelligence boon, just look for the Carriers where-ever the exclusions zones are found to be.
 
Quote
Land conquest of Taiwan would take 2-3 weeks at a minimum from landing, if the PLA gets lucky and don't get massacred on beaches and dropzones.  It's basically the exact opposite for a fait accompli.  Whatever the PLA has left on Taiwan is going to be vulnerable and as I stated before, you don't even have to invade, you just have to make it impossible for the PLA to stay on Taiwan.

But at what cost to the people of Taiwan. I do agree that a lot could be achieved simply by cutting off China's ability to supply their forces on Taiwan and sending some forces ashore to limit their ability to "resupply locally" but there are millions of Taiwanese citizens who then find themselves caught in that cross fire as the United States potentially destroys the infrastructure of Taiwan in order to save the nation... Which won't be much of a nation after that.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 25, 2021, 01:12:07 AM
All this being said, every day the PRC gets stronger and the USA withdraws more from a desire to spend blood and treasure to defend friends and allies .  As I stated in the previous post, China's chances get better every year.  Why attack now when the issue is a gamble?  In 10 years it may be much easier. 4-8 Chinese carriers could dissuade and make any assistance from Japan and Australia futile and create a very tough fight for the US.  China can wait.

Credible threats from Chinese aircraft carriers (against the USN) are likely to be decades away yet. And in the context of Taiwan, superfluous. It's part of why China has backed down on their aggressive carrier buildout plan. The carriers they've built are basically glorified training ships as they try to learn the ropes of carrier aviation. (A report from a year or so ago said they had a total of 8 pilots qualified for carrier aviation, and I believe one of them has subsequently died in a training accident)

They might build two or three of the Type 2's (the first is nearing completion of major construction, and the second is starting to be built) as it is a (EMALS-)Catapult based ship it is their first "true carrier" although it looks like they're not expecting full initial operating capability until sometime after 2025 for the Type-2's.

I am saying two or three of the type-2's because that's what they need if they want to have at least one in a operational/ready to deploy status at all times. 1 in maintenance/overhaul, 1 in training/workups, and 1 in a deployed/deployable status. Although China does want to get a Nuclear Type-3 build, mostly a way of saying they're one of the big-boys like the US and France by operating a Nuclear carrier, but depending on how delayed initial construction of the Type-3 becomes, that might result in a third Type-2 being built.

Amphibious Warfare ships and the other associated escorts and support ships are another matter. But until they get the Carrier situation worked out China's navy is likely to remain a mostly coastal/regional force that only rarely ventures outside the shelter of their Ballistic Missile defenses.

As to why attack now? The F-35 isn't fully deployed as of yet, they stand better chances against Gen 4 fighters than they do the Gen 5 fighters.

THAAD and its derivatives are going to become more of a problem for them as time goes on. It potentially nullifies the ability of the DF-21 and DF-26 to menace naval warships, and also additionally is capable of nullifying their nuclear strike capabilities against the United States as well.

Also, the United States is no longer prevented by treaty from developing their conventional ballistic missile platforms now. The United States also now has weapons systems that were previously developed to have a range of less than 500 km because of treaty limitations that no longer apply. And the Army thinks they'll be able to modify them to reach a fair bit longer than that within a few years.

Their Area Denial strategy was great for as long as the United States was honoring treaties that prevented it from developing reciprocal capabilities. That is no longer the case. The United States can now fully engage them in an arms race involving the full range of conventional weapons. And given what the US could do even with the treaty restrictions, that's not good news for China. They were going to need decades to catch up to what the US could already do, the United States starting to develop into a new range of weapon capabilities moves that horizon in all kinds of unpredictable ways.

They also have demographic issues in play which makes me say 10 years from now is off the table. Demographics makes the choice for them being one of pursuing it within the next 10 years, and no later than that, or wait until some time in the 2040's or later.

The Diplomatic side also tends to push things towards moving sooner rather than later. International markets have been spooked by what happened in the wake of Covid19 and a lot of industries are starting to diversify away from China. Many of those efforts should only take a handful of years, and China cannot be completely certain about their ability to stifle those moves.

From a diplomatic perspective, they want the world to be in desperate need of China for trade. In the context of China being in a war, that is massive leverage against anyone trying to stop said trade. As that is going to make the rest of the world very reluctant to do anything in the first place, and make those trading partners very eager to end any economic penalties that do get levied against China by those other nations. They understand that is a card they'll likely only be able to play once, but it is a card they know they also are in danger of losing in the next 5 to 10 years anyway.

So THAAD's continued development points to 10 years or less.
China's demographics point to 10 years or less.
International Trade relationships post-Covid19 indicate possibly less than 5 years.
Other potential US Offensive and Defensive Missile Capabilities improving/expanding, indicate possibly less than 5 to 10 years.
America's political situation points to the timing factors I previously pointed at, making this year, or 4 years from now the most likely time frame, unless they think the Democrats aren't in danger of losing Congress in 2022's election cycle, in which case 2023 could be on the table for them at this time.
Authorized Defense sales by the Trump Admin also tends to point towards acting sooner rather than later for China depending on when those sales are supposed to be delivered to Taiwan. Which likely bumps things up to this year.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 25, 2021, 01:28:34 AM
TheDeamon, I don't think any of those military events you name come anything close to all-out war, including Iraq 2.0. There was no doubt of the outcome of any of those, other than the amount of friendly losses. If they used secret advanced weapons, it would only have been as an opportunity to test them, not because they needed to use them to win. The last time the U.S. fought to win was 1970, so we're talking 50 years of tech upgrades in the "use only when desperate" category. Whatever those are.

Well, the specific weapon I'm talking about recalling seemed to be "a bomb" used in Serbia that was essentially creating a bunch of metal filaments(almost like chaff) which wrapped themselves around power lines with the resulting loss of power from the dead short that resulted. Not particularly destructive by itself, but extremely disruptive. Buh-bye high tension power lines and associated power transformers.

Iraq was a case of people underestimating the effectiveness of precision airstrike as Desert Storm was the first large scale demonstration of such a capability.

Iraq had one of the 5 largest armies in the world, and they had a fair bit of the most recent equipment that the Soviets were willing to sell at the time, in addition to their military having had extensive and recent experience fighting against Iran for much of the 1980's. So Desert Storm should have been a comparable major and protracted land war for the US, except the reality proved very different from the expectation.

Vietnam and Korea become the only other major war involving major force against major force battles, although Vietnam itself was mostly asymmetric warfare against the Viet-Cong rather than the NVA, but the NVA did fight a few batttles against the US. But even in terms of the NVA engagements, the NVA was generally overmatched, much like was the case in Desert Storm.... So you basically have to go back to Korea, and that was largely China vs the United States so that one is largely a wash for our purposes.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 25, 2021, 01:34:56 AM
...so you agree with me?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 25, 2021, 01:56:30 AM
...so you agree with me?

Mostly, it was about commenting that the metal filament bomb from Serbia isn't particularly secret as it has been reported on in the press, even if it doesn't doesn't show up in any advertising for weaponry in the DOD arsenal. It probably was an experimental deployment to see what would happen in the real world, but it was interesting all the same.

I guess one other thing to point out however, most of China's tanks are old, as in a lot of them date back to WW2 and Korea, and they haven't modernized them, so in some ways, they're still behind Iraq in 1990. Although that probably says more about how certain they are that nobody is going to engage in a land war on China's mainland. But it isn't the tanks that would be the problem.

It'd be modern day snipers getting setup in urban centers and using the super-tall skyscrapers. Taipei 101 would make one vey nice sniper nest, aside from lack of escape options. Of course, not being residential, it also makes for an easier target to hit with high explosives. But hey, the fourth tallest building in Taiwan is a residential building and has 70 floors. In the event of a military invasion, no sniper would ever possibly consider setting up shop in there, would they?  ::)
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 28, 2021, 01:17:12 AM
Prediction: Covid deaths in America under Biden after one year will be higher than they were under Trump.

It won't be necessarily totally Biden's fault though. The new mutations that are more infectious and more deadly and less affected by the vaccines look like they may become a huge problem. When I go out and about I see that people are going through the motions with masking but with eat in dining and schools opening back up, going through the motions won't be enough. With Democrats now in charge of the economy and no longer to so easily blame Trump for everything, we also see them starting to prioritize jobs over keeping the curve flattened but of course keeping that level of lock down in effect for too long as part of the cure may be worse than the disease. I'll say if Biden actually manages to get this virus under control that will be a huge success and if he can do it while opening schools and the economy a bit more while keeping deaths down it'll be such a success that I'll hardly believe my own eyes. Unfortunately though, it looks like the nature of this beast makes that a very tall order.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 28, 2021, 01:57:13 AM
With Democrats now in charge of the economy and no longer to so easily blame Trump for everything, we also see them starting to prioritize jobs over keeping the curve flattened but of course keeping that level of lock down in effect for too long as part of the cure may be worse than the disease. I'll say if Biden actually manages to get this virus under control that will be a huge success and if he can do it while opening schools and the economy a bit more while keeping deaths down it'll be such a success that I'll hardly believe my own eyes. Unfortunately though, it looks like the nature of this beast makes that a very tall order.

I'm just waiting for the Democrats to push a $15 minimum wage through Congress. We know it's coming.

Biden hasn't found a way to stop fracking on private land by executive order, but I'm sure his new appointees for the EPA will find a way to stop it. His green new deal that will creat 1 million jobs, by displacing almost as many is almost comical. Shutting down keystoneXL is also another comedy of saying one thing, while achieving another(the alternative is worse than the pipeline).

The list goes on and on. We're going to have another "Obama recovery" on our hands while Democrats are running things. And considering where we're starting from, that's a huge problem.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 28, 2021, 02:14:11 AM
There is also his mass amnesty which is going to flood the job market with over ten million new workers competing for good American jobs right here in America. And these aren't the jobs Americans don't want to do. Once their status is upgraded to legalized workers and Biden wants that done pretty much immediately, they no longer have to work in fields or doing dishes or as domestics. So they will of course seek better employment opportunities which means we're going to need millions more new illegal immigrants to take their place and those people are already on the way. Many if not most of them will be able to jump right into legal status since there is hardly any way for Biden to stop them from qualifying no matter what he says about requirements for people to have been here before a certain date because that information is easily falsified and Democrats don't really care about it in the first place anyway which means there is practically an unlimited supply of labor ready for any and all American jobs at every rung of the corporate and economic ladder. The $15 minimum wage may be required just to keep it from falling to minimum wage for most jobs with the vast new supply of labor which of course just means that even if jobs are paying that much not only will there not be as many jobs available because labor costs are so high but also Americans won't be getting many of those jobs because they'll be competing with everyone else and of course don't ask about job benefits because if you do you can look for a job elsewhere my friend.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DJQuag on January 28, 2021, 04:25:27 AM
Just noting that diseases tend to be most deadly when they first appear, becoming less so as time goes on. The new mutations seem to spread easier, but I've not heard that they're any deadlier. Any strain that allows people to be on their feet and spreading it further for longer is going to have a competitive advantage.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on January 28, 2021, 08:11:21 AM
There is also his mass amnesty which is going to flood the job market with over ten million new workers competing for good American jobs right here in America.

The legislation will first have to get through Congress and the Senate.  Chances are he may have to make some concessions to the Senate.  Ask the new most powerful man in America, Joe Manchin.  Immigration reform is long overdue.  So sorry the Republicans couldn't pass immigration reform back in 2013 because they were nuckin futz.  This is what happens.  Flake, Graham, McCain, and Rubio tried to solve this for you seven years ago with concessions, but nutters just wouldn't have it.  AMNESTY!  Lost their little minds. 

Quote
Once their status is upgraded to legalized workers and Biden wants that done pretty much immediately, they no longer have to work in fields or doing dishes or as domestics.

Oh gawd.  How horrible for all the farmers and housewives utilizing illegals to take jobs that Americans don't want and paying them a pittance.  Oh dear.  Dear or dear.  What will we do.   The dishes won't get cleaned. 

Or maybe, they stay at the jobs they already have, because they have that bird in the hand, and just ask for minimum wage.  Dear or dear.  How will Farmer Brown and Lady Hawley pay for this? 

Quote
The $15 minimum wage may be required just to keep it from falling to minimum wage for most jobs with the vast new supply of labor which of course just means that even if jobs are paying that much not only will there not be as many jobs available because labor costs are so high but also Americans won't be getting many of those jobs because they'll be competing with everyone else

The only thing I can agree with you on is that it seems a bad idea to bring millions of new workers into the legal job market and then raise the minimum wage at the same time.  It puts a bunch of strain on employers.  They have to raise prices or fire people.  I'm not a huge fan of raising the minimum wage. I understand why some people want it, but it's going to have a negative impact on many of the same people you're trying to help here. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 08:58:53 AM
A living minimum wage is a proxy for an effective balance of power/knowledge between the seller and the buyer (in this case, the employee and the employer).  This balance does not exist today.

I suppose if you allowed (and enforced the freedom of) workers to organize (yes, unions) there would be less need for a minimum wage.  But until there is effective parity between employers and employees across the whole negotiation process, a realistic minimum wage is a necessary fallback position.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 01:10:21 PM
Unfortunately, the minimum wage hike was long overdue in some states (or metro areas) while also being unnecessary in others. States and metro areas should have been addressing this in a more granular way.

Nebraska doesn't need much minimum wage hike, most likely. Housing is half the national average. You can rent a studio apartment there for $560 per month. That's roughly $140 per week. Meanwhile $7.25/hr gives you $281 (gross). Even better, split a 2 bdrm for $415 per month.

Even staying out of the hottest places in CA, let's have a look at Fresno. 2 bdrm there is $956, over twice as much. Of course Cali is ahead of the curve with a $14 minimum wage.

For all the doomsday predictions about Seattle, they seem to have weathered the horror of a living wage pretty well. Most workers just got bumped to $16.69. Unemployment hovered around 3% since 2016. Yelp shows there are still plenty of restaurants to eat at. No tumbleweeds have been sighted.

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 01:14:40 PM
The federal minimum wage had not been increased in 12 years.

Is there any likelihood that the new minimum wage will be indexed to inflation? If not, it will likely be in place, as-is, at its current level, for at least another 4 years.  Given these points, is 15$ really that unreasonable?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on January 28, 2021, 01:18:39 PM
The federal minimum wage had not been increased in 12 years.

Is there any likelihood that the new minimum wage will be indexed to inflation? If not, it will likely be in place, as-is, at its current level, for at least another 4 years.  Given these points, is 15$ really that unreasonable?

I think a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation would be a nice compromise. $15 seems a little high. $10 is a nice bump but doesn't make working minimum wage a good career choice.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2021, 01:28:20 PM
Nebraska doesn't need much minimum wage hike, most likely. Housing is half the national average. You can rent a studio apartment there for $560 per month. That's roughly $140 per week. Meanwhile $7.25/hr gives you $281 (gross).

The prevailing wisdom 20-30 years ago was *never* spend more than 1/4 of your income on rent. Now people should feel grateful to be able to spend 50%+ on a studio? Yeah, there's no problem here with wage levels...
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on January 28, 2021, 01:29:44 PM
I'd go with a cost of living adjusted minimum wage - using the same COLA adjustment as military - with the goal of the similar after expenses disposable income.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 01:34:26 PM
Military or SS. I have no problem with indexing to inflation.  Lots of things are done that way.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on January 28, 2021, 01:48:56 PM
msquared, military COLA is based on specific city local costs.  So for NYC it might be significant, for a small midwest town quite small.  This is distinct from inflation adjusted. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 01:55:03 PM
I expect each state has (or, well, should have) its own minimum wage law, or would that run afoul of some interstate commerce clause interpretation?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on January 28, 2021, 01:56:03 PM
So, nobody is going to address the rise in unemployment a $15 minimum wage is going to cause? 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: yossarian22c on January 28, 2021, 02:00:21 PM
So, nobody is going to address the rise in unemployment a $15 minimum wage is going to cause?

$15 per hour doesn't make sense in rural WV. It might make sense in NYC or Seattle.

I like LR's idea of minimum wage adjusted by a COLA.

But nation wide I think an increase to $10 and indexing to inflation would also be a big improvement and let local cities deal with any high cost of living issues.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on January 28, 2021, 02:01:52 PM
DonaldD,

each state has their ow  state minimum wages ,  which in most cases are extremely low.

Using COLA is already present in military pay so I don't think it would run afoul of law requirements.

I think at the state level is too roughly grained.  The major factor is city vs rural rather than state specific.

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 02:03:03 PM
LR

I did not know that. Thanks

Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 02:14:05 PM
DonaldD,

each state has their ow  state minimum wages ,  which in most cases are extremely low.

Using COLA is already present in military pay so I don't think it would run afoul of law requirements.

I think at the state level is too roughly grained.  The major factor is city vs rural rather than state specific.
This seems completely reasonable. 

I wonder what creative agreements could be made using the cudgel of a federal minimum wage to negotiate state-level minimum wages? Not that this is being proposed, but having a state-level opt-out clause so long as the state law met certain criteria...

Will the federal minimum wage affect all hourly workers, or just federal employees?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on January 28, 2021, 02:51:36 PM
Federal minimum are for all workers.  State minimums can be higher but not lower.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2021, 04:50:59 PM
So, nobody is going to address the rise in unemployment a $15 minimum wage is going to cause?

There is a bit of irony in this hypothesis, because the trickle down argument put forward by right-wing economists maintains that putting money in the hands of the industrialists ends up generating jobs and money for everyone below. Putting aside whether you have personally made this argument, you do seem to now be echoing a generally right-wing concern about minimum wage levels. But if the trickle down argument holds any water, then it should also hold just as well that things trickle up - or I should say trickle around: if you put money in the hands of those on the bottom they will spend it, which ends up increasing money spent on goods and services, therefore ending up in the pocket of the industrialists. Granted, this money wouldn't be evenly spread, so having a $15 wage might mean you're buying more electronics, more order-in food, but possibly not really more expensive cars or leather luggage. But nevertheless that money goes back into the economy, right to the corporate pocket, and it is almost 100% certain anyone working for a wage will spend the vast majority if not all of this extra wage right away on stuff. So although in the short term obviously the overhead goes up payroll, shouldn't this in very short order be compensated for in all the extra sales and demand? Like, literally that money will go out and come right back in - albeit often laterally to other companies. But across the board it should even out for companies providing basic things people need.

I could see, mind you, the argument that this could shift wealth from companies with inelastic demand to those where people will spend more with a better income. That could be. But I don't really see how this extra payroll overhead wouldn't be compensated by more orders on the aggregate. Where is that money going otherwise, under their beds? It seems to me that the theory that money trickles down (and therefore if you give to the industrialists everyone benefits) pretty much necessitates accepting the reverse (that giving it to the bottom, it should end up being spread to the industrialists).
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 28, 2021, 05:01:20 PM
There is a bit of irony in this hypothesis, because the trickle down argument put forward by right-wing economists maintains that putting money in the hands of the industrialists ends up generating jobs and money for everyone below. Putting aside whether you have personally made this argument, you do seem to now be echoing a generally right-wing concern about minimum wage levels. But if the trickle down argument holds any water, then it should also hold just as well that things trickle up - or I should say trickle around: if you put money in the hands of those on the bottom they will spend it, which ends up increasing money spent on goods and services, therefore ending up in the pocket of the industrialists. Granted, this money wouldn't be evenly spread, so having a $15 wage might mean you're buying more electronics, more order-in food, but possibly not really more expensive cars or leather luggage.

Minimum wage doesn't necessarily however mean "putting money in the hands of those at the bottom". It means EITHER putting more money in the hands of those at the bottom OR getting them fired (because their boss can't afford to employ them anymore) and so causing them to lose what little money they had. Presumably some will benefit from a minimum wage. Others will lose.

I don't know enough to judge whether this particular decision on minimum wage is good or bad.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 05:09:23 PM
Let's assume there is no shift in employability. It still seems like a closed system to me. Consider a thought experiment where there is only one company. They have to pay their employees more, but then simple supply and demand means they charge more for products based on elasticity, and equilibrium is maintained.

The "anti taxers" see government as somehow separate. But if the government taxes more, they are still using it to buy goods and services from the private sector, ultimately. So I think it is always about local winners and losers. Money is never destroyed, at least once it is issued. Now there is some currency type stuff based on monetary supply and borrowing from outside the country that I'm not going to try to get into.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on January 28, 2021, 05:22:27 PM
There is a bit of irony in this hypothesis, because the trickle down argument put forward by right-wing economists maintains that putting money in the hands of the industrialists ends up generating jobs and money for everyone below.

I have no idea.  I have no idea what a "right-wing economist" is.  I don't even know which "right-wing" we're talking about here.  There appear to be several "right-wings" right now.  Are we talking about Thomas Sowell, or are we talking about Peter Navarro?  Are we talking about Larry Kudlow or Irwin Stelzer?  What's a "left-wing economist"?  Marx or Krugman?  Are we talking about Keynes vs Hayek? 

How about I just use the CBO, which is supposed to be a non-partisan agency, as my source. 

 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

Quote
In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of
17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour.
Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15
per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers
would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a twothirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero
and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual
income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million.

So 1.3 million people will be lifted out of poverty, and another 1.3 million people who were already poor will now be on unemployment.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2021, 05:23:15 PM
Let's assume there is no shift in employability. It still seems like a closed system to me. Consider a thought experiment where there is only one company. They have to pay their employees more, but then simple supply and demand means they charge more for products based on elasticity, and equilibrium is maintained.

I don't think this 'law' of supply and demand (namely that prices are determined purely based on demand) works this way, or at all. There are many factors that go into it, one of which is slow inflation (for instance if a company jacked up bread price due to increased "demand" they would be destroyed immediately in the market), and one of which is scarcity especially. A product that can be created essentially infinitely should not go up in price as a result of wage levels or demand levels. It should only mean you do more volume of business, and that's it. Any further change in product price or availability would (correctly) be seen as trying to gouge the customer. The case where you see prices go up and down regularly is when the supply is closer to fixed, for instance the gold market, or the stock market. There ought to be roughly zero equivalent in the retail and service market, which is where the vast majority of money is going from someone earning minimum wage (even a $15 minimum wage).

To answer Aris' point, yes, a company can just lay off a bunch of people on a dime if the wage goes up, but if they could afford to function with that few employees, let's face it, they would have done that already. Companies are long past the point of having one person do 2-3 peoples' work and it's probably stretched as thin as it can be right now for the most part. No company is employing more people than they absolutely need anymore. If they let some go they might simply have to close down and halt operations. And if they were smart they would realize they don't need to close down despite payroll being higher, because they really should see an uptick in sales pretty shortly (like, the same month possibly as the new wage is in effect). The one caveat in all this is to raise the minimum wage in a turbulent time like during a pandemic. So I could see the wisdom in arguing that it should happen when most of the country is vaccines and business as usual has resumed.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2021, 05:27:19 PM
I have no idea.  I have no idea what a "right-wing economist" is.  I don't even know which "right-wing" we're talking about here.  There appear to be several "right-wings" right now.  Are we talking about Thomas Sowell, or are we talking about Peter Navarro?  Are we talking about Larry Kudlow or Irwin Stelzer?  What's a "left-wing economist"?  Marx or Krugman?  Are we talking about Keynes vs Hayek? 

I guess I could get into talking about this or that institute or think tank, and to try to narrow down with you which ones have the ear of Washington the most. I mostly mean the same advocacy groups and thinkers who try to justify corporate tax breaks typically during Republican administrations. It's not as if the trickle down argument is some minor idea in the realm of right-wing economics; it comes front and center repeatedly and to this day, centered right around national policy.

Regarding the numbers in your quote, I can't pretend to know better what the real numbers would be, but that being said I don't particularly think most economists know wtf they are talking about, even if what sound like straightforward issues. Once someone like Greenspan publicly says that he may have to rethink whether he understands the market at all, you know that something is rotten in the state of claim-mark.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Grant on January 28, 2021, 05:37:03 PM

Regarding the numbers in your quote, I can't pretend to know better what the real numbers would be, but that being said I don't particularly think most economists know wtf they are talking about, even if what sound like straightforward issues.

I see.  That explains how Peter Navarro and Larry Kudlow got to making economic policy instead of AEI or Cato, right?  None of them know anything so basically joe blow is on the same level, or bettter, when it comes to economic understanding. Forget the numbers then.  We don't have to address them.  Economists don't know what they are talking about.  Good point. 

By the way, the corporate tax rate in the United States is roughly the same as it is in the three Scandinavian socialist paradises, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. 
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: rightleft22 on January 28, 2021, 05:47:12 PM
Researching the idea's behind Trickle down reaganomics is interesting. It may take some time for History to detach itself from the myth of Ragan for the final answer.

That said the pendulum seems to be moving towards the conclusion that Trickle-down tax cuts failed to benefit working families, the past quarter century showing that the supply-side theory that top-bracket tax cuts would boost economic growth and jobs failed,
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 05:49:18 PM
Let's assume there is no shift in employability. It still seems like a closed system to me. Consider a thought experiment where there is only one company. They have to pay their employees more, but then simple supply and demand means they charge more for products based on elasticity, and equilibrium is maintained.

I don't think this 'law' of supply and demand (namely that prices are determined purely based on demand) works this way, or at all. There are many factors that go into it, one of which is slow inflation (for instance if a company jacked up bread price due to increased "demand" they would be destroyed immediately in the market), and one of which is scarcity especially. A product that can be created essentially infinitely should not go up in price as a result of wage levels or demand levels. It should only mean you do more volume of business, and that's it. Any further change in product price or availability would (correctly) be seen as trying to gouge the customer. The case where you see prices go up and down regularly is when the supply is closer to fixed, for instance the gold market, or the stock market. There ought to be roughly zero equivalent in the retail and service market, which is where the vast majority of money is going from someone earning minimum wage (even a $15 minimum wage).

To answer Aris' point, yes, a company can just lay off a bunch of people on a dime if the wage goes up, but if they could afford to function with that few employees, let's face it, they would have done that already. Companies are long past the point of having one person do 2-3 peoples' work and it's probably stretched as thin as it can be right now for the most part. No company is employing more people than they absolutely need anymore. If they let some go they might simply have to close down and halt operations. And if they were smart they would realize they don't need to close down despite payroll being higher, because they really should see an uptick in sales pretty shortly (like, the same month possibly as the new wage is in effect). The one caveat in all this is to raise the minimum wage in a turbulent time like during a pandemic. So I could see the wisdom in arguing that it should happen when most of the country is vaccines and business as usual has resumed.

Obviously there are a myriad of complications, including the fact that not everyone is making minimum wage, that raw materials may be imported from somewhere not affected by wage hikes, etc. There are also a variety of responses including deployment of technology - depending on the sector. One can respond by reducing quality potentially, lowering COGS. Scaling back advertisement, promotional pricing, on and on. All is moot, McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate ain't putting that one through, they would infuriate much of their base.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 05:53:48 PM
That said the pendulum seems to be moving towards the conclusion that Trickle-down tax cuts failed to benefit working families, the past quarter century showing that the supply-side theory that top-bracket tax cuts would boost economic growth and jobs failed,

You are talking about two different things. Economic growth does indeed go up with reduced taxes on corporations, but the benefits go to stockholders not employees, IMO. The theory is that this is supposed to drive more investment, but to look at one anecdote - Bezos didn't take all his extra wealth and plow it back into the economy generally, it sits on paper until he sells his equity and reinvests it elsewhere. Or borrows against it, I suppose?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on January 28, 2021, 05:56:25 PM
Quote
By the way, the corporate tax rate in the United States is roughly the same as it is in the three Scandinavian socialist paradises, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.


US effective corporate tax rate is drastically lower than almost all other countries.  US effective is 11.3% mean.  Norway effective is 21%.   There are enormous loopholes and deductions in US tax code that aren't allowed by other countries.

Also the average for the US is misleading - small businesses pay close to the statutory, enormous businesses pay almost none.  So the weighted average is probably something like 3%.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: rightleft22 on January 28, 2021, 06:02:02 PM
That said the pendulum seems to be moving towards the conclusion that Trickle-down tax cuts failed to benefit working families, the past quarter century showing that the supply-side theory that top-bracket tax cuts would boost economic growth and jobs failed,

You are talking about two different things. Economic growth does indeed go up with reduced taxes on corporations, but the benefits go to stockholders not employees, IMO. The theory is that this is supposed to drive more investment, but to look at one anecdote - Bezos didn't take all his extra wealth and plow it back into the economy generally, it sits on paper until he sells his equity and reinvests it elsewhere. Or borrows against it, I suppose?

Bezos wealth distribution is interesting. As a philanthropists he and his wife have given away millions,  money one might argue coming off the backs of his employees. Employees that again some might argue are taken advantage of.  Begs the question could his wealth be better distributed by paying his workers better?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2021, 06:06:50 PM
I see.  That explains how Peter Navarro and Larry Kudlow got to making economic policy instead of AEI or Cato, right?  None of them know anything so basically joe blow is on the same level, or bettter, when it comes to economic understanding. Forget the numbers then.  We don't have to address them.  Economists don't know what they are talking about.  Good point. 

It's not that they don't know anything, it's that like certain fields in the social sciences they make claims that are levels beyond what their current level of theory can actually claim in specifics. Take medieval astrologers for example: they weren't merely the witch-doctors that people make them out to be, they really did employ naked eye astronomy and try to determine causes and effects of things. Some of their knowledge was real knowledge, but some was obviously nonsense, and their overall theory understanding was weak. But it has to start somewhere, so I wouldn't even insult what it was they were doing. In what I see as being a ridiculously complex field of study, it is not insulting to argue that we are mostly not equipped to make strong claims about specific effects of policies that have no long history of empirical analysis in what we could call controlled conditions. As a 'science' it's more like art at this point in history. I completely support everyone studying economics in both quantitative and psychological approaches, but in our day and age people are not perhaps allowed to be humble enough to say things like "we are working towards a general theory of economics but it's a century or two away". Maybe it's because of how politicized economic theory always is, going back to the Depression era and before; where moral theory ends up in a mixed up quagmire with economic theory, which to this day have not been disentangled all that much. But I personally don't believe that economists have the grasp of things they claim to or want to; I think that they overrate the state of their own art or science; and that they have to act much more sure than they really are (perhaps even than they are well aware they are) because that's the state of American politics. I don't blame them necessarily, but I do take strong and sure claims with more than a grain of salt. More like a sodium mine.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2021, 06:13:18 PM
Grant, let's do a thought experiment: imagine if despite the warnings of some, a $15 national minimum wage was implemented. And let's say the actual numbers you posted simply don't happen, or are different by a significant margin. Do you think the 'public' (whoever that is) will string up the economist who said that and tar and feather them, making them admit while naked in public stocks that they were a charlatan and didn't know what they were talking about? Or do you think that economic journals will write articles about the hucksters making the false claims and call them frauds, never to be trusted again? No, if you look back at 20th century American economic-theory history alone you will see ample examples of very strong cliques making all sorts of claims that were proven time and again to be either wrong or at minimum not what they said it would be like, and it is never the case that they are 'taken to task' or made to recant or something. Either the particular movement (like for instance monetarism) fades away, or comes with in another guise like a hydra head, or else stays popular as a sort of public-policy phantom, perpetually heard but never able to be touched as if just insubstantial enough to not affect it. It is evident to me at least, that the more you read about the last 100 years of economics in America, the more you should just laugh and shrug. It might as well be astrology in a sense.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: NobleHunter on January 28, 2021, 06:49:26 PM
The line I like is that Economics is (alledgedly) one of the few fields that does not regularly ask its practitioners to study its history. Most/All other disciplines make at least some effort to teach would-be professionals how the field got to where it was. This leads to degree requirements like "History of Medicine," "History of Engineering," or "History of Basketweaving." The claim is that economics doesn't offer a "History of Economics" because nothing holds up. The historical theories can't explain modern events and modern theories can't explain historical events. They take refuge in ignorance because history isn't kind to them.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 28, 2021, 10:02:40 PM
There is a bit of irony in this hypothesis, because the trickle down argument put forward by right-wing economists maintains that putting money in the hands of the industrialists ends up generating jobs and money for everyone below. Putting aside whether you have personally made this argument, you do seem to now be echoing a generally right-wing concern about minimum wage levels. But if the trickle down argument holds any water, then it should also hold just as well that things trickle up - or I should say trickle around: if you put money in the hands of those on the bottom they will spend it, which ends up increasing money spent on goods and services, therefore ending up in the pocket of the industrialists. Granted, this money wouldn't be evenly spread, so having a $15 wage might mean you're buying more electronics, more order-in food, but possibly not really more expensive cars or leather luggage. But nevertheless that money goes back into the economy, right to the corporate pocket, and it is almost 100% certain anyone working for a wage will spend the vast majority if not all of this extra wage right away on stuff. So although in the short term obviously the overhead goes up payroll, shouldn't this in very short order be compensated for in all the extra sales and demand? Like, literally that money will go out and come right back in - albeit often laterally to other companies. But across the board it should even out for companies providing basic things people need.

Trickle Down economics don't apply to the scenario of a $15 minimum wage unless you somehow made it a global minimum wage. All a $15 minimum does is price low skill/low experience/"high risk" workers out of the work force, because their jobs become that much more likely to be off-shored to a part of the world where they'll happily work for $15 a day.

Wealthy people tend to want to spend the money where they are, and aren't too concerned about price("If you have to ask, you can't afford it") but the people who work for those wealthy people are price conscious and they'll be buying what they can afford or what they think delivers "best value" for their need at the time. And an over-priced workforce doesn't offer a guarantee of good value. This is a large part of the problem we've had for decades now and has been embodied by Wal-Mart & Made in China.

It also absolutely murders small businesses. When you're spending $1Million+ a year to take home about $60K/year off your business revenues after expenses with your current employees making $11 to $13/hour on average.

You bump their pay up to $15 to $17/hour and that $60K/year and your $60K/year just became $35K/year. Time to sell the business, invest it in income stocks in the stock market, and go to work for WalMart, less stress, less liability, and more income for you. I guess should find one of the posts I saw elsewhere that had a small business operator actually give numbers, I think I'm in the general ballpark of what he wrote.

From memory I think he was making a 4% Return on investment with all the capital he has invested in his company, and in his specific case, he was able to take home about 50 to 60K per year. Bumping the minimum wage up to $15/hour makes keeping his employees not economical for him, and without those employees he cannot continue to do the business he was doing. But he could sell the business, and invest it in the market where a 5% ROI is relatively easy to achieve, and get a job working for someone else. And that's what his likely decision would be. Sucks for the handful of people who work for him, but if that's what the government wants, that's what the government will get.

Quote
I could see, mind you, the argument that this could shift wealth from companies with inelastic demand to those where people will spend more with a better income. That could be. But I don't really see how this extra payroll overhead wouldn't be compensated by more orders on the aggregate. Where is that money going otherwise, under their beds? It seems to me that the theory that money trickles down (and therefore if you give to the industrialists everyone benefits) pretty much necessitates accepting the reverse (that giving it to the bottom, it should end up being spread to the industrialists).

It murders small businesses that operate on small margins, and leaves the market wide open for the big box stores(or Amazon) to move in the fill the void. Which doesn't do much for helping people find work.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 28, 2021, 10:06:31 PM
Let's assume there is no shift in employability. It still seems like a closed system to me. Consider a thought experiment where there is only one company. They have to pay their employees more, but then simple supply and demand means they charge more for products based on elasticity, and equilibrium is maintained.

You're forgetting that the US economy isn't a closed system, it interacts with the rest of the world. You increase the cost of labor, you increase the cost of goods and services offered in the United States.

In an era where telecommunications makes even technical support viable from thousands of miles away, that is a very dangerous path to pursue. There is a wide range of people employed in jobs that the moment they cost $15/hour to employ, their employment will end, and they'll be replaced by someone working in a call center in India or some other developing nation that has a number of people who have some degree of experience with English.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 10:07:25 PM
I see.  That explains how Peter Navarro and Larry Kudlow got to making economic policy instead of AEI or Cato, right?  None of them know anything so basically joe blow is on the same level, or bettter, when it comes to economic understanding. Forget the numbers then.  We don't have to address them.  Economists don't know what they are talking about.  Good point. 

It's not that they don't know anything, it's that like certain fields in the social sciences they make claims that are levels beyond what their current level of theory can actually claim in specifics. Take medieval astrologers for example: they weren't merely the witch-doctors that people make them out to be, they really did employ naked eye astronomy and try to determine causes and effects of things. Some of their knowledge was real knowledge, but some was obviously nonsense, and their overall theory understanding was weak. But it has to start somewhere, so I wouldn't even insult what it was they were doing. In what I see as being a ridiculously complex field of study, it is not insulting to argue that we are mostly not equipped to make strong claims about specific effects of policies that have no long history of empirical analysis in what we could call controlled conditions. As a 'science' it's more like art at this point in history. I completely support everyone studying economics in both quantitative and psychological approaches, but in our day and age people are not perhaps allowed to be humble enough to say things like "we are working towards a general theory of economics but it's a century or two away". Maybe it's because of how politicized economic theory always is, going back to the Depression era and before; where moral theory ends up in a mixed up quagmire with economic theory, which to this day have not been disentangled all that much. But I personally don't believe that economists have the grasp of things they claim to or want to; I think that they overrate the state of their own art or science; and that they have to act much more sure than they really are (perhaps even than they are well aware they are) because that's the state of American politics. I don't blame them necessarily, but I do take strong and sure claims with more than a grain of salt. More like a sodium mine.

I like the way you put that. But if that is indeed the case, wouldn't that apply equally to all economic pronouncements? Like "minimum wage will destroy the economy" or "lower taxes are always good"?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 10:18:56 PM
Quote
Trickle Down economics don't apply to the scenario of a $15 minimum wage unless you somehow made it a global minimum wage. All a $15 minimum does is price low skill/low experience/"high risk" workers out of the work force, because their jobs become that much more likely to be off-shored to a part of the world where they'll happily work for $15 a day.

Why aren't we seeing that play out within the states? Companies and people are not fleeing from Arizona ($12/hr) to Alabma ($7.25/hr). Plus, there are still plenty of small businesses in Seattle that have managed to survive. Then there's the question, if Mom & Pop family owned businesses can't be as efficient as corporations that enjoy economies of scale and massive borrowing power, should they continue to exist? Let's wring our hands because some restaurant owner that can't handle food cost, invest in efficient equipment, or negotiate as effectively with suppliers and landlords, why should I shed a tear for them?
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 28, 2021, 10:20:27 PM
Obviously there are a myriad of complications, including the fact that not everyone is making minimum wage, that raw materials may be imported from somewhere not affected by wage hikes, etc. There are also a variety of responses including deployment of technology - depending on the sector. One can respond by reducing quality potentially, lowering COGS. Scaling back advertisement, promotional pricing, on and on. All is moot, McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate ain't putting that one through, they would infuriate much of their base.

This is the other side of the equation. You make labor expensive enough, but the labor need still exists in a price/supply inflexible market (because a law is stipulating price) and the result will be you make automation and mechanization a more cost competitive option. Sure, people may enjoy that legally mandated wage hike for a brief period of time, but once the robots are able to assume the role, they're going to go from having enjoyed a larger paycheck to "enjoying" having no pay check at all.

Assuming they weren't working in a job that could off-shore easily, or for an employer that decided their financial interests were best served by shutting down the business entirely.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 28, 2021, 10:44:21 PM
Quote
Trickle Down economics don't apply to the scenario of a $15 minimum wage unless you somehow made it a global minimum wage. All a $15 minimum does is price low skill/low experience/"high risk" workers out of the work force, because their jobs become that much more likely to be off-shored to a part of the world where they'll happily work for $15 a day.

Why aren't we seeing that play out within the states? Companies and people are not fleeing from Arizona ($12/hr) to Alabma ($7.25/hr). Plus, there are still plenty of small businesses in Seattle that have managed to survive. Then there's the question, if Mom & Pop family owned businesses can't be as efficient as corporations that enjoy economies of scale and massive borrowing power, should they continue to exist? Let's wring our hands because some restaurant owner that can't handle food cost, invest in efficient equipment, or negotiate as effectively with suppliers and landlords, why should I shed a tear for them?

Because if economics was that simple, we'd have figured it out a long time ago.

Arizona has a lot of capital present in the state and a lot of population present as well(a lot it due to "northern" retirees and/or California transplants). That helps Arizona remain competitive with Alabama on certain things, while Alabama is competitive with Arizona on other things. There is a lot of "fuzzy variables" to go around. A lot of comes down to "sunk costs" in the location operations already are, and the cost of relocating and the predicted time for a ROI on making such a move. And when it comes to the retired people, the minimum wage in the area doesn't impact them beyond spending habits as a consequence of the cost of goods and services. They're there for the (winter) climate by and large.

As to other operations, sometimes opting for a little more mechanization/automation can cover the difference more easily than pulling up stakes and moving wholesale.

But if we're talking Phone Support for example, beware. For example, during my time doing phone support for DirecTV, I didn't actually work for DirecTV, I worked for a third party company who in turn had a contract to offer those services to DirecTV. (They also provided phone services for a lot of other major companies)

Those support contracts come up for renewal from time to time, and DirecTV has no "investment" in the call center I worked for(and to my knowledge, they're doing phone support for a health-services company these days). If they decide a call center in Mumbai offers "better value" for their company when the contract renewal is due to come up. Well, they're going to switch to Mumbai. The third party operator can then try to find someone else that is willing to pay for continued operation of that call center, or shut down the operation and declare bankruptcy if needed.

Now if we were talking about a mining operation and/or affiliated support services, obviously there are other limitations in play. You'd need to have a replacement mining site available to you, so on and so forth, and those options are likely to be limited especially if you are looking for new operations.

Other times it is something of a chicken-and-the-egg problem, where you need a workforce with a particular skill set, and obviously the place where you are already has that skill set or you wouldn't be there. They may now be more expensive than the market will bear due to a legislative action, but you don't really have a good option for relocation choices. So you either look at automation to bring labor costs down, or you simply vacate that market.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2021, 11:23:40 PM
It is not that complicated to understand why all minimum wage jobs won't be offshored with a minimum wage hike. Just think about it: all the businesses that did so would vanish, along with the economy. In other words, outsourcing all jobs that are paid minimum wage would guarantee the destruction of their own company. After all, they can import goods until the cows come home, but they are mostly selling them (especially the goods made in China) to the general public. Eliminate their income source and where's your profit then? So even on a first glance the risk that all jobs go overseas if the minimum wage increases is zero. The argument that the amount of jobs available would decrease is the more plausible fear, I think, but as I mentioned above I think this also tends to be a minimal concern when businesses have already minimized to the maximal degree how many people they hire. At a certain point the employment level of a company becomes inelastic; go lower and you simply can't operate. And I'm guessing most businesses are already there, as has been the trend for years.

Regarding the slim margin small businesses may find at risk with a payroll increase, I would question why they are not seeing a commensurate increase in sales that goes along with the general public having more disposable income as a result of their higher pay scale. Could it be that all the new income going to minimum wage workers is going to Amazon instead of to them? But in that case they were doomed anyhow, and this is just hastening that situation. I don't like it, but in that scenario in particular I have to unusually side with TheDrake in saying that this is the general tide at work, not the new law that is responsible.

But if that is indeed the case, wouldn't that apply equally to all economic pronouncements? Like "minimum wage will destroy the economy" or "lower taxes are always good"?

To whatever extent an economist is sure of something is the extent to which I doubt the claim. I think there are obviously some things we can rely on. For instance trial and error seems to show pretty clearly that altering the prime rate has a somewhat predictable effect on bank lending and consumer borrowing. This is not some arcane theory, but a mechanically demonstrated phenomenon. Now if an economist was going to insist that lowering the prime rate would definitely fix a problem, now we are getting into astrology, because that would imply they know for certain what is causing a trough, which surely they could not know with authority. But on the other hand in the case of a trough, I think an economist suggesting to at least try lowering the prime rate would certainly be making a reasonable suggestion with some chance of success.

I hope I understood your question? Generally I think general pronouncements are going to be problematic, because the fact is that the aggregate effects in the economy are really just that: a series of discrete events all happening at once. Generalizing a massive and complex system into "X happens because of Y" is about as silly as saying that a person is feeling unwell because he must have a bug; or worse, because his humors are out of balance. Needless to say, we know that all sorts of minutiae in both body and mind can cause 'distemper'. You could feel vaguely unwell, due to a conglomeration of actually unrelated circumstances, including anxiety about something you've consciously forgotten about, that time you pulled a muscle and since then slightly favor one thigh (thereby causing an imbalance in your lower back and now causing a pinching in your neck), the fact that you wronged someone back when you were 8 years old, and the fact that you haven't exercised enough recently and when you did your brow was tense. And just toss in that your diet has thrown your gut microbiome out of whack, and you have a malady soup that no doctor, osteopath, or psychiatrist is equipped to untangle for you with a general statement about wellness. And now imagine that the economy is made up of millions of people like this, and that the functioning of the economy is as much a function of their state of mind as it is of fluid dynamics, flow theory, etc etc etc. So that is in a nutshell what I think about pithy pronouncements about economics.

Again, it's not that we cannot say anything, but economists usually say too much. I really enjoy economics, so this is not some diatribe against the study of it.

Take a small analogy in political science: it's oft taken for granted that democracy is the best option for governance in our day and age. But in order to ascertain what effect a particular democratic system will have, it's not enough to draw a schema on paper and say it should be like this and that it ought to work pretty good. It will also involve who will be participating in it; what these people are like; what happened in their history; what current establishments are in place and how they will function in it; what a person could do in that system, aside from what they are supposed to do; and many other factors. Some general statement about its function would really be meaningless without these details.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: TheDeamon on January 29, 2021, 03:57:52 AM
It is not that complicated to understand why all minimum wage jobs won't be offshored with a minimum wage hike. Just think about it: all the businesses that did so would vanish, along with the economy. In other words, outsourcing all jobs that are paid minimum wage would guarantee the destruction of their own company. After all, they can import goods until the cows come home, but they are mostly selling them (especially the goods made in China) to the general public. Eliminate their income source and where's your profit then? So even on a first glance the risk that all jobs go overseas if the minimum wage increases is zero. The argument that the amount of jobs available would decrease is the more plausible fear, I think, but as I mentioned above I think this also tends to be a minimal concern when businesses have already minimized to the maximal degree how many people they hire. At a certain point the employment level of a company becomes inelastic; go lower and you simply can't operate. And I'm guessing most businesses are already there, as has been the trend for years.

Not all minimum wage jobs can be outsourced because not all minimum wage jobs lend themselves well to outsourcing/offshoring to other locations.

A Barrista in India doesn't help brew coffee for the Facebook employee in San Francisco.
Likewise, a Janitor in Indonesia doesn't help with cleaning the Alphabet headquarters in Silicon Valley.

Now Alphabet could install a bunch of Roomba's and cut back on their janitorial staff as they don't need to pay someone to vacuum their floors nightly. But there are things the Roomba cannot handle, and other tasks that require a human for now. Although Boston Dynamics, among others, is working on that; they certainly seem to have a robot that probably wouldn't take much training to have go from cubical to cubical and empty the trash cans periodically. Their "problem" would likely be the outlier conditions that people working there would generate for the trash collectors. Although given "Spot" (which wouldn't make a good trash collector) would currently set you back a minimum of $74,500 right now, I think the janitors are safe for a few more years.
source:
https://shop.bostondynamics.com/spot?cclcl=en_US&pid=aDl6g000000XdpZCAS

The list goes on and on however.

The guy cooking burgers at McDonald's is another example of someone who couldn't be offshored, you need the cooked burger where the customer is, not 2,000 miles away.

But now at $15 and hour, that guy is now likely to be in a lot more danger as you don't need something as advanced as Spot to do his job. Assuming a store open from 6AM to 10PM and $15/hour for a cook to just do burgers, (and you'd have taxes, insurance, and other things to cover too) that's $240 per day at the $15/hour price point. Multiply that across 365 days and you get $87,600/year. But the reality is, you buy "BurgerBot" once at $90,000 and then probably sign on to a "maintenance contract" that'd maybe run you about $30K/year and come with periodic upgrades and service. So in the first 2 years you're out $150,000... Except the humans it replaced would have cost you at least $175,000. Score $25 grand in extra pocket money for the McDonald's Franchise owner by the end of year 2, everything else after that is almost pure profit(less the service fee).

All because you just priced that job position into a price point that Spot became price competitive with the unskilled human.

Granted that's a problem that is coming sooner rather than later anyway, not increasing the minimum wage at this point might only buy the burger guy an extra "handful" of years at that job. But at least he is employed in the meantime. And the reality is, one McDonald's goes down that route, it wouldn't just be one guy in the kitchen getting cut.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: DJQuag on January 29, 2021, 08:58:54 AM
This paranoia about innovation replacing jobs with robots only exists in a mindset that declares that people must work.

As technology advances we'll get closer and closer to the point of Star Trek post scarcity. If robots can actually do almost everything, there'll be no reason for anyone to work except in areas they're passionate about. Art. Community involvement. Continued innovation.

If technology advances and more and more jobs become replaced, the base economic model itself will have to change. The only other option will be a world with the .001 percent robot owners facing down the billions of starving and jobless people.

Universal base income. It's the future.
Title: Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
Post by: LetterRip on January 29, 2021, 09:23:49 AM
For robotic replacement - manual labor at 15$ an hour is only slightly more likely to be replaced than 7.50$ an hour.  It changes the 'when' by a slight amount but not the if.

Lets use spot above - 75,000 dollars at volumes of 1000 a year say.

A 75000 one time robot with 10 year useful life is 7500 a year.  Say annual maintenance of 2500 for 10000 a year.

An employee costs

7.50 * 8 * 52 = 21,840

but a robot can work 3 shifts and weekends

so it replaces 3+ workers.  Also there are other employee costs.  So well say that 7.50 employee is really 30000 a year.

so 90000 a year for human labor vs 10000 a year for robot.

Of course spot is low volume - at a million robots a year it might cost 2000$.

At 2000$ it replaces labor that costs less than .50$ a day.

It is only because humans are so flexible and robots are hard to train and narrow capability.  The ease of training and flexibilty is increasing extremely rapidly due to AI advancements .  Human labor for the vast majority of jobs will be uncompetitive in the near future.