The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Ben E Lou]

Yikes. That should be on a graduated scale of some sort. Higher-up drops from 400K to 300K, meh. 100K to 75K, ouch. 40K to $30K, and they're in real trouble.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Im still hearing a TON of this.
Kinda blows my mind.
And everyone here knows Im as Pro 2A as you can get, and mostly R/Conservative (mostly...)

But I had a long conversation this weekend with a friend I usually consider intelligent that was basically

Me: Greater good. Fire in a theater. blah blah blah
Him: But but but mah rights. Right to assemble. Freedom.

Admitedly Im biased here because being forced to stay on my farm, ride my tractor, cut trees and associate only with my animals and my family is kind of my idea of heaven but I am failing to see the outrage.

I mentioned in the other thread but there is a relevant ruling for this (Jacobson vs Massachusetts).

What it comes down to is yes, that person has rights and liberty. But so does everyone else. And if their actions end up infringing on others, the state can step in.

For instance, I am free to exercise my religion but if I decide human sacrifice is part of it, the state can stop me. I'd be infringing on the rights of others.

[RainMaker]

OK we may have jumped the shark as a country.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There's a lot of libertarianism in them.

Yes, this. Some of the most vocal about how these rules are all stupid and/or unconstitutional are those with libertarian bents. Not dumb people, but think they are smarter than they are and always have to be that guy, that contrarian asshole no matter the subject.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

OK we may have jumped the shark as a country.

Don’t under estimate yourselves

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

OK we may have jumped the shark as a country.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

My company just took an across the board 25% pay cut. Sucks, but that was the only way to avoid any layoffs or cuts to health benefits.

I feel for you man. There's been quite a bit happening with my company since Thursday.

Thousands furloughed across the company. Some were let go, too.

The CEO sent out an email today letting us know that he and the rest of the Board of Directors will not be paid for the rest of 2020.

For those who were furloughed, the company is going to cover 100% of their health insurance benefits while they are furloughed. I think they usually cover 50%.

I don't know what is considered typical in this situation, but I am impressed with what the leadership has done in a time like this.

[albionmoonlight]

Coronavirus in US: Partisanship is the strongest predictor of public response - Vox

Not unexpected, but partisanship is still the primary factor determining how people are experiencing reality.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Coronavirus in US: Partisanship is the strongest predictor of public response - Vox

Not unexpected, but partisanship is still the primary factor determining how people are experiencing reality.

Trump supporters are stupid, selfish, and easily manipulated. Who would have imagined?

[spleen1015]

You can totally lay it on him for it being this way. He's not interested in leading this country the right way.

[Brian Swartz]

Other way around. Trump wouldn't even be possible as POTUS without the partisan divide that predates him.

[spleen1015]

He's the POTUS. He needs to be the grown up in the room not the worst child in the room.

[Brian Swartz]

Sure, no argument there. I'm just saying Trump being a petulant child doesn't mean partisanship in America is his fault. Let's blame for what he's actually done, there's plenty there without adding more to it.

[Kodos]

He has certainly exacerbated it in a major way.

[NobodyHere]

Trump calls for $2 trillion infrastructure bill to help economy during coronavirus crisis

How much money do we have to spend until I can feel safe?

[SirFozzie]

Honestly, I think infrastructure is something both parties can agree on, things are crumbling.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Trump calls for $2 trillion infrastructure bill to help economy during coronavirus crisis

How much money do we have to spend until I can feel safe?

Haven’t we been talking about spending money on infrastructure for 15 years?

[whomario]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Haven’t we been talking about spending money on infrastructure for 15 years?

John Oliver had a terrific show on that topic a while back

YouTube

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Honestly, I think infrastructure is something both parties can agree on, things are crumbling.

Agreed, as long as it is upgrading and rehabbing existing infrastructure rather than bridges to nowhere.

New stuff I am ok with as long as its not pork barrel stuff, but the existing structures typically are forgotten about when items of this nature are bandied about.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Other way around. Trump wouldn't even be possible as POTUS without the partisan divide that predates him.

100% in agreement here. Trump is a symptom, not the cause. Although one symptom can lead to other symptoms developing.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Honestly, I think infrastructure is something both parties can agree on, things are crumbling.

Several GOP Senators have already said no new bill and we're done spending.

That and nobody is actually in D.C. and likely won't be until the need for such a bill has ended.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

100% in agreement here. Trump is a symptom, not the cause. Although one symptom can lead to other symptoms developing.

Oh well - I was already beaten to this. Trump is a symptom, not a cause


SI

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Is it possible that, by extending the self distancing rules to April 30, the president has given those governors who have been fighting against shelter in place a chance to put one in place without losing face?

Originally Posted by miami_fan

But that is why I think it might be the play. If you are the governor who believed or wanted to support the president, I could see not wanting to be seen as going against him by shutting things down. Now you can shut things down until at least say like 15 April and just say that the change is inline with the President’s new directives.

A reason why Florida hasn’t shut down? Nobody from White House task force said so, DeSantis says.

“I’m in contact with (the White House task force) and I’ve said, are you recommending this?” DeSantis said. “The task force has not recommended that to me. If they do, obviously that would be something that carries a lot of weight with me. If any of those task force folks tell me that we should do X, Y or Z, of course we’re going to consider it. But nobody has said that to me thus far.”

That deference to the White House was later applauded by President Donald Trump, who lauded DeSantis, a close political ally.

When asked if Florida needed to issue a blanket order, Trump replied that DeSantis is a “great governor who knows exactly what he’s doing.”

[JPhillips]

From Politico:

The government has yet to curtail exports by U.S. companies, however—roughly 280 million masks in warehouses around the U.S. were purchased by foreign buyers on Monday alone, according to Forbes. A FEMA spokesperson said the agency “has not actively encouraged or discouraged U.S. companies from exporting overseas,” noting that various U.S. agencies are coordinating their activities with their overseas counterparts.

What a fucking disaster.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From Politico:

What a fucking disaster.

Quite an ethical dilemma.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Several GOP Senators have already said no new bill and we're done spending.

That and nobody is actually in D.C. and likely won't be until the need for such a bill has ended.

I would bet that Trump drags them along.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/polit...lks/index.html

[stevew]

So for real I know this won’t happen, but why can’t we be out fixing highways en masse with traffic at all time lows. Most of this being outdoor work, and it not seeming like they work all that close together.

[Edward64]

I like the idea of fixing up the infrastructure (and I would love bullet trains spread out throughout the country).

However, I don't think this is time yet for that bill. TBH, I don't think many are desperate/willing enough to do manual labor (yet).

What I can forsee is once we are trending back to normality, assuming interest rates are still pretty low, increase guest worker programs to help rebuild the infrastructure.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Quite an ethical dilemma.

I fail to see the dilemma.

Do the right thing. Not that hard.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I fail to see the dilemma.

Do the right thing. Not that hard.

The ethical dilemma is do we try to help the world even though we have shortages of our own or do we ignore them and it's US first.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The ethical dilemma is do we try to help the world even though we have shortages of our own or do we ignore them and it's US first.

That issue is discussed in the Politico piece, but this specific problem isn't about helping other countries as it is selling to the highest bidder to maximize profits. It's a good example of how the federal response to the supply shortage has largely been inadequate. We don't have enough masks, but we're still allowing companies to sell to the highest bidder and ship them overseas by the tens of millions.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That issue is discussed in the Politico piece, but this specific problem isn't about helping other countries as it is selling to the highest bidder to maximize profits. It's a good example of how the federal response to the supply shortage has largely been inadequate. We don't have enough masks, but we're still allowing companies to sell to the highest bidder and ship them overseas by the tens of millions.

Sure. I'm good with regulating/controlling what companies do (and in this case with medical supplies I'm all for it) in a national emergency.

But the underlying ethical question still remains.

Forget about companies making a profit to the highest bidder, the question is in a situation where there is not enough supplies for the US, do we ignore needs to other countries and it's just US first?

[Brian Swartz]

My personal answer to what we *should* do is no, we don't do that. I think we keep a lot for ourselves but export some to where the worst shortages are. This is part ethical, but also part pure self-preservation. Everything that happens affects everyone in a global world, and the worse it gets anywhere, the worse the recovery will be everywhere.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure. I'm good with regulating/controlling what companies do (and in this case with medical supplies I'm all for it) in a national emergency.

But the underlying ethical question still remains.

Forget about companies making a profit to the highest bidder, the question is in a situation where there is not enough supplies for the US, do we ignore needs to other countries and it's just US first?

I believe the US government should put the US people first.

[JPhillips]

In this case, we don't know where te masks are going. Given the bidding procedures, it's unlikely they are going to governments of poorer countries, but they may not be going to hospitals at all. It's impossible to know whether these purchases are going to entities that will help people in other countries. They could just as easily be going to individuals or profit seekers or stockpiles for future usage.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I believe the US government should put the US people first.

Nationalist.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In this case, we don't know where te masks are going. Given the bidding procedures, it's unlikely they are going to governments of poorer countries, but they may not be going to hospitals at all. It's impossible to know whether these purchases are going to entities that will help people in other countries. They could just as easily be going to individuals or profit seekers or stockpiles for future usage.

You mean like to rich businessmen who influence countries via off shore, shell corporations that can move money around the world pretty much unaccounted for, and for whatever means they desire?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In this case, we don't know where te masks are going. Given the bidding procedures, it's unlikely they are going to governments of poorer countries, but they may not be going to hospitals at all. It's impossible to know whether these purchases are going to entities that will help people in other countries. They could just as easily be going to individuals or profit seekers or stockpiles for future usage.

You are avoiding answering the question. Forget your link about companies making a profit by selling needed medical supplies to other countries. Forget what Trump will do or say. If you were President (and we are where we are) what would you do if ...

Assume (Neutral Thailand, friendly Mexico, enemy Venezuela) has asked the US for more masks and ventilators. Assume they are in short supply worldwide. Do we send them all/some to the country or do the US first and keep them all until the tide has turned?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You are avoiding answering the question. Forget your link about companies making a profit by selling needed medical supplies to other countries. Forget what Trump will do or say. If you were President (and we are where we are) what would you do if ...

Assume (Neutral Thailand, friendly Mexico, enemy Venezuela) has asked the US for more masks and ventilators. Assume they are in short supply worldwide. Do we send them all/some to the country or do the US first and keep them all until the tide has turned?

Because you're asking a question totally unconnected to what's actually happening.

We have medical stockpiles all over the globe. I think it's appropriate and probably more cost-efficient to look at sharing those supplies. Eventually, we will have excess production that can also be shared. But none of that matters when we don't have a national supply system in place to adequately determine national needs and national supplies. It sure seems like right now it's just highest bidder gets the supplies.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You are avoiding answering the question. Forget your link about companies making a profit by selling needed medical supplies to other countries. Forget what Trump will do or say. If you were President (and we are where we are) what would you do if ...

Assume (Neutral Thailand, friendly Mexico, enemy Venezuela) has asked the US for more masks and ventilators. Assume they are in short supply worldwide. Do we send them all/some to the country or do the US first and keep them all until the tide has turned?

The most basic equation here is that you can't be a help, support, or salvation for anyone else, whether they are your spouse, kids, city, country or what have you, if you aren't taking care of yourself well enough. Doesn't have to be completely selfish or stay at 100%, but you have to be healthy enough to be valuable.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You mean like to rich businessmen who influence countries via off shore, shell corporations that can move money around the world pretty much unaccounted for, and for whatever means they desire?

Luckily, we can be sure that in a time of crisis that would never happen.

On an unrelated note, did you hear about the GOP fundraiser that closed up shop to get into the medical supply business? True story.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Because you're asking a question totally unconnected to what's actually happening.

Admittedly I've not read any stories yet but I'm willing to be there's been reachout to US government for medical supplies. I don't envy the person(s) making those decisions/recommendations.

We have medical stockpiles all over the globe. I think it's appropriate and probably more cost-efficient to look at sharing those supplies.

So I think you are saying you would share the medical supplies (assume predominantly US military stockpiles) that we have outside of the US to other countries, but not supplies we have in the US (until the tide turns and we don't need them as much).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The most basic equation here is that you can't be a help, support, or salvation for anyone else, whether they are your spouse, kids, city, country or what have you, if you aren't taking care of yourself well enough. Doesn't have to be completely selfish or stay at 100%, but you have to be healthy enough to be valuable.

Please secure your oxygen mask before helping others.

I've heard that somewhere before...

[stevew]

I would never dream that people would buy supplies to an offshore entity and then mark them up and resell them to us without ever needing to transport them offshore. That would never happen.

The arbitrage on this is going to be sickening.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The most basic equation here is that you can't be a help, support, or salvation for anyone else, whether they are your spouse, kids, city, country or what have you, if you aren't taking care of yourself well enough. Doesn't have to be completely selfish or stay at 100%, but you have to be healthy enough to be valuable.

So I'm reading US first for the most part until the tide turns?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cartman

Please secure your oxygen mask before helping others.

I've heard that somewhere before...

Good one!

[JPhillips]

Turns out that Elon Musk's donation of "ventilators" was actually CPAP machines that don't work as ventilators without significant modifications and may help spread COVID.

Con man gonna con.

[Lathum]

Mike Pence is such an ass kissing snake.

[JPhillips]

Turns out Sen. Loeffler sold almost 19 million in stock between Feb 26 and March 11.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Turns out Sen. Loeffler sold almost 19 million in stock between Feb 26 and March 11.

I have two thoughts on this...

1) If these senators etc are found to be acting improperly they should face a harsh jail sentence not just penalties/fines. Not sure why any of them should be able to own stock. If you want to be a lifelong politician that should be part of the agreement. However it isn't so...

2) On the flip side generally these people (especially her husband) are highly successful for a reason. I mean isn't this the main criticism of Trump that everyone and their mother saw this coming from what was going on in China? If she and her husband had a hunch that the shit was going to hit the fan (and did nothing illegal from secret reports etc) I guess kudos to them right?