[magnus]

So, now, maybe stimulus?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1313682545775697920?s=20[/tweet]

BC

The more the stock market drops, the more he's going to push.

[magnus]

So, now, maybe stimulus?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1313682545775697920?s=20[/tweet]

BC

The more the stock market drops, the more he's going to push.

[Snorlax94]

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

[Snorlax94]

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

[OutsiderFan]

The most basic principle of negotiation is to never back off a position when you say you won't move from it. This is different from making a demand or proposing an offer.  Saying "I won't do this" and then doing exactly that, so weakens your position that you are destined to lose the negotiation. Hard fought negotiations with two competent sides don't ever allow one party to win as much as both sides to agree to something they can accept.

Not only has the POTUS blown up any leverage he might have had in negotiations by showing how easily he can be rolled, he also has interrupted negotiations taking place in Congress between the House, Senate, and White House. Worse, everyone knows he doesn't give AF about the country or people around him, so any "changing his mind" is now seen as a transparently obvious pandering to win votes for himself, not help Americans.

Now, Nancy Pelosi can say she won't sign off on this or that because it doesn't do enough that she wants and The President's plan is a giveaway to the rich - even if not really the case - because everyone knows that's what happened with previous relief bills, and nobody believe the POTUS anymore.  She smartly played the "drugs are messing with his head card" and the NYT backed that up in reporting the very same day, with WH sources saying the drugs are impairing his judgement.

Then you have McConnell saying they don't have the votes (from Republicans) to pass anything.  Now the POTUS is putting them in a bind too, by totally undercutting their negotiating position.  They must decide on standing up against a near lame duck POTUS or giving up the negotiating position they took up until the POTUS "reversal" that also empowers Pelosi.

IOW, all the POTUS did was strengthen the House's negotiating hand and allow Dems to roll the Republicans when they have 2/3 of the legislative components needed to pass anything. They did this by not being unified, with a totally undisciplined, compulsive, thoughtless POTUS.

If I were Pelosi, I'd find a way to put off the SCOTUS nomination in my negotiation, as a condition to pass anything. This is what the country wants, by a 74-26 margin, and she does lead the People's House.

---

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

This is a very good idea. Your original concept, or taken from somewhere else?

[OutsiderFan]

The most basic principle of negotiation is to never back off a position when you say you won't move from it. This is different from making a demand or proposing an offer.  Saying "I won't do this" and then doing exactly that, so weakens your position that you are destined to lose the negotiation. Hard fought negotiations with two competent sides don't ever allow one party to win as much as both sides to agree to something they can accept.

Not only has the POTUS blown up any leverage he might have had in negotiations by showing how easily he can be rolled, he also has interrupted negotiations taking place in Congress between the House, Senate, and White House. Worse, everyone knows he doesn't give AF about the country or people around him, so any "changing his mind" is now seen as a transparently obvious pandering to win votes for himself, not help Americans.

Now, Nancy Pelosi can say she won't sign off on this or that because it doesn't do enough that she wants and The President's plan is a giveaway to the rich - even if not really the case - because everyone knows that's what happened with previous relief bills, and nobody believe the POTUS anymore.  She smartly played the "drugs are messing with his head card" and the NYT backed that up in reporting the very same day, with WH sources saying the drugs are impairing his judgement.

Then you have McConnell saying they don't have the votes (from Republicans) to pass anything.  Now the POTUS is putting them in a bind too, by totally undercutting their negotiating position.  They must decide on standing up against a near lame duck POTUS or giving up the negotiating position they took up until the POTUS "reversal" that also empowers Pelosi.

IOW, all the POTUS did was strengthen the House's negotiating hand and allow Dems to roll the Republicans when they have 2/3 of the legislative components needed to pass anything. They did this by not being unified, with a totally undisciplined, compulsive, thoughtless POTUS.

If I were Pelosi, I'd find a way to put off the SCOTUS nomination in my negotiation, as a condition to pass anything. This is what the country wants, by a 74-26 margin, and she does lead the People's House.

---

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

This is a very good idea. Your original concept, or taken from somewhere else?

[Genuine Realist]

The most basic principle of negotiation is to never back off a position when you say you won't move from it. This is different from making a demand or proposing an offer.  Saying "I won't do this" and then doing exactly that, so weakens your position that you are destined to lose the negotiation. Hard fought negotiations with two competent sides don't ever allow one party to win as much as both sides to agree to something they can accept.

Not only has the POTUS blown up any leverage he might have had in negotiations by showing how easily he can be rolled, he also has interrupted negotiations taking place in Congress between the House, Senate, and White House. Worse, everyone knows he doesn't give AF about the country or people around him, so any "changing his mind" is now seen as a transparently obvious pandering to win votes for himself, not help Americans.

Now, Nancy Pelosi can say she won't sign off on this or that because it doesn't do enough that she wants and The President's plan is a giveaway to the rich - even if not really the case - because everyone knows that's what happened with previous relief bills, and nobody believe the POTUS anymore.  She smartly played the "drugs are messing with his head card" and the NYT backed that up in reporting the very same day, with WH sources saying the drugs are impairing his judgement.

Then you have McConnell saying they don't have the votes (from Republicans) to pass anything.  Now the POTUS is putting them in a bind too, by totally undercutting their negotiating position.  They must decide on standing up against a near lame duck POTUS or giving up the negotiating position they took up until the POTUS "reversal" that also empowers Pelosi.

IOW, all the POTUS did was strengthen the House's negotiating hand and allow Dems to roll the Republicans when they have 2/3 of the legislative components needed to pass anything. They did this by not being unified, with a totally undisciplined, compulsive, thoughtless POTUS.

If I were Pelosi, I'd find a way to put off the SCOTUS nomination in my negotiation, as a condition to pass anything. This is what the country wants, by a 74-26 margin, and she does lead the People's House.

---

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

This is a very good idea. Your original concept, or taken from somewhere else?

A terrible idea, leading to mob rule. The precise reason why the American Revolution succeeded, and the French Revolution failed, are the hedges against unfettered popular action. If you are looking for a symptom of TDS, the thought that his election requires a re-working of institutions that have functioned superbly over 200 years is dead on the mark.

One of the most interesting statistics of the 2016 election is the number of counties won by the GOP. There are 3141 counties in the US - Trump won 2700 of them, roughly 80%. The plurality in favor of HRC arose solely from brobdingnagian majorities in the richest and most populous States in the Union, California and New York, and a few similar cities around the ation. The balance of the US is not sympathetic to the Democrats.

So Manhattan and Hollywood, dominating the media and economy, also get unfettered sway of the government? No way. The Founding Fathers discussed the idea in 1787, and rejected it. With good reason.

[Genuine Realist]

The most basic principle of negotiation is to never back off a position when you say you won't move from it. This is different from making a demand or proposing an offer.  Saying "I won't do this" and then doing exactly that, so weakens your position that you are destined to lose the negotiation. Hard fought negotiations with two competent sides don't ever allow one party to win as much as both sides to agree to something they can accept.

Not only has the POTUS blown up any leverage he might have had in negotiations by showing how easily he can be rolled, he also has interrupted negotiations taking place in Congress between the House, Senate, and White House. Worse, everyone knows he doesn't give AF about the country or people around him, so any "changing his mind" is now seen as a transparently obvious pandering to win votes for himself, not help Americans.

Now, Nancy Pelosi can say she won't sign off on this or that because it doesn't do enough that she wants and The President's plan is a giveaway to the rich - even if not really the case - because everyone knows that's what happened with previous relief bills, and nobody believe the POTUS anymore.  She smartly played the "drugs are messing with his head card" and the NYT backed that up in reporting the very same day, with WH sources saying the drugs are impairing his judgement.

Then you have McConnell saying they don't have the votes (from Republicans) to pass anything.  Now the POTUS is putting them in a bind too, by totally undercutting their negotiating position.  They must decide on standing up against a near lame duck POTUS or giving up the negotiating position they took up until the POTUS "reversal" that also empowers Pelosi.

IOW, all the POTUS did was strengthen the House's negotiating hand and allow Dems to roll the Republicans when they have 2/3 of the legislative components needed to pass anything. They did this by not being unified, with a totally undisciplined, compulsive, thoughtless POTUS.

If I were Pelosi, I'd find a way to put off the SCOTUS nomination in my negotiation, as a condition to pass anything. This is what the country wants, by a 74-26 margin, and she does lead the People's House.

---

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

This is a very good idea. Your original concept, or taken from somewhere else?

A terrible idea, leading to mob rule. The precise reason why the American Revolution succeeded, and the French Revolution failed, are the hedges against unfettered popular action. If you are looking for a symptom of TDS, the thought that his election requires a re-working of institutions that have functioned superbly over 200 years is dead on the mark.

One of the most interesting statistics of the 2016 election is the number of counties won by the GOP. There are 3141 counties in the US - Trump won 2700 of them, roughly 80%. The plurality in favor of HRC arose solely from brobdingnagian majorities in the richest and most populous States in the Union, California and New York, and a few similar cities around the ation. The balance of the US is not sympathetic to the Democrats.

So Manhattan and Hollywood, dominating the media and economy, also get unfettered sway of the government? No way. The Founding Fathers discussed the idea in 1787, and rejected it. With good reason.

[Goose]

While I totally agree that there are "better" and "worse" types of governmental organizations in a democracy, if party politics becomes the raison d'être of our elected officials, no matter how organized, our government will fail. Simple as that. Right now, that is where we are. The two parties are all about power, not at all about what is best for the nation. Every single one of them. They may not start out that way, but by the time they have been in government for a year, they are "converted". Little compromises in the name of party become big ones. We need to change the people we are electing.

Problem is, very few "good" people want to run for office these days. The politics and political sniping by the media has convinced them they can't be effective. Even if somebody persists and tries to run, the party faithful insist on a "reliable" candidate, i.e. somebody who cares more about them selves and their position in the party than doing the people's work. Occasionally, you get somebody who rises above all that. I put Obama (with whom I disagree on most issues) in that category. The system basically defeated him. This dearth of people who are above party is "the swamp". The perception that this is the case is what elected Trump. People were desperate for somebody who wasn't just a politician. That didn't work either because Trump is, well, Trump. IMHO it was obvious that was the case from the beginning, but I think lots of people were so desperate they were willing to try literally anything.

So unless and until we have people who are not controlled by political factors, we will have a government that does not serve the nation well. The only way to correct that situation is to get a different set of people elected who are not in it for political power or because the party chose them. I have no idea how to make that happen.

[Goose]

While I totally agree that there are "better" and "worse" types of governmental organizations in a democracy, if party politics becomes the raison d'être of our elected officials, no matter how organized, our government will fail. Simple as that. Right now, that is where we are. The two parties are all about power, not at all about what is best for the nation. Every single one of them. They may not start out that way, but by the time they have been in government for a year, they are "converted". Little compromises in the name of party become big ones. We need to change the people we are electing.

Problem is, very few "good" people want to run for office these days. The politics and political sniping by the media has convinced them they can't be effective. Even if somebody persists and tries to run, the party faithful insist on a "reliable" candidate, i.e. somebody who cares more about them selves and their position in the party than doing the people's work. Occasionally, you get somebody who rises above all that. I put Obama (with whom I disagree on most issues) in that category. The system basically defeated him. This dearth of people who are above party is "the swamp". The perception that this is the case is what elected Trump. People were desperate for somebody who wasn't just a politician. That didn't work either because Trump is, well, Trump. IMHO it was obvious that was the case from the beginning, but I think lots of people were so desperate they were willing to try literally anything.

So unless and until we have people who are not controlled by political factors, we will have a government that does not serve the nation well. The only way to correct that situation is to get a different set of people elected who are not in it for political power or because the party chose them. I have no idea how to make that happen.

[terry]

IMO, we should remember that this is the Covid-19 board, not a general politics board.

[terry]

IMO, we should remember that this is the Covid-19 board, not a general politics board.

[Mick]

And so Rome burns while Nero fiddles...with a blue bird app on his phone.

I think Jerome Powell put it best: this lack of stimulus is going to have "economically tragic consequences."

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.

Oh and, uh...COVID.

---

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

I like this idea with the caveat that a national initiative system be implemented, similar to the California initiative system.  If we're going to elect representatives based solely upon popular vote, I want the same for important issues.

[Mick]

And so Rome burns while Nero fiddles...with a blue bird app on his phone.

I think Jerome Powell put it best: this lack of stimulus is going to have "economically tragic consequences."

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.

Oh and, uh...COVID.

---

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

I like this idea with the caveat that a national initiative system be implemented, similar to the California initiative system.  If we're going to elect representatives based solely upon popular vote, I want the same for important issues.

[teejers1]

And so Rome burns while Nero fiddles...with a blue bird app on his phone.

I think Jerome Powell put it best: this lack of stimulus is going to have "economically tragic consequences."

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.

Oh and, uh...COVID.

---

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

I like this idea with the caveat that a national initiative system be implemented, similar to the California initiative system.  If we're going to elect representatives based solely upon popular vote, I want the same for important issues.

Heaven help us all if Trump were to defy all the prognostications and get re-elected.
But heaven particularly help the following folks:  OF, Farm93, Snorlax, Burger (fare thee well), and I'm sure a few others whose heads might actually explode - akin to Oberyn Martell's head explosion by The Mountain in GoT - if Trump were to somehow get re-elected.

Fortunately, Covid should assure that won't happen . . . 

(see what I did there, Mick?).

[teejers1]

And so Rome burns while Nero fiddles...with a blue bird app on his phone.

I think Jerome Powell put it best: this lack of stimulus is going to have "economically tragic consequences."

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.

Oh and, uh...COVID.

---

Looking at the Presidency as the core of governmental frustration, be it Bush, Obama, or Trump, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The real Constitutional crisis is the utter inability of Congress to act as a deliberative body. If you say the Democrats or Republicans are the responsibles, you're part of the problem. It's both, e.g, if you're inveighing against McConnell for blocking the Garland nomination in 2016, you might consider the obstructions the Democrats put up to Bush nominees between 2005 to 2008, filibustering five of them in a row, who had votes enough to confirm, but not for cloture. It's a mess.

Here’s my amendment idea:
1) Make the president elected by popular vote
2) Require only majority+5 to break a Senate filibuster
3) Every even year, a federal election to elect 10 federal senators not from any state (so, 130 senators)

This would give newly elected presidents a lot more power to enact their agendas if there is broad support. My guess is that Trump would’ve gotten funding for his wall, but Bush would not have been able to privatize Social Security. A federal ban on assault weapons and a carbon tax would have probably passed by now.

I like this idea with the caveat that a national initiative system be implemented, similar to the California initiative system.  If we're going to elect representatives based solely upon popular vote, I want the same for important issues.

Heaven help us all if Trump were to defy all the prognostications and get re-elected.
But heaven particularly help the following folks:  OF, Farm93, Snorlax, Burger (fare thee well), and I'm sure a few others whose heads might actually explode - akin to Oberyn Martell's head explosion by The Mountain in GoT - if Trump were to somehow get re-elected.

Fortunately, Covid should assure that won't happen . . . 

(see what I did there, Mick?).

[Mick]

Heaven help us all if Trump were to defy all the prognostications and get re-elected.
But heaven particularly help the following folks:  OF, Farm93, Snorlax, Burger (fare thee well), and I'm sure a few others whose heads might actually explode - akin to Oberyn Martell's head explosion by The Mountain in GoT - if Trump were to somehow get re-elected.

Fortunately, Covid should assure that won't happen . . . 

(see what I did there, Mick?).

I don't think heads explode from COVID (ISWYDT).  This might be the effect on a few folks on this board if Trump gets re-elected:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgLk1i_MvJs

Fortunately, COVID will assure that Trump doesn't get re-elected.

[Mick]

Heaven help us all if Trump were to defy all the prognostications and get re-elected.
But heaven particularly help the following folks:  OF, Farm93, Snorlax, Burger (fare thee well), and I'm sure a few others whose heads might actually explode - akin to Oberyn Martell's head explosion by The Mountain in GoT - if Trump were to somehow get re-elected.

Fortunately, Covid should assure that won't happen . . . 

(see what I did there, Mick?).

I don't think heads explode from COVID (ISWYDT).  This might be the effect on a few folks on this board if Trump gets re-elected:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgLk1i_MvJs

Fortunately, COVID will assure that Trump doesn't get re-elected.

[82lsju]

[quote="fullmetal" pid='292765' dateline='1602030333']
And so Rome burns while Nero fiddles...with a blue bird app on his phone.

I think Jerome Powell put it best: this lack of stimulus is going to have "economically tragic consequences."

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.

Oh and, uh...COVID.

---

of course McConnel seems opposed to voting on a relief bill without business immunity from COVID-19 lawsuits so that's some GOP "pork" he seems tied to...

[82lsju]

[quote="fullmetal" pid='292765' dateline='1602030333']
And so Rome burns while Nero fiddles...with a blue bird app on his phone.

I think Jerome Powell put it best: this lack of stimulus is going to have "economically tragic consequences."

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.

Oh and, uh...COVID.

---

of course McConnel seems opposed to voting on a relief bill without business immunity from COVID-19 lawsuits so that's some GOP "pork" he seems tied to...

[Snorlax94]

I don’t think my head or anyone’s will “explode” if Trump is re-elected. In fact, I would not categorize my or OutsiderFan’s psyches as the ones that are currently “losing it.”

In the unlikely event Trump is re-elected, I’d be sad, because I think it’s be harmful for our country. I think it’d be terribly harmful in terms of doing something about Global Warming, which I actually think is the biggest long-term threat. I think it’d be harmful for the cohesiveness of the country — with a bully-in-chief and a name-caller-in-chief, I think the spirit and unity of the country will sink even lower and I have never seen things as bad as they are now. I think certain groups will be discriminated against more — already there are hints that recent rights that were affirmed for gay marriages may be taken away. I think it’ll be harmful for America’s alliances, America’s standing in the world, America’s leadership role in the world, and the network of alliances and global cooperation that has been built up and earned — sometimes with blood — over decades.

But no, my head won’t explode if these things happen — it’ll be sad and very unfortunate. But fortunately, I think this outcome is unlikely. According to prediction markets, about a 1 in 3 probablity. Incidentally, the graphic and visual, description of people’s heads exploding — said with glee — is extreme and not a normal thing.

[Snorlax94]

I don’t think my head or anyone’s will “explode” if Trump is re-elected. In fact, I would not categorize my or OutsiderFan’s psyches as the ones that are currently “losing it.”

In the unlikely event Trump is re-elected, I’d be sad, because I think it’s be harmful for our country. I think it’d be terribly harmful in terms of doing something about Global Warming, which I actually think is the biggest long-term threat. I think it’d be harmful for the cohesiveness of the country — with a bully-in-chief and a name-caller-in-chief, I think the spirit and unity of the country will sink even lower and I have never seen things as bad as they are now. I think certain groups will be discriminated against more — already there are hints that recent rights that were affirmed for gay marriages may be taken away. I think it’ll be harmful for America’s alliances, America’s standing in the world, America’s leadership role in the world, and the network of alliances and global cooperation that has been built up and earned — sometimes with blood — over decades.

But no, my head won’t explode if these things happen — it’ll be sad and very unfortunate. But fortunately, I think this outcome is unlikely. According to prediction markets, about a 1 in 3 probablity. Incidentally, the graphic and visual, description of people’s heads exploding — said with glee — is extreme and not a normal thing.

[Genuine Realist]

[quote="fullmetal" pid='292765' dateline='1602030333']
And so Rome burns while Nero fiddles...with a blue bird app on his phone.

I think Jerome Powell put it best: this lack of stimulus is going to have "economically tragic consequences."

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.

Oh and, uh...COVID.

---

of course McConnel seems opposed to voting on a relief bill without business immunity from COVID-19 lawsuits so that's some GOP "pork" he seems tied to...

The thought of liability suits for Covid at this point in time is so horrific it boggles the imagination. The million lawyer march to the courthouse.

You want to sue because the store wouldn't let you in without a mask? Or because you think you got covid there because you spotted another shopper without a mask? Or because you saw a clerk wiping down a shopping cart and he or she missed a spot? Etc.

This in an environment in which the science has changed in many ways over the last six months.

[Genuine Realist]

[quote="fullmetal" pid='292765' dateline='1602030333']
And so Rome burns while Nero fiddles...with a blue bird app on his phone.

I think Jerome Powell put it best: this lack of stimulus is going to have "economically tragic consequences."

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.

Oh and, uh...COVID.

---

of course McConnel seems opposed to voting on a relief bill without business immunity from COVID-19 lawsuits so that's some GOP "pork" he seems tied to...

The thought of liability suits for Covid at this point in time is so horrific it boggles the imagination. The million lawyer march to the courthouse.

You want to sue because the store wouldn't let you in without a mask? Or because you think you got covid there because you spotted another shopper without a mask? Or because you saw a clerk wiping down a shopping cart and he or she missed a spot? Etc.

This in an environment in which the science has changed in many ways over the last six months.

[oldalum]

You want to sue because the store wouldn't let you in without a mask? Or because you think you got covid there because you spotted another shopper without a mask? Or because you saw a clerk wiping down a shopping cart and he or she missed a spot? Etc.

I doubt any plaintiff's lawyer interested in making money would take any of those cases, or a million other similar ones. There would be strong defenses, not the least of which is that causation would be almost impossible to prove. The strongest cases might be employees suing their employers for failing to take mandated or reasonable precautions, and I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing. BTW, I'd bet the reason why the CDC's recommendations to the meat packing plants were watered down to the level of suggestions "if feasible" was to decrease the potential for such lawsuits to succeed.

[oldalum]

You want to sue because the store wouldn't let you in without a mask? Or because you think you got covid there because you spotted another shopper without a mask? Or because you saw a clerk wiping down a shopping cart and he or she missed a spot? Etc.

I doubt any plaintiff's lawyer interested in making money would take any of those cases, or a million other similar ones. There would be strong defenses, not the least of which is that causation would be almost impossible to prove. The strongest cases might be employees suing their employers for failing to take mandated or reasonable precautions, and I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing. BTW, I'd bet the reason why the CDC's recommendations to the meat packing plants were watered down to the level of suggestions "if feasible" was to decrease the potential for such lawsuits to succeed.

[lex24]

Edit:  The Athletic is my go to sports page.  Fantastic.  The top 100 is worth a years subscription in and of itself.

You want to sue because the store wouldn't let you in without a mask? Or because you think you got covid there because you spotted another shopper without a mask? Or because you saw a clerk wiping down a shopping cart and he or she missed a spot? Etc.

I doubt any plaintiff's lawyer interested in making money would take any of those cases, or a million other similar ones. There would be strong defenses, not the least of which is that causation would be almost impossible to prove. The strongest cases might be employees suing their employers for failing to take mandated or reasonable precautions, and I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing. BTW, I'd bet the reason why the CDC's recommendations to the meat packing plants were watered down to the level of suggestions "if feasible" was to decrease the potential for such lawsuits to succeed.

If you work and get Covid there is a presumption under Workers Comp that it’s work related.

[lex24]

Edit:  The Athletic is my go to sports page.  Fantastic.  The top 100 is worth a years subscription in and of itself.

You want to sue because the store wouldn't let you in without a mask? Or because you think you got covid there because you spotted another shopper without a mask? Or because you saw a clerk wiping down a shopping cart and he or she missed a spot? Etc.

I doubt any plaintiff's lawyer interested in making money would take any of those cases, or a million other similar ones. There would be strong defenses, not the least of which is that causation would be almost impossible to prove. The strongest cases might be employees suing their employers for failing to take mandated or reasonable precautions, and I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing. BTW, I'd bet the reason why the CDC's recommendations to the meat packing plants were watered down to the level of suggestions "if feasible" was to decrease the potential for such lawsuits to succeed.

If you work and get Covid there is a presumption under Workers Comp that it’s work related.

[82 Card]

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.



Oh and, uh...COVID.

So helping local governments cover the excess costs and revenue shortfalls resulting from the pandemic is "Democratic pork" while throwing money at über rich Republican donors is "stimulus."

At least you used proper grammar with "Democratic." That's refreshing.

[82 Card]

He goes by Jay Powell.  And he's right, BTW.  Without an additional stimulus, there will be seriously negative consequences.  But Trump and the Repubs won't sign a bill that is loaded with Democratic pork.  And that's that.



Oh and, uh...COVID.

So helping local governments cover the excess costs and revenue shortfalls resulting from the pandemic is "Democratic pork" while throwing money at über rich Republican donors is "stimulus."

At least you used proper grammar with "Democratic." That's refreshing.

[Goose]

You want to sue because the store wouldn't let you in without a mask? Or because you think you got covid there because you spotted another shopper without a mask? Or because you saw a clerk wiping down a shopping cart and he or she missed a spot? Etc.

I doubt any plaintiff's lawyer interested in making money would take any of those cases, or a million other similar ones. There would be strong defenses, not the least of which is that causation would be almost impossible to prove. The strongest cases might be employees suing their employers for failing to take mandated or reasonable precautions, and I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing. BTW, I'd bet the reason why the CDC's recommendations to the meat packing plants were watered down to the level of suggestions "if feasible" was to decrease the potential for such lawsuits to succeed.

Unfortunately in the civil courts today cases are often not decided by who is right, but rather by who the jury feels sorry for. If a person sues his employer for not doing enough to limit the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace, does anyone honestly believe that the fact the employer made a good faith effort to follow the CDC guidelines will mater one bit?

[Goose]

You want to sue because the store wouldn't let you in without a mask? Or because you think you got covid there because you spotted another shopper without a mask? Or because you saw a clerk wiping down a shopping cart and he or she missed a spot? Etc.

I doubt any plaintiff's lawyer interested in making money would take any of those cases, or a million other similar ones. There would be strong defenses, not the least of which is that causation would be almost impossible to prove. The strongest cases might be employees suing their employers for failing to take mandated or reasonable precautions, and I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing. BTW, I'd bet the reason why the CDC's recommendations to the meat packing plants were watered down to the level of suggestions "if feasible" was to decrease the potential for such lawsuits to succeed.

Unfortunately in the civil courts today cases are often not decided by who is right, but rather by who the jury feels sorry for. If a person sues his employer for not doing enough to limit the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace, does anyone honestly believe that the fact the employer made a good faith effort to follow the CDC guidelines will mater one bit?

[BostonCard]

Now days most employers have binding arbitration clauses in their employment contracts.

BC

[BostonCard]

Now days most employers have binding arbitration clauses in their employment contracts.

BC

[oldalum]

Unfortunately in the civil courts today cases are often not decided by who is right, but rather by who the jury feels sorry for. 

If that is true, it would argue for a sweeping reform of the civil justice system. I'd be very interested in links to some good quality, non-anecdotal evidence for your statement of fact.

[oldalum]

Unfortunately in the civil courts today cases are often not decided by who is right, but rather by who the jury feels sorry for. 

If that is true, it would argue for a sweeping reform of the civil justice system. I'd be very interested in links to some good quality, non-anecdotal evidence for your statement of fact.

[Mick]

Unfortunately in the civil courts today cases are often not decided by who is right, but rather by who the jury feels sorry for. If a person sues his employer for not doing enough to limit the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace, does anyone honestly believe that the fact the employer made a good faith effort to follow the CDC guidelines will mater one bit?

Agreed 100%.  I have an acquaintance (Rajiv) who had a real estate dispute with a neighbor.  In essence, the neighbor brought Rajiv a deal to which he agreed, and the neighbor asked that Rajiv sign two separate contracts to enforce the deal (essentially a mandated option to purchase real estate at a predetermined level).  The value of the real estate went against the neighbor, who refused to live up to her side of the contract, all of which she drew up, had reviewed.  She was a retired accountant, and understood numbers and values well.  So, Rajiv sought legal counsel, and the attorney said, "Well, I have good news and bad news.  The good news is that you're 100% in the right.  Every single fact in the case supports you. The bad news is that she's a senior citizen and you're note.  And a jury's sympathies will be with the senior citizen."  

I've seen it enough that it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Mick]

Unfortunately in the civil courts today cases are often not decided by who is right, but rather by who the jury feels sorry for. If a person sues his employer for not doing enough to limit the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace, does anyone honestly believe that the fact the employer made a good faith effort to follow the CDC guidelines will mater one bit?

Agreed 100%.  I have an acquaintance (Rajiv) who had a real estate dispute with a neighbor.  In essence, the neighbor brought Rajiv a deal to which he agreed, and the neighbor asked that Rajiv sign two separate contracts to enforce the deal (essentially a mandated option to purchase real estate at a predetermined level).  The value of the real estate went against the neighbor, who refused to live up to her side of the contract, all of which she drew up, had reviewed.  She was a retired accountant, and understood numbers and values well.  So, Rajiv sought legal counsel, and the attorney said, "Well, I have good news and bad news.  The good news is that you're 100% in the right.  Every single fact in the case supports you. The bad news is that she's a senior citizen and you're note.  And a jury's sympathies will be with the senior citizen."  

I've seen it enough that it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Farm93]

Heaven help us all if Trump were to defy all the prognostications and get re-elected.
But heaven particularly help the following folks:  OF, Farm93, Snorlax, Burger (fare thee well), and I'm sure a few others whose heads might actually explode - akin to Oberyn Martell's head explosion by The Mountain in GoT - if Trump were to somehow get re-elected.

Fortunately, Covid should assure that won't happen . . . 

(see what I did there, Mick?).

My head wouldn't explode. 
538 says Trump has a 15% chance of winning.
I can imagine loads of other ways for Trump to stay in office too.
#1 - Biden dies of COVID before the election.   Thank god the Debate commission decided the Oct 15th debate will be virtual
#2 - Biden dies after the election.   Our wacky electoral process means ~538 individuals would then determine our fate in a confusing situation that has not happened before.
#3 - The Communist Monster...or is it the Monster Communist, busts out an AK47, shoots Biden, and declares she will give health care to every American.
#4 - The actual communists work with the Trump administration to find a way to discredit Biden or the election.

As it stands the nation's #1 Superspreader can't figure out which superspreader event he held might have led to him getting COVID.   He is endangering his office workers to such a degree that many of them are talking to the media about how they now fear for their lives.   So I can honestly say that I agree with Trump on one thing this week.   Trump getting COVID was a blessing from God. 

And I personally am excited to see the 2024 Presidential election as it should feature Republicans with real ideas to address real problems.   
If the 2024 Republican Primary features DeWine, Hogan, Romney, and that crew I will be thrilled.
If the 2024 Republican Primary features Desantis, Pence, and Barr THEN my head will explode.

For now I really hope President Trump gets better ASAP as some of the potential longer term COVID issues are no joke for him, the office or our national security.

[Farm93]

Heaven help us all if Trump were to defy all the prognostications and get re-elected.
But heaven particularly help the following folks:  OF, Farm93, Snorlax, Burger (fare thee well), and I'm sure a few others whose heads might actually explode - akin to Oberyn Martell's head explosion by The Mountain in GoT - if Trump were to somehow get re-elected.

Fortunately, Covid should assure that won't happen . . . 

(see what I did there, Mick?).

My head wouldn't explode. 
538 says Trump has a 15% chance of winning.
I can imagine loads of other ways for Trump to stay in office too.
#1 - Biden dies of COVID before the election.   Thank god the Debate commission decided the Oct 15th debate will be virtual
#2 - Biden dies after the election.   Our wacky electoral process means ~538 individuals would then determine our fate in a confusing situation that has not happened before.
#3 - The Communist Monster...or is it the Monster Communist, busts out an AK47, shoots Biden, and declares she will give health care to every American.
#4 - The actual communists work with the Trump administration to find a way to discredit Biden or the election.

As it stands the nation's #1 Superspreader can't figure out which superspreader event he held might have led to him getting COVID.   He is endangering his office workers to such a degree that many of them are talking to the media about how they now fear for their lives.   So I can honestly say that I agree with Trump on one thing this week.   Trump getting COVID was a blessing from God. 

And I personally am excited to see the 2024 Presidential election as it should feature Republicans with real ideas to address real problems.   
If the 2024 Republican Primary features DeWine, Hogan, Romney, and that crew I will be thrilled.
If the 2024 Republican Primary features Desantis, Pence, and Barr THEN my head will explode.

For now I really hope President Trump gets better ASAP as some of the potential longer term COVID issues are no joke for him, the office or our national security.