Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Coronavirus after the election.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Coronavirus after the election.

    So, here's my prediction about coronavirus after the election.

    First, I expect Biden to win. It's not a sure thing, but it's pretty close. The chances of Trump beating the odds two elections in a row are rather slim.

    So, what happens?

    Well, as long as Trump is in office, nothing happens. We keep hearing about how bad it is, how dangerous, etc. There's pushes to "do more" etc. Then, comes January. That's when things will change. Pushes from Biden are pushed as necessary and the coverage changes from "not enough" to "hopeful" and "working". Then quietly, the daily reports of cases, deaths, counts, etc. fade into the background. The news doesn't cover it. Activists and politicians just let it go quietly. Without it being harped day after day, it no longer becomes an albatross of doom and gloom.

    All of this, will happen regardless of what actually happens with the virus.

  • #2
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    The chances of Trump beating the odds two elections in a row are rather slim.
    There are a lot of indications that he is in a better position to win in 2020 than he was in 2016. Of course nothing is certain, but there's no reason for conservatives to despair.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
      So, here's my prediction about coronavirus after the election.

      First, I expect Biden to win. It's not a sure thing, but it's pretty close. The chances of Trump beating the odds two elections in a row are rather slim.

      So, what happens?

      Well, as long as Trump is in office, nothing happens. We keep hearing about how bad it is, how dangerous, etc. There's pushes to "do more" etc. Then, comes January. That's when things will change. Pushes from Biden are pushed as necessary and the coverage changes from "not enough" to "hopeful" and "working". Then quietly, the daily reports of cases, deaths, counts, etc. fade into the background. The news doesn't cover it. Activists and politicians just let it go quietly. Without it being harped day after day, it no longer becomes an albatross of doom and gloom.

      All of this, will happen regardless of what actually happens with the virus.
      I might accept that if this wasn't a global phenomenon. I don't think it's going to die out anytime soon. It's a dream come true to those who worship statism and government authoritarianism, and governments around the world are milking it for what it's worth. How the leftist governors and mayors enforced unconstitutional mandates in their states and cities gives no reason to think that's not just a microcosm of what we'll see on a federal level if Biden/Harris take the reins. They'll shut everything down and sink us even deeper into economic despair in the name of science, then institute their MMT and green new deal utopia.
      "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

      Comment


      • #4
        I see the most likely future as a vaccine becoming available in the 3-6 month period. I think until then Biden will emphasize social distancing and masks. I think most of his political focus will be on stimulus bills to provide economic help to families and small businesses. Knowing Dems, these will go further than Republican measures towards helping the average person but will still be fairly token half-measures. Republicans will probably scream "sOcIaLisM!!!" in response.

        The most controversial issue will be whether or not he tries to encourage lockdowns in the worst-affected areas. Trying to implement a lockdown is relatively pointless if people aren't going to follow it though, so he may well not try because the populace is too stupid to be helped to save itself.

        As for the media getting bored of the story and moving on, well, yes the media is easily bored in general and usually forgets a story after a day or a week at most. With Covid they've paid attention for nearly a year which has to be a personal best for them. If a vaccine never comes and covid remains forever in the human population and regularly kills people just as the flu does now but at a higher rate than the flu, then eventually the media are obviously going to stop covering it just as they don't typically cover the flu. But whether that takes them 2 years, or 5 years, I don't know.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          I see the most likely future as a vaccine becoming available in the 3-6 month period. I think until then Biden will emphasize social distancing and masks. I think most of his political focus will be on stimulus bills to provide economic help to families and small businesses. Knowing Dems, these will go further than Republican measures towards helping the average person but will still be fairly token half-measures. Republicans will probably scream "sOcIaLisM!!!" in response.

          The most controversial issue will be whether or not he tries to encourage lockdowns in the worst-affected areas. Trying to implement a lockdown is relatively pointless if people aren't going to follow it though, so he may well not try because the populace is too stupid to be helped to save itself.

          As for the media getting bored of the story and moving on, well, yes the media is easily bored in general and usually forgets a story after a day or a week at most. With Covid they've paid attention for nearly a year which has to be a personal best for them. If a vaccine never comes and covid remains forever in the human population and regularly kills people just as the flu does now but at a higher rate than the flu, then eventually the media are obviously going to stop covering it just as they don't typically cover the flu. But whether that takes them 2 years, or 5 years, I don't know.
          It'll take them just long enough to avoid it politically hurting the democrats politically.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seanD View Post
            It's a dream come true to those who worship statism and government authoritarianism, and governments around the world are milking it for what it's worth.
            Statements like this seem crazy to me because:
            1) all these measure are temporary so anyone who actually wanted more government permanently isn't getting what they want
            2) you make it sound as if there's people out there who get high off the idea of having the government be authoritarian or having wet dreams over it or somesuch, which just seems nuts on your part because such people not only don't exist but the fact that you are weirdly imagining they do is very strange on your part.

            My view is that consistently throughout history the greatest problem has always been the corrupt elites. They have always tried to selfishly hoard for themselves all the money and all the power. Nearly all historical systems in almost every time and country have had the corrupt elites running everything and everybody else dirt poor and powerless. The only system that has ever managed to fairly consistently change that is democracy. A government of the people, by the people, for the people, has historically provided the only tool for use against and reining in those corrupt elites and forcibly policing them and stopping them trampling and extorting everybody else and having everybody work for them and give obeisance to them. So those corrupt elites hate a properly functioning democratic government that truly represents all the people, because it's the one force in society that can limit their power, that can stop them using and abusing others, that can come after the wealth they inherited and have hoarded for themselves. So they want nothing more than to try to control it, bribe it, sabotage it, wreck it, deconstruct it, deregulate it, and propagandize people into believing that it's the government that's terrible and even the idea of having a government is terrible, and that it's totally the government and not themselves who's the nasty authoritarian. If they can even completely destroy the government, they will simply collapse the system back into feudalism where they will be able to be feudal Lords, and they will employ people to be their bodyguards and militias and forcibly rule over the surfs around them because there is no longer any power capable of stopping them doing so. Don't buy their propaganda. They'd like you to believe that the only entity in our society that can police them is the real bad guy, so that they can rule over you.

            How the leftist governors and mayors enforced unconstitutional mandates in their states and cities gives no reason to think that's not just a microcosm of what we'll see on a federal level if Biden/Harris take the reins. They'll shut everything down and sink us even deeper into economic despair in the name of science, then institute their MMT and green new deal utopia.

            So, it would be terrible if they followed the science on covid, followed leading economic theories on spending, reenacted a historically famously popular and successful US government program, and focused on mitigating risks of climate change? Sounds "terrible".

            The sad thing is Biden and Harris would not do a tenth of any of that. They are run of the mill corporatist centrists. The hope and change is all rhetorical, and unlike Obama, they're barely even bothering with any hope or change rhetoric.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
              It'll take them just long enough to avoid it politically hurting the democrats politically.
              The general view of people in my country who observe US politics is that US media is too friendly to Republicans, and way too anti-Progressive. Republicans keep implementing psychopathic and sociopathic policies and everyone here is aghast and the US media's just like "well Democrats say X, Republicans say Y, who can rightly say?" Whereas when AOC or Bernie suggest policies that we've had in my country for 75+ years and that everyone agrees work well, and the US media will say "Wow, these socialists are so far out there with their crazy ideas, how can anyone take them seriously?"

              Your entire country seems to need a bit of a political and media recalibration. You're just so far off the right-wing end of the spectrum compared to the entire rest of the Western world that you've got really serious issues. The Dems are to the political right of where most Western countries' major right-wing party would be on the political spectrum, and there's about 6 people all up (e.g. Bernie, AOC, and the Squad) occupying what other Western countries would describe as the left-half of their own political spectrum. Which is bizarre, because the US used to have a decent political spectrum - from FDR through Carter the Dem and Republican parties sat roughly where comparative parties sit on the spectrum in the rest of the Western world. Then Reagan took the Republican party hard right and they've never looked back, and Bill Clinton decided to 'triangulate' and try to keep the Dems as close to the Republicans as possible in endless pursuit of the centrist swing voters, and the result has been both parties have moved further and further right until both parties have driven off the road on the right hand side of the political spectrum. The rest of the West is just scratching their heads at the US's madness: It's clearly not working for you - nobody looking at the US today would think your country is an example of somebody 'getting it right'.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                The general view of people in my country who observe US politics is that US media is too friendly to Republicans, and way too anti-Progressive. Republicans keep implementing psychopathic and sociopathic policies and everyone here is aghast and the US media's just like "well Democrats say X, Republicans say Y, who can rightly say?" Whereas when AOC or Bernie suggest policies that we've had in my country for 75+ years and that everyone agrees work well, and the US media will say "Wow, these socialists are so far out there with their crazy ideas, how can anyone take them seriously?"

                Your entire country seems to need a bit of a political and media recalibration. You're just so far off the right-wing end of the spectrum compared to the entire rest of the Western world that you've got really serious issues. The Dems are to the political right of where most Western countries' major right-wing party would be on the political spectrum, and there's about 6 people all up (e.g. Bernie, AOC, and the Squad) occupying what other Western countries would describe as the left-half of their own political spectrum. Which is bizarre, because the US used to have a decent political spectrum - from FDR through Carter the Dem and Republican parties sat roughly where comparative parties sit on the spectrum in the rest of the Western world. Then Reagan took the Republican party hard right and they've never looked back, and Bill Clinton decided to 'triangulate' and try to keep the Dems as close to the Republicans as possible in endless pursuit of the centrist swing voters, and the result has been both parties have moved further and further right until both parties have driven off the road on the right hand side of the political spectrum. The rest of the West is just scratching their heads at the US's madness: It's clearly not working for you - nobody looking at the US today would think your country is an example of somebody 'getting it right'.
                If you take a look at the news in this country over the last 4 years, to say it is friendly to the republicans is laughable.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                  If you take a look at the news in this country over the last 4 years, to say it is friendly to the republicans is laughable.
                  The most popular news channel is Fox, which is 110% Republican-friendly.

                  The most popular radio show for many years before that, was Rush Limbaugh, who is 200% Republican friendly.

                  Those are the underlying problems with your country I think.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    The most popular news channel is Fox, which is 110% Republican-friendly.

                    The most popular radio show for many years before that, was Rush Limbaugh, who is 200% Republican friendly.

                    Those are the underlying problems with your country I think.
                    https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/55509...her-presidents

                    Compared to other recent presidents, news reports about President Trump have been more focused on his personality than his policy, and are more likely to carry negative assessments of his actions, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center's Journalism Project.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                      https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/55509...her-presidents

                      Compared to other recent presidents, news reports about President Trump have been more focused on his personality than his policy, and are more likely to carry negative assessments of his actions, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center's Journalism Project.
                      Let's imagine, for a crazy hypothetical moment, that Trump is less policy-focused than previous presidents. Perhaps that might be due to him having a background outside of politics, perhaps maybe due to him having the concentration span of a 4 year old and being unable to focus on any policy for even the full duration of the sentence that he spends in his rallies talking about any given policy. And let's imagine that as President, when his party had control of all branches of government, he didn't use that opportunity to pass any policies, e.g. not the long-promised healthcare reform, not the Wall, not anything other than a passing Bush 2.0 tax cut for his mega-donors. If he doesn't enact policies should the media spend time talking about them? How can they? Should they talk about policies that don't exist that he hypothetically could have been advocating and passing?

                      Let's also imagine, for a crazy hypothetical moment, that Trump is more personality-focused than previous presidents. Perhaps that might be due to him focusing on his personal brand that he puts on buildings in big letters, perhaps it might be due to him being a reality-TV star, or perhaps it might be due to him being a narcissistic egomanic. Let's also imagine, hypothetically, that he spends a lot more time lying than previous presidents. Tweets a lot more than previous presidents. And that his rhetoric is more combative and grievance-based than previous presidents, focusing on the different groups that he feels are being mean or unfair to him or that have in some way made him the victim, and rhetorically siding with his voter base over and against those who didn't vote for him, as opposed to taking a unify tone in his rhetoric and saying he'd be president of everyone and do his best both for those who voted for him and those who didn't. Let's imagine those wild hypotheticals are true. Should the media not spend time talking about these things? Should they just totally ignore and gloss over how he is different to previous presidents?

                      Historians seem to generally think he's the worst president in US history. I can easily see why. He's the worst leader of any Western country I've personally ever seen in my lifetime. We once had a leader in my country who got drunk and called an early election (and lost) but I don't think anyone here would say he was as bad as Trump is. Should the US press not cover how bad Trump is? If, in 20 years time, all the historians agree that Trump was the worst leader of the US ever, wouldn't have been dereliction of duty by the media if the kids in their classrooms in 20 years time also have to be told by their teachers that the media didn't alert the people to how incompetent Trump was?

                      Basically my view is of course the media coverage of Trump is that he's awful. It should be, because he's awful. If the media coverage was different to that, the media would be lying rather than doing their job. Your complaint reads to me like "It's so unfair that the media so accurately talks about Trump and accurately conveys to the public how terrible his personality is and how little policy he's enacting". Being accurate isn't unfair.
                      Last edited by Starlight; 10-27-2020, 08:41 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                        If you take a look at the news in this country over the last 4 years, to say it is friendly to the republicans is laughable.
                        Remember, you're talking to an ignorant media tourist who knows nothing about the US beyond what he reads in liberally biased news reporting.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Remember, you're talking to an ignorant media tourist who knows nothing about the US beyond what he reads in liberally biased news reporting.
                          Serious question, MM, if you'll give me an honest answer... in your years spent working in pro-Republican / conservative media outlets in the US, how many times did you run stories that you knew were false or believed to be false?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
                            Serious question, MM, if you'll give me an honest answer... in your years spent working in pro-Republican / conservative media outlets in the US, how many times did you run stories that you knew were false or believed to be false?
                            0
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              ...

                              Basically my view is of course the media coverage of Trump is that he's awful. It should be, because he's awful. If the media coverage was different to that, the media would be lying rather than doing their job. Your complaint reads to me like "It's so unfair that the media so accurately talks about Trump and accurately conveys to the public how terrible his personality is and how little policy he's enacting". Being accurate isn't unfair.
                              Exactly.
                              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Ronson, Today, 07:32 PM
                              4 responses
                              32 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, Today, 06:22 PM
                              3 responses
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by firstfloor, Today, 11:01 AM
                              24 responses
                              102 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Ronson, Today, 09:42 AM
                              15 responses
                              64 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Esther, Yesterday, 12:09 PM
                              39 responses
                              280 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X