US Elections 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Although I have no faith in the polls, it is exactly Biden's election to lose. Some of it could be to his own doing. I would say in this order:

1. His VP pick
2. Complacency
3. Over confidence
4. A gaffe

He can also lose the election if people don't like the direction the country is going in come November. In the wake of George Floyd's murder and the protests/riots, there has been a rise in violent crime and it seems that Democratic leaders don't want address the issue for fear of alienating their base. Or if they do address it, they come up with a bunch of other reasons for the spike.

If enough of the independents and/moderates get fed up, they maybe willing to accept 4 more years of Trump because of the law and order issue.

---

Interesting, Blackchubby 38, that you shoud put the VP and Complacency in the top two. Robert Reich in today's Guardian/Observer (but I assume it is syndicated in other papers around the world), presents a remarkable picture of Americans of all political hues so opposed to the incumbent, that Biden is the Universal alternative to the man who has unified everyone against thim, thus:

"Donald Trump is on the verge of accomplishing what no American president has ever achieved – a truly multi-racial, multi-class, bipartisan political coalition so encompassing it could realign US politics for years to come.
Unfortunately for Trump, that coalition has come into existence to prevent him from having another term in office."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...virus-pandemic

On this basis, Biden merely needs to talk softly, and avoid anything controversial -yes, the US will re-join the WHO; yes, the US will seek to endorse again the Paris Climate Change Agreement; Yes, one hopes, the EPA will regain its scientific purpose and re-impose strict regulations on industrial pollution. In other words, a reversal of the reversal of policy that has taken place since 2017.

But I wonder if it is wishful thinking on Reich's part. And in fact, as in the UK, there is an elephant in the room which people are ignoring, although it has been briefly referred to here in the UK -not 'Race', not Guns, not Defunding the Police, or Tearing Down Statues of Confederate General, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and JFK and Martin Luther King and Prince and James Brown and John Wayne -but this: TAXES.

We can't go on borrowing, even at zero interest rates; at some point, TAXES MUST RISE. Biden will undoubtedly say anything to get elected, even if he doesn't need to say so much, but let the incumbent talk himself into early retirement with his ugly, offensive, and ignorant appeal to prejudice and lies. And I suppose he could still win the Electoral College if the votes go close in some States, quite apart from the more sinister scenarios referred to in previous posts.

But when is someone going to argue that if change does come, it does not just mean change to the way we work, the residual fear of congregating with others undermining economic recovery, but the financial reality that someone has to pay for all the freebies being handed out by governments as substitues to pay, and the unavoidabe reality that the taxpayer is the only one left standing on the battlefield.

Workers of the World, Pay Up! Because nobody else is going to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

I didn't mean to make it sound like the protests were the cause of the spike in violent crime. Just saying what's been happening since then. Here in NYC there has been a rise in shootings and murder when you compare that stats to last year.

Through July 12, the city has recorded 634 shootings compared to 394 for the same period last year, a 60% increase. There have been 203 murders so far in 2020, a 23% jump compared to same time period in 2019, when the city recorded 165 killings.

I don't think the economic downturn isn't the only reason why that has happened.

The state recently passed a bail reform law and even before the pandemic there was evidence that it wasn't working. There are people who are out on the streets that just shouldn't be. You combine that with an economic downturn, a pandemic and shitty leadership on the local level, then the people who these reforms are supposed to help are usually the ones who wind up getting hurt in the end.

While you can focus on underlying economic and social factors, you still need smart and effective policing to combat crime.

http:////www.cnn.com/2020/07/18/us/n...ers/index.html

---

Well said!
And I think that a lot of these mayors that are currently presiding over high crime cities are going to be in for a rude awakening....But then again, Detroit is full of crime yet its citizens have continued to vote the same way for decades....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

A good point, but not relevant to this thread is the reserve power of the Governor-General, partly due to the recent release of Sir John Kerr's justification for sacking Gough Whitlam (an act that trashed the Labour Party yet led to the reforms that enabled Bob Hawke to take command by the end of the decade)- I wonder, is it because the Queen remains Head of State in Australia that the Governor-General retains 'reserve powers', and, if Austalia were to become a Republic, would a President have the same powers?

---

My understanding is the Governor-General's reserve powers were derived from the reserve powers of the British monarch, although the 1975 constitutional crisis could not happen in the UK because the upper house cannot block government financing bills.

The Republic referendum that failed in 1999 was for a minimalist change, with the head of state appointed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament on the PM's recommendation, rather than by the Queen. As that was the only change to the Constitution the reserve powers would have remained.

Some people have proposed that the reserve powers should be codified in a future referendum, so that the process for resolving a deadlock is clear rather than being left to the judgement of one person. The problem is that it would be very hard to get bipartisan agreement, which is essential for a referendum to succeed.

Fortunately, the 1975 crisis did not leading to ongoing problems of political instability because politicians appear to have accepted the need for restraint. There has been no further attempt to force an election by blocking supply since 1975.

And this person wants "Abolition of the United States"....
https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/s...12759934267392

I think Laphroaig asked this on another thread but I am curious how Biden is doing compared to Hillary at the same point. My sense just from glancing at poll numbers if that he's doing much better and that states that usually aren't even in contention appear to have swung blue.

We found out in the last election that polling doesn't always capture the entire picture and there are still 3 months and two weeks to go until the election. We also don't know to what extent Trump will try to suppress the vote, what's going to happen with mail in voting etc. I do think Biden is in a good position so far, but in such a divided country you can't take anything for granted.

Charles Barkley is WOKE WOKE
Can't fight racism with racism Black people!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgpoBpUCQ6E

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

We also don't know to what extent Trump will try to suppress the vote, what's going to happen with mail in voting etc. I do think Biden is in a good position so far, but in such a divided country you can't take anything for granted.

---

I read somewhere the 'armed militias' of the Department of Homeland Security/Border Control Forces currently deployed in Oregon to deter 'potential' attacks on Federal property -including summary arrests and detention of innocent citizens- will be present in Democrat controlled cities because the Mayors are so incompetent and the threat so 'potential' -on the day you walk to the Polling Station, you may be escorted by an armed guard, or maybe the armed guard will assume you are about to deface a Federal wall or monument or pavestone, and arrest you so you can't vote. Might be best for the President to declare a State of Emergency and not hold the election at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Charles Barkley is WOKE WOKE
Can't fight racism with racism]

---

I don't know Charles Barkley is, I don't know what 'Woke' means in its new life-is it a term of abuse now? And as for the guy in the video, he may have a point about the value of 'the home' in repairing human relations; his fixation on 'fatherless homes' is slippery, after all, were there not a substantal number of fatherless homes in the 1950s owing to the fathers killed in the Second World War and Korea? And suppose the home is a slum? How does one generate self-respect or any respect when living on the edge of destitution and sharing a run-down apartment with roaches and rats? Isn't that a good enough reason to spend summer nights on the street outside?

But when he says the Civil Rights have been won, he is an idiot, because many Republicans have been fighting against it since day one, and Edward Blum is a legal activist who the guy in the video needs to learn about-

"Some of Blum’s cases have had such an impact that even he has been taken aback. Nowhere is that truer than with Shelby County v Holder, a case he sponsored that in 2013 led the supreme court to overturn a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Blum told the Guardian he has worried over the fallout from that ruling, which spurred conservative legislators in Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere to revive laws that the Justice Department had previously blocked or was expected to block on the grounds that they were vehicles for minority vote suppression."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rmative-action

Kanye West promises to give a million bucks to every woman in the US when she has a child -he didn't say if she needed to be married. But I guess he could become 'the Black candidate' -I mean, there must be millions of Black Women who can see the opporunity to get laid and get rich a the same time, so what's not to like? Or, can't someone just tell Mr West to shut up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I think Laphroaig asked this on another thread but I am curious how Biden is doing compared to Hillary at the same point. My sense just from glancing at poll numbers if that he's doing much better and that states that usually aren't even in contention appear to have swung blue.

---

According to this article his lead is well ahead of Hillary Clinton's at the same stage in 2016, though she did have leads that were almost as large at later stages. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...matchup-369261

The best antidote to pessimism about the election is Trump himself. The man can't seem to help making himself the issue, and as long as the election is a referendum on him I don't think he can win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I don't know Charles Barkley is

---

Former basketball player. I assume we can expect to see a video of every black person that Fanti can find who agrees with him (not that I'm wasting time watching any of them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

According to this article his lead is well ahead of Hillary Clinton's at the same stage in 2016, though she did have leads that were almost as large at later stages. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...matchup-369261

The best antidote to pessimism about the election is Trump himself. The man can't seem to help making himself the issue, and as long as the election is a referendum on him I don't think he can win.

---

Thanks. So it says her lead was about 7 points after the "grab her by the pussy" audio came out. My optimistic interpretation is that a lot of the things that made Trump's poll numbers dip in the past election cycle had to do with his indecency and memory of that can fade in two or three weeks. On the other hand, 140,000 people aren't suddenly going to spring to life.

I am curious what the postmortem is on the accuracy of the poll numbers for the last election. I recall on election night 538 gave Trump a 30% chance of winning and Nate Silver was being harangued by some Bernie Bro journalist who kept insisting Trump really had something like a 2% chance of winning. I'm pretty sure the guy pulled the 2% figure out of his ass and basically just wanted to call Silver a right wing shill.

You could see this guy grow embarrassed as the numbers came in. Then when Trump ended up winning the story was that 538 and other pollsters were way off.

And yet, I still have faith in polling as a statistical science, even though I don't know shit about it. I think sometimes it is tough to get representative samples and a lot can change in three months. And margin of error etc. But if the polls say Trump is down 10% nationally, that is very real. Let's see how durable it is.

So, with the President's Private Army in Portland, and about to be deployed against the citizens USA in other Democrat-run cities -citizens he has described as 'total scum, they're human scum'- and with him casting doubt on him accepting the result of November election, if it goes ahead, it now is claimed the President can rule by decree anyway, so what is the purpose of Congress or the Supreme Court which will probably decline to make a judgment, while rule by decree/Executive Order will be endorsed by William Barr.

If this is not the start of anothe civil war, what is it? After all, is it not a) encouraging protestors to congregate in a threatening manner so that b) military force can be justified, aong with c) summary arrest and detention without trial of Americans 'threatening' Federal property? After all, how else do you clear the streets of 'human scum'?

"The Trump administration has been consulting the former government lawyer who wrote the legal justification for waterboarding on how the president might try to rule by decree.
John Yoo told the Guardian he has been talking to White House officials about his view that a recent supreme court ruling on immigration would allow Trump to issue executive orders on whether to apply existing federal laws.
“If the court really believes what it just did, then it just handed President Trump a great deal of power, too,” Yoo, a professor at Berkeley Law, said.
“The supreme court has said President Obama could [choose not to] enforce immigration laws for about 2 million cases. And why can’t the Trump administration do something similar with immigration – create its own … program, but it could do it in areas beyond that, like healthcare, tax policy, criminal justice, inner city policy. I talked to them a fair amount about cities, because of the disorder.”
In a Fox News Sunday Interview, Trump declared he would try to use that interpretation to try to force through decrees on healthcare, immigration and “various other plans” over the coming month. The White House consultations with Yoo were first reported by the Axios news website."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-waterboarding

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

"Some of Blum’s cases have had such an impact that even he has been taken aback. Nowhere is that truer than with Shelby County v Holder, a case he sponsored that in 2013 led the supreme court to overturn a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Blum told the Guardian he has worried over the fallout from that ruling, which spurred conservative legislators in Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere to revive laws that the Justice Department had previously blocked or was expected to block on the grounds that they were vehicles for minority vote suppression."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rmative-action

---

I didn't know who this guy is but I'm glad I do now. From looking at his wikipedia page it looks like he has spent his career fighting so-called reverse racism in the form of diversity policies that are intended to increase representation of discriminated against minority groups. Now he claims that his lifelong crusade to fight efforts to remedy this country's racism have led to the "unintended" consequence of disenfranchising minority voters. I'm afraid he has to own that one cause it's perfectly in accord with his other efforts.

Just a random thought but some people have way too much confidence. This guy is not a lawyer but his job is to match clients with lawyers for the purpose of creating test cases to challenge laws. How is that a job? It said before that he was a stockbroker! lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I recall on election night 538 gave Trump a 30% chance of winning and Nate Silver was being harangued by some Bernie Bro journalist who kept insisting Trump really had something like a 2% chance of winning. I'm pretty sure the guy pulled the 2% figure out of his ass and basically just wanted to call Silver a right wing shill.

You could see this guy grow embarrassed as the numbers came in. Then when Trump ended up winning the story was that 538 and other pollsters were way off.

---

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016...s-chances.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...twitter-230815

This is an article on their disagreement written the day before the election. You can see from the nymag article's conclusion that at least some people had almost completely discounted Trump's chances.

Silver gave Hillary a 64.7% chance of winning on election night, which holds up better than the 98% chance Huffington Post gave her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

So, with the President's Private Army in Portland, and about to be deployed against the citizens USA in other Democrat-run cities -citizens he has described as 'total scum, they're human scum'- and with him casting doubt on him accepting the result of November election, if it goes ahead, it now is claimed the President can rule by decree anyway, so what is the purpose of Congress or the Supreme Court which will probably decline to make a judgment, while rule by decree/Executive Order will be endorsed by William Barr.

If this is not the start of anothe civil war, what is it? After all, is it not a) encouraging protestors to congregate in a threatening manner so that b) military force can be justified, aong with c) summary arrest and detention without trial of Americans 'threatening' Federal property? After all, how else do you clear the streets of 'human scum'?

"The Trump administration has been consulting the former government lawyer who wrote the legal justification for waterboarding on how the president might try to rule by decree.
John Yoo told the Guardian he has been talking to White House officials about his view that a recent supreme court ruling on immigration would allow Trump to issue executive orders on whether to apply existing federal laws.
“If the court really believes what it just did, then it just handed President Trump a great deal of power, too,” Yoo, a professor at Berkeley Law, said.
“The supreme court has said President Obama could [choose not to] enforce immigration laws for about 2 million cases. And why can’t the Trump administration do something similar with immigration – create its own … program, but it could do it in areas beyond that, like healthcare, tax policy, criminal justice, inner city policy. I talked to them a fair amount about cities, because of the disorder.”
In a Fox News Sunday Interview, Trump declared he would try to use that interpretation to try to force through decrees on healthcare, immigration and “various other plans” over the coming month. The White House consultations with Yoo were first reported by the Axios news website."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-waterboarding

---

US Citizens should be extremely concerned that Donald Trump has vowed to send federal officers to several american cities lead by democrats to boost his bid for re-election, this latest example clearly shows that he is willing to do anything to stay in power by any means necessary,including using federal officers in democratic cities to suppress the votes,because he's afraid of losing the november general election againist Joe Biden. And those enablers in the US Congress and Senate won't intervene,and will enable and allow him to continue disregard the US Constitution and do what he wants,because it will benefit them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0

US Citizens should be extremely concerned that Donald Trump has vowed to send federal officers to several american cities

---

Agreed - no doubt one can definitely say that this goes against the 'tenants' (for lack of a better word) of states governing themselves.

That being said, my questions is when are the responsible mayors going to handle the violence and crime and get control of their cities?

What the Mayors can do-

-Law Enforcement Reform: Create a Community Policing culture that puts 'bobbies on the beat' that residents can see every day, that tackles the dominance by gangs of the streets, by day and night. Boston has done it, and while Boston is not free of crime or drugs or gangs, the argument is that the levels of street crime have fallen.
-Jobs: young men and young women need the dignity of work, a dignity they can carry into their mature years.
-Education: young people need an education that will prepare them to become active and responsible adults in the workplace and society at large. Education requires money, the money to sustain a teaching cohort that students see throughout their school days, and even beyond, and schoolrooms that radiate the joy of learning, that have the resoures to make school a place children want to be, and yes, if necessary, the one place they can be guaranteed one hot meal a day.
-Legalize and control narctics: take away the crime, and give it the time: to become a market commodity. I understand the probems legalization brings, but if a 15 year old can make $100 a day slinging, what is the point of flipping burgers at McD, or studying to be an engineer, or even learning to read and write?
-Repeal the 2nd Amendment, or amend it to reduce access to firearms, limied to farmers in remote areas.
-Raise Taxes, and use Taxation to completely reform the Education system, to use Taxes as the foundation of a New Deal in educaiton for all, with one Federal, Nation-wide Curriculum that gives every American an equal opprtunity to thrive.
-Reimagine Cities: the Urban environment is heading into a crisis as the Coronavirus makes the congrgation of humans in small spaces a threat to public and private health. But even if Cities lose their commercial buildings if companies move out of town and people work from home, the City can become a place of Culture and Sport: it also needs looking after, thus
--Garden Cities: recruit young people into Garden City Commodores: create in the most run-down slums and Projects a respect for the streets and parks by cleaning them up, and planting tress and plants, with a permanet cadre of citizens looking after their neighborhood. The aim is not just to smarten a place up, but to make it a desirable place to be, to visit. Stick a stage in the park and have regularly Satuday or Sunday concerts, for free. Create tennis courts, basketball courts and so on, supervised with the option to train promising athletes.

Those are a few ideas of mine, Mr Fanti. What are yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What the Mayors can do-

-Law Enforcement Reform: Create a Community Policing culture that puts 'bobbies on the beat' that residents can see every day, that tackles the dominance by gangs of the streets, by day and night. Boston has done it, and while Boston is not free of crime or drugs or gangs, the argument is that the levels of street crime have fallen.
-Jobs: young men and young women need the dignity of work, a dignity they can carry into their mature years.
-Education: young people need an education that will prepare them to become active and responsible adults in the workplace and society at large. Education requires money, the money to sustain a teaching cohort that students see throughout their school days, and even beyond, and schoolrooms that radiate the joy of learning, that have the resoures to make school a place children want to be, and yes, if necessary, the one place they can be guaranteed one hot meal a day.
-Legalize and control narctics: take away the crime, and give it the time: to become a market commodity. I understand the probems legalization brings, but if a 15 year old can make $100 a day slinging, what is the point of flipping burgers at McD, or studying to be an engineer, or even learning to read and write?
-Repeal the 2nd Amendment, or amend it to reduce access to firearms, limied to farmers in remote areas.
-Raise Taxes, and use Taxation to completely reform the Education system, to use Taxes as the foundation of a New Deal in educaiton for all, with one Federal, Nation-wide Curriculum that gives every American an equal opprtunity to thrive.
-Reimagine Cities: the Urban environment is heading into a crisis as the Coronavirus makes the congrgation of humans in small spaces a threat to public and private health. But even if Cities lose their commercial buildings if companies move out of town and people work from home, the City can become a place of Culture and Sport: it also needs looking after, thus
--Garden Cities: recruit young people into Garden City Commodores: create in the most run-down slums and Projects a respect for the streets and parks by cleaning them up, and planting tress and plants, with a permanet cadre of citizens looking after their neighborhood. The aim is not just to smarten a place up, but to make it a desirable place to be, to visit. Stick a stage in the park and have regularly Satuday or Sunday concerts, for free. Create tennis courts, basketball courts and so on, supervised with the option to train promising athletes.

Those are a few ideas of mine, Mr Fanti. What are yours?

---

Mayors can't repeal the 2nd amendment nor should it be repealed. Also NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and yet gun violence is still a problem.

I think if you legalize and control narcotics, it will have a trickle down effect that can solve some of the other issues that you have mentioned. First you remove a major source of income from the gangs and therefore it impacts their dominance on the streets. It will make the cops' job a lot easier and they won't feel like when they're on patrol, they're doing it in the middle of a war zone. It will also allow them to concentrate on more serious offenses as well as reduce the amount of street crime.

Second, it gives a municipality another source of revenue so they can invest in education and job training programs. If you also legalize gambling and prostitution, there is another source of revenue to draw from. This should make raising taxes unnecessary and you use the existing tax revenue for things like infrastructure repairs.

I think reimagining cities sounds good in theory, but you're still going to have companies that are going to be resistant to having their employees working from home on a permanent basis. So for the ones that want to keep their commercial buildings, make it more viable for them to do so. For the ones that do want to move out of the city, find something some to replace the existing structures with that is beneficial for the city. Like more hospitals, affordable housing, small sized manufacturing centers or an Amazon distribution center. Thanks alot AOC!

As for the garden cities, speaking as a New Yorker. We have done tennis courts, basketball courts, etc thing. Parks are continually being renovated. But its up to the individual citizens to help keep them clean. There is park across the street from house that has been renovated and still people treat it like a dumping ground and don't clean up after themselves when they have cookouts. Which happen to be against the law in the first place.

Having said all that, you still need strong leadership make it happen at the local level. Something that is severely lacking here in NYC.

Another thing I want bring up when it comes to education. We need begin to realize that college isn't for everybody and there really is nothing wrong with learning a trade. Because no matter how technologically advanced we get as a society, we still need plumbers, mechanics, and people to do HAVC work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Agreed - no doubt one can definitely say that this goes against the 'tenants' (for lack of a better word) of states governing themselves.

---

There is a better word: tenets https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic.../english/tenet

It's lucky for you that you are absolutely unembarrassable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I am curious what the postmortem is on the accuracy of the poll numbers for the last election. I recall on election night 538 gave Trump a 30% chance of winning and Nate Silver was being harangued by some Bernie Bro journalist who kept insisting Trump really had something like a 2% chance of winning. I'm pretty sure the guy pulled the 2% figure out of his ass and basically just wanted to call Silver a right wing shill.

---

It's hard to believe the chance for one side could ever be as low as 2% in a well-established two-party system where the Presidency changes hands regularly.

The current popular narrative about polls not being reliable stems mainly from the twin surprises in 2016 - Brexit and Trump. That seems to be an example of the common human tendency to over-extrapolate from the most prominent recent events. This 2018 article by Nate Silver shows that polling errors in the 2016 election were actually around the average for Presidential elections. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...are-all-right/

All polls have some risk of being wrong because they are based on a small sample of the population. If people claim that these errors are systematic (rather than random errors that could go either way) they need to have some explanation for why they would systematically miss people with certain views. At the end of the day, pollsters make money from having a good reputation for accuracy, so they should have an incentive to try to get it right. Of course, they sometimes find shortcomings with their methodologies after the event, and when they do they fix it, which they've done since 2016 (eg giving more weighting to education levels).
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/2...p-2016-2020-7?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Another thing I want bring up when it comes to education. We need begin to realize that college isn't for everybody and there really is nothing wrong with learning a trade. Because no matter how technologically advanced we get as a society, we still need plumbers, mechanics, and people to do HAVC work.

---

What I'm going to say may slightly derail the thread so I'll keep it short. I also think the way college education is structured should be re-thought. I went to a liberal arts college for undergrad and while I'm all for "enrichment" and reading the classics I don't think anyone NEEDS four years of it. Four years is enough time to be broadly educated AND at least lay the foundation for useful knowledge. Given how much time people waste in college I just think that the choice between enrichment and trade-oriented/career skills is a false choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

There is a better word: tenets https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic.../english/tenet

It's lucky for you that you are absolutely unembarrassable.

---

A while back a user created a screen name to pretend to be a shocked wife who had discovered his account on here. I remember the aha moment when I figured out that the word provardo was really bravado. Anyhow I think it's better the tenants govern themselves than the landlords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Another thing I want bring up when it comes to education. We need begin to realize that college isn't for everybody and there really is nothing wrong with learning a trade. Because no matter how technologically advanced we get as a society, we still need plumbers, mechanics, and people to do HAVC work.

---

This is where the USA is falling behind.
In some instances, there are 6-figure jobs that are not being filled because no one knows how to weld, perform construction, etc......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Mayors can't repeal the 2nd amendment nor should it be repealed. Also NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and yet gun violence is still a problem.

I think if you legalize and control narcotics, it will have a trickle down effect that can solve some of the other issues that you have mentioned. First you remove a major source of income from the gangs and therefore it impacts their dominance on the streets. It will make the cops' job a lot easier and they won't feel like when they're on patrol, they're doing it in the middle of a war zone. It will also allow them to concentrate on more serious offenses as well as reduce the amount of street crime.

Second, it gives a municipality another source of revenue so they can invest in education and job training programs. If you also legalize gambling and prostitution, there is another source of revenue to draw from. This should make raising taxes unnecessary and you use the existing tax revenue for things like infrastructure repairs.

I think reimagining cities sounds good in theory, but you're still going to have companies that are going to be resistant to having their employees working from home on a permanent basis. So for the ones that want to keep their commercial buildings, make it more viable for them to do so. For the ones that do want to move out of the city, find something some to replace the existing structures with that is beneficial for the city. Like more hospitals, affordable housing, small sized manufacturing centers or an Amazon distribution center. Thanks alot AOC!

As for the garden cities, speaking as a New Yorker. We have done tennis courts, basketball courts, etc thing. Parks are continually being renovated. But its up to the individual citizens to help keep them clean. There is park across the street from house that has been renovated and still people treat it like a dumping ground and don't clean up after themselves when they have cookouts. Which happen to be against the law in the first place.

Having said all that, you still need strong leadership make it happen at the local level. Something that is severely lacking here in NYC.

---

I appreciate your feedback on what in my case were ideas floated to consider, given that I don't know how cities are organized in legal terms in the US. I think we can agree that the fundamentals are jobs and education, on the basis that people must believe they have a stake in their own environment, and a long term basis on which to develop as citizens, fathers and mothers, and so on, though this now appear to be an era of low-wages and job insecurity. I don't know why people have a lack of respect for local facilities, perhaps the 'Garden City' concept doesn't work if all that happens is that a neighbourhood is prettified but the 'gardeners' then leave to go somewhere else. And I can't believe in the 21st century planners smarter than me don't have better ideas on how to make urban environments better.

On guns the point you make illustrates the scope of the challenge- no matter how strict the laws are in NYC, if someone can drive to another state and buy weapons at a gun show, the availability of guns is not reduced. At some point as Americans, you have to decide if you are going to make a serious, nationwide effort to take the guns away, it is as basic and as necessary as raising taxes to pay off your debts and if possble fund more universal health care, and in education. These are not untouchabe, sacred cows.

It looks to me like the US is locked into a cultural debate which so narrows its frame of reference that instead of talking about an overhaul of the 2nd Amendment, its very existence is linked to some idea that it represents freedom, some unexplained original intention of the 'Founding Fathers' that cannot be changed without taking away something that 'defines' America, or that it is simply a non-starter as an election issue, the same being the case with the legalization of 'hard drugs' given that the outcome of the legalization of Marijuana has been mixed.

Like Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, and Transgenders in the Military, the so-called 'Conservatives' can use these policy concerns as a warning that the foundations of the USA are being eroded, just as the President is probably provoking more violence in Democrat cities by sending in the 'troops' than if he did not do so. But is it not drugs and guns that fuel so much of the violence in cities like Chicago? I don't know about circiling the wagons, but circling round and around the same issues year after year must surely at some point make everyone dizzy and fall over? Yet nobody stands up and says 'let's do something different' -or such people are not listened to or written off as cranks.

I think you have dug yourselves into a hole, and you don't know how to get out of it. I think too, and it applies to the UK and Europe as well as the US, that people want a return to what we had pre-Covid but don't know how to do that, which is why we need some imaginative proposals for the future of our urban spaces, or we are going to see contractions in trade and business, which, aggravated by unemployment will make us all poorer.

Unfortunately, your last two sentences are bang on, as I don't know -certainly here in the UK- that we have the men and women of vision that can offer the kind of leadership required, indeed, we seem to be living in an era in which the leaders we have are distinguished by their incompetence and failure, and that is not something I expected to see in my lifetime, and I am not sure life will improve as I make my way to the Department Lounge.

Sarah Cooper, shes done it again- (I couldn't find it on her twittter feed where there are other versions to enjoy)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8oa...ture=emb_title

Lol...does neither candidate really want to be President? Earlier in the year, with the economy chugging along just fine Trump looked like he would be tough to beat. But he totally botched the Covid response, simply because he wouldn’t just let his experts do it. He even screwed up the original briefings, by insisting (among other things) on squabbling with reporters. Then when he made the occasional rousing speech (usually best when keeping to his written script) he’d ruin it by immediately jumping on twitter and childishly arguing about god-knows-what. Unfortunately for the Republican Party - the man’s an idiot.
Now we have Joe Biden, who has a history of being ridden by gaffes, but now, at the age of 77 (78 in November) he clearly has a few less marbles in his noggin than he started with. It’s very much apparent to anyone with eyes and ears. His latest - “No sitting president has ever done this. Never, never, never. No Republican president has done this. No Democratic president. We’ve had racists, and they’ve existed, they’ve tried to get elected president. He’s the first one that has,” ....Really Joe?! No other racist Presidents? No Woodrow Wilson? No slave owners!?
Biden ‘should’ be a shoo-in at this point.
But the debates are going to be sad...they may turn out to be one of the most watched ever...at least the first one...but sad.
The highest office in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Lol...does neither candidate really want to be President? Earlier in the year, with the economy chugging along just fine Trump looked like he would be tough to beat. But he totally botched the Covid response, simply because he wouldn’t just let his experts do it. He even screwed up the original briefings, by insisting (among other things) on squabbling with reporters. Then when he made the occasional rousing speech (usually best when keeping to his written script) he’d ruin it by immediately jumping on twitter and childishly arguing about god-knows-what. Unfortunately for the Republican Party - the man’s an idiot.
Now we have Joe Biden, who has a history of being ridden by gaffes, but now, at the age of 77 (78 in November) he clearly has a few less marbles in his noggin than he started with. It’s very much apparent to anyone with eyes and ears. His latest - “No sitting president has ever done this. Never, never, never. No Republican president has done this. No Democratic president. We’ve had racists, and they’ve existed, they’ve tried to get elected president. He’s the first one that has,” ....Really Joe?! No other racist Presidents? No Woodrow Wilson? No slave owners!?
Biden ‘should’ be a shoo-in at this point.
But the debates are going to be sad...they may turn out to be one of the most watched ever...at least the first one...but sad.
The highest office in the USA.

---

I don't think Biden stands a chance in a debate with Trump - which is why it appears that he and his party trying their hardest to seriously restrict and/or omit debates and the parameters.
Biden is nowhere near what he was like when he was running in the primaries against Obama.

That being said, like I said in an earlier post, Tulsi Gabbard was my favorite of the Democrat primary candidates and she would smoke Trump in a debate.

On the one hand if I were advising Biden, I would argue that in a public debate he should only say positive things about the US, and not even respond to the bitter and twisted rubbish the President has to say, when he is not praising himself for doing things no other President has ever achieved. The aim it seems to me, will be to depict Biden as senile and incapable, he may even go after Hunter Biden even though both he and Ivanka have had privileged access to China and Ivanka continues to do business with them regardless of what her father says, let alone Mike Pompeo on the basis of his 'Presidential' but ragged speech today. Probably best to not do the debate, or insist that before taking place the President apologize for calling Hillary Clinton a 'skank', and describing Americans as 'total scum, they're human scum' -at least settle the tone of debate before it starts.

I have said it before, the Democrats are afraid of change, and Biden is safe, but unimaginative, which may be why his VP is as important as Blackchubby38 says it may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I have said it before, the Democrats are afraid of change, and Biden is safe, but unimaginative, which may be why his VP is as important as Blackchubby38 says it may be.

---

Imaginative and wanting change?

I’ll settle for a leader that’s clear-eyed, rational and decisive.

Leave the rest to his staff and the legislative branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Imaginative and wanting change?

I’ll settle for a leader that’s clear-eyed, rational and decisive.

Leave the rest to his staff and the legislative branch.

---

I'll admit I may not be seeing the full picture but from the outside looking in, it appears that both would struggle to tie their own shoe laces in the morning. How did it come to pass that these are the two "best" candidates for the most powerful position on earth? :shrug

This article on problems facing the running of the coming election suggests the following elements are combining to create a perfect storm.

1. An Uncontrolled Pandemic
2. New Technology and New Processes
3. A Drought of Funding
4. Dislocated Voters
5. A Storm of Foreign Attacks
6. Misinformation and Disinformation
7. A Famine of Voter Protections
8. A Volcano in the Oval Office

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...t-storm-372778

It seems it will take a miracle to avoid major problems. If a democracy can't run elections isn't that the ultimate indication that it's becoming a failed state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Imaginative and wanting change?

I’ll settle for a leader that’s clear-eyed, rational and decisive.

Leave the rest to his staff and the legislative branch.

---

On the one hand, you make a good point, probably because of the record of the sitting President, definitely if rational and decisive action earlier on would have/could have saved lives and prevented Covid 19 infections at the rate you now have in the US. On the other hand, is Vision not something that a President needs to unify the country around a project? For all his faults, and the fact he never lasted a term, JFK had vision, in particular with regard to the Moon- a choice that regardless of the dusty ball itself, transformed America science; Reagan had his 'Sunrise America' which did appeal to a lot of people in the aftermath of Watergate; and Obama had 'Hope and Change', the belief then that the GW Bush Presidency went so low anything was an improvement. If the alternative is 'American Carnage' then yes, maybe for a while Visions should be suspect.

Where is your country going? The USA since 2017 has undermined international alliances, repdudiated signed agreements and treaties, shown itself critical of liberal democracy, praising autocrats and dictators, and attempted to withdraw from the global economy in the name of 'economic nationalism'. If the USA's enemies had asked the President to weaken the USA as a global power, the President has conceded to them. At home, the divisions that existed in the US before, threaten now to become a gulf so wide they may never be healed (we have the same problem in the UK but for different, Brexit reasons)- with the very real prospect that either the November election will not take place, or enough citizens be prevented from voting to call the result into question.

Yes, you have needed the kind of rational and decisive action that has seen Covid 19 handled better than in the USA -not defeated, but handled better -as in Italy, Spain, Germany, New Zealand, Scotland- but for the next 10 years, what as an American do you think is needed to give the country a sense of direction that fits with the challenges to the way we work and live?

Boris Johnson has a vision for the UK, and I think it is not just flawed, but a disaster waiting to happen, but we can debate the direction in which Brexit UK is going on the basis of that vision, but in the US there is a chaotic non-conversation replaced by futile confrontation, and mostly about issues you have been trying to deal with for as long as I can recall -race, guns, crime and drugs being the most obvious. And was it not because of a failure to tackle these, and related problems over the making and distribution of wealth that you ended up with that man's victory in 2016?

For all your need for rational decision making, is it not time to start changing the agenda rather than carry on going round in circles? 2016 did not change anything, the existing problems just got worse.

All three Presidents you refer to were good looking men with silver tongues, excellent speech writers and staff members they could rely on. There’s more to it of course...and each one also had different domestic and foreign problems to take care of including the occasional , often unexpected, crisis popping up here and there. Most of the foreign policy problems you state are simple undoing of President Trump’s simple undoing of President Obama’s policies. If Joe Biden wins the White House, that is probably what other world leaders expect to be done.

The one thing , that at this point, Joe can’t simply sweep under the rug, is the China problem. It will probably be his biggest foreign policy hurdle...especially since he always down played it in the past. You can’t hit a reboot and go back to trade as normal...I think most western countries agree on that. Their economic and military aggression needs to be confronted...but how? It’s a puzzle that needs to be solved multilaterally - all global leading heads coming together. Acting as if this was just created by Trump and going back to business as usual will just create larger problems down the road - and probably for a different administration , because I can’t credibly envision him Serving more than one term.

His biggest domestic problem will be (as seems always the case) the economy. If he wins, he will take office at a time where we still may not have a vaccine...or even if we do, there may be mutations, other viruses..who knows. All things considered, the market’s been doing well , but getting everything back and working is going to be a problem. There are jobs permanently lost, rents not paid (which means property taxes not paid either) ...and eventually the bills, beginning at the individual and extending all the way to the Federal government will come due. Take care of these economic problems, which are huge, and the others may also fall into place. These are things that will probably, also not be completely fixed during one term. Therefore, he will need to be an excellent crisis manager, who can fix things as they pop up...multiple fingers in multiple dams...holding it all together until the next leader with the sweeping visions you speak of, comes along. A lot of the divisiveness should be soothed by a difference in rhetoric, which may be another glaring problem here with Joe, but it will help that we no longer have a tweeting president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

I'll admit I may not be seeing the full picture but from the outside looking in, it appears that both would struggle to tie their own shoe laces in the morning. How did it come to pass that these are the two "best" candidates for the most powerful position on earth? :shrug

---

We share the same question Laphroaig.

Most intelligent people would not want to be President. There has been a self-selection out of politics the more polarized our country has become. As President a person can expect to be vilified.

When Joe Biden has a gaffe it is often impulsive speech. He has been that way for a while. Trump's are often deliberate attempts to bolster his own ego, but in ways that don't show even a modicum of intelligence. He says things that it would literally take an idiot to believe. We'll have a vaccine in 3 months. Covid is "a flu". Not the flu, which it isn't, but A flu, which it also isn't. Inject yourself with disinfectant. People aren't sure whether it's a good idea to wear masks. Professors at Columbia concluded the pandemic response was bad because they're Trump haters. Hydroxychloroquine studies are rigged by Trump haters. We're doing better in responding to covid than any country in the world. We'll be open by Easter. And on and on.

For all his malapropisms and his clumsy speech I've never gotten the impression that Biden is dishonest or stupid. Our current President is both. Dream big? Well, having your country run by a moron means in situations like this 100,000 excess deaths so far. Threats of nuclear war on twitter which only have to be realized one time for all of us to be fucked. And corruption so bad that nobody he likes is allowed to face justice without his interference. Just get rid of the racist tyrant ffs.

[QUOTE=fred41;1937379]

Allow me to embellish your fascinating arguments:

The one thing , that at this point, Joe can’t simply sweep under the rug, is the China problem. It will probably be his biggest foreign policy hurdle...especially since he always down played it in the past. You can’t hit a reboot and go back to trade as normal...I think most western countries agree on that. Their economic and military aggression needs to be confronted...but how? It’s a puzzle that needs to be solved multilaterally - all global leading heads coming together. Acting as if this was just created by Trump and going back to business as usual will just create larger problems down the road - and probably for a different administration , because I can’t credibly envision him Serving more than one term.

-Although I can see why China is now emerging as a 'problem' in need of a solution, the US as currently run is not in a position to do anything but make confrontational politics worse than it is now, aided and abetted I should add by the UK. Indeed, confrontational poliics might sound good and make the US look virile and uncompromising, but the record of its achievements is so poor one must ask why do it? Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran -where has confrontation got us? A better place?

To begin with, I think that if demand for goods does not grow, China will suffer because it produces so much of what we consume. There is no punishment or political stategy here. As with the fall in the price of oil per barrell and a decline in demand by industry -gas will continue to be an important segment for consumers worldwide-the fact that the global economy is going into a recession was evident before January, and has only happened sooner, and faster than expected, but now may be more extensive than might have been the case.
So on this level, China was going to have to deal with job losses but in an authoritatian state has the nation-wide resources to cope, and at least now the growth of China's domestic economy will be able to sustain a degree of activity so China will suffer, but it won't be fatal.

Undoubtedly, the difference between Xi and his predecessors is that they followed Deng Xioaping, who in his turn effectively repudiated Mao's economic nationalism. Xi, attempting to add his name to the theoretcal Matrix of revolutionary China, has been more 'activist' outside China than Deng, though he inherited the expansionist ambitions which so far have led to China's seizure of the 'Spratly' Islands about which nothing can be done, as I don't see Australia or the US going to war to remove China from the islands. And while annexation of territory is illegal in International Law, the USA, for example, has to explain why it is opposed to it when it is China annexing territory, but not when it is Israel, or Turkey, while the fact that nothing practical has been done to reverse Russia's annexations of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is a good example of the impotence that nuclear super-states exploit. At least John Bolton has a solution: savage sanctions, and if that don't work bomb 'em.

It means Mike Pompeo's speech was, in effect, not about China, but Mike's opeing gambit in his aim to be the next Republican candidate for the White House, with so far only two others in the running: Nikki Haley and Tucker Carlson. China, with or without Xi's activism, is broadly the same China that the US has been doing business with for decades, fully aware of the nature of Communist Party rule in China, fully aware of the 'Belt and Road' initiatives that have seen huge investments in Africa, giving China a strategic advantage in countries ridiculed by Pompeo's boss as 'shitholes'.

As I said before, it would be hypocritical to attack Hunter Biden on China, given that the President was denied the right to register his LLC's in China for the best part of two decades, but registered a hundred on his visit as President, and with his daughter Ivanka up to her elbows in Chinese production.

In other words, it is sound and fury, but Pompeo and the US and UK, have no idea how to deal with China other than imposing sanctions on it, if they do, because in the markets the Americans and Johnson believe in (or so they say), China fulfills that most basic of Capitalist rules: low cost, high returns that neither the US nor the UK can compete with -and no pesky Unions. For the time being, markets may be flat anyway for a year or more, but does anyone really think industrial production is going to be repatriated to our countries from China?

In the UK we have not cancelled China's contract to build (in partnership with the French) a new nuclear power reactor -is Pompeo going to insist we cancel the contract? Huawae has been part of the constuction of the 5G network in the UK, but has now been told that must not only end, but that the existing infrastructure must be torn out, at a cost of Billions, and presumably, Huawei will have to be given more Billions in compensation. So Pompeo's vision of a 'roll back' on China looks more like the rhetoric it is than a considered plan.

And on the same basis, I can't see Joe Biden making any more coherent statements on China other than acknowledge 'something needs to be done'. It may even suit him to make vague statements on it, to focus on the domestic problems which are far more important than China.

His biggest domestic problem will be (as seems always the case) the economy. If he wins, he will take office at a time where we still may not have a vaccine...or even if we do, there may be mutations, other viruses..who knows. All things considered, the market’s been doing well , but getting everything back and working is going to be a problem. There are jobs permanently lost, rents not paid (which means property taxes not paid either) ...and eventually the bills, beginning at the individual and extending all the way to the Federal government will come due. Take care of these economic problems, which are huge, and the others may also fall into place. These are things that will probably, also not be completely fixed during one term. Therefore, he will need to be an excellent crisis manager, who can fix things as they pop up...multiple fingers in multiple dams...holding it all together until the next leader with the sweeping visions you speak of, comes along. A lot of the divisiveness should be soothed by a difference in rhetoric, which may be another glaring problem here with Joe, but it will help that we no longer have a tweeting president.

-I agree with a lot of what you say. In the case of the Obama administration, he entered office in January 2009 when the US was losing 800,000 jobs a day and the banking system was in crisis. The recovery packages that Timothy Geithner put together at what, at the time was staggering cost, undoubtedly 'steadied the ship' and the US recovered over Obama's two terms.
On that basis, Biden could argue that he was part of the administration that dealt successfully with a national crisis, so he can be trusted to repeat in 2021 what he was part of in 2009. But, as you point out, whoever takes office in January will still need to deal with Covid 19, be it a 'second wave' (the first has yet to abate in the US), long term health problems, the dislocated economy and the two obstacles to anyone trying to deal with these issues will be the coossal Debt, and whether or not the President has a friendly or hostile Congress.

On balance, I would say the histrorical evidence suggests that Democrats have twice now, rescued the US from a financial mess left to them by Republicans -Clinton and Reagan/Bush I, Obama and Bush II. If this is to be repeated, Biden needs a strong team, and not just because people are not sure he has the stamina. But given the prospect that this time economic recovery will be slow (though I could be wrong about that), Biden may find himself closer to FDR who won his second term when unemployment in the US was still high, but had declined throughout his first term -it was a marginal improvement that secured that second term, but I think these days people are more impatient for results.

But what if Biden loses, what happens then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Imaginative and wanting change?

I’ll settle for a leader that’s clear-eyed, rational and decisive.

Leave the rest to his staff and the legislative branch.

---

Agreed 100%
What the Democrats are AFRAID of is stopping all this violence in THEIR cities!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

The one thing , that at this point, Joe can’t simply sweep under the rug, is the China problem. It will probably be his biggest foreign policy hurdle...especially since he always down played it in the past. You can’t hit a reboot and go back to trade as normal...I think most western countries agree on that. Their economic and military aggression needs to be confronted...dams...holding it all together until the next leader with the sweeping visions you speak of, comes along. A lot of the divisiveness should be soothed by a difference in rhetoric, which may be another glaring problem here with Joe, but it will help that we no longer have a tweeting president.

---

Like him or not, Trump has been the only successful US President at confronting and at times, winning against China. I also believe that Perot would have put China in it's place as well were he to have been elected.

Native scholar says Communist China has 'met its match' with Trump admin following consulate closure
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sch...sulate-closure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Like him or not, Trump has been the only successful US President at confronting and at times, winning against China. I also believe that Perot would have put China in it's place as well were he to have been elected.

---

For once you have posted a load of rubbish, or you need to inform us what you consider to be effective in the US relations with China.

On trade, the incumbent President boasts about nothing when he tries to argue he has done better than anyone ese -just on the fiasco of tariffs on Soybeans the collapse of the US market means American taxpayers forking out $12-14 billon a year to pay for this abject failure of a policy that has not hurt the Chinese at all.

On the WTO, the Obama administration between 2009=2016 lodged over 20 enforcement complaints to the WTO with regard to China, an effective means of changing China's practice as China wants to be seen abiding by the rules -since 2017 the Republican President has lodged one complaint, while his most effective action is to attempt to make the UN Agency irrelevant, thus an ineffective body in international trade regulaton -not effective at any level, just old-fashoned sabotage because the man with a string of bankrupt businesses to his name thinks global trade is best wiithout a regulatory body at all -a move that would benefit China, so daft is this man.

How has the US responded to the deportation and 're-education' of the Uighers? A slap on the wrist? Is the US going to take military action to remove the Chinese military from the Spratly Islands?

What about Ivanka Kushner's profitable business based in China, and her father registering over 100 of his LLC's on his first visit as President when for 15 years before that the Chinese told him to get lost?

The only effective relationship with China is the one the family has, because, as Bolton pointed out in his book, this President and his Family cannot tell the difference between their personal interests and the interests of the USA.

The USA has embarked on a trade war with the WTO, the EU, China -more or less the whole world -who has benefited? because it ain't the USA.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/09...ed-on-the-wto/

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-off...tion%E2%80%99s