The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee
- Thread starter Tireseas_v1legacy
- Start date
Disbanded is different than firing how? How exactly is eliminating a person's position different than firing them? Only some of the team members were merged with the National Security council, and even they were not funded or listened to, so exactly how were they supposed to prepare for an actual pandemic? Trump didn't even bother follow his own NSC pandemic playbook so what good did it actually do to merge what was left of his pandemic team after disbanding them with the NSC if he wasn't even going to fund or follow their advice? What resources did he allocate specifically to them so they could be prepared for a pandemic? Oh yea...tstorm823 said:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/25/trump-coronavirus-national-security-council-149285
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/03/18/coronavirus-did-president-trumps-decision-disband-global-pandemic-office-hinder-response/5064881002/
Then there was this of course:
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-02/coronavirus-trump-pandemic-program-viruses-detection
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/
When they oust the guy telling them that more resources need to be allocated to pandemic response because the US was terribly unprepared, then not only not provide the resources requested and then instead disband the team, end the programs needed to address this and take some of the members and put them elsewhere, they are not ensuring that the US would be prepared for a pandemic at all, as it became blatantly obvious this to be the case when it came time to actually face one.
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-timeline-trump-failures-undercut-pandemic-response-2020-4
Bottom line is that Trump's administrations actions and decisions to ignore the warnings and dilute the already insufficient existing resources directly resulted in a delayed and inadequate response which directly results in an increase of deaths of US citizens.
Claiming no one was fired is inaccurate when the guy who was telling Trump he needed to allocate more resources to Pandemic preparation was fired and then disbanded the Pandemic team a month later and eliminated the directors's position all together. Moving some of the people from that prior team into another council and diluting their ability to act isn't somehow negating what happened before that.
The talent was retained, their positions still existed, just underneath the combined umbrella of weapons of mass destruction and biological threats to the US.Lil devils x said:
Not even sure what you're saying here. They were, both before and after, members of teams that report to National Security Council members. They were never an independent entity from the NSC. The change was that the pandemic response team used to have an entire seat at the council, but when that director resigned, they eliminated the seat and had them report to more general leadership.
This did happen, it's the only thing people are spreading that I don't think is gross propaganda. There were a lot of staff eliminated in the US office in China that specifically could have caught covid-19 early. That truly happened. But it's not as though they were pulled out of lack of concern for pandemics, US diplomats and other government employees have been recalled from China pretty aggressively the last few years amid tensions between the countries, suspected attacks, and other illnesses. And like, the people who were on that team in China that were pulled back weren't fired, it wasn't a cost cutting measure, it was bringing people back to America. The program that was ended was ended on schedule, the original funding had that end date and it just wasn't specifically re-funded.
Tim Ziemer also wasn't fired. he resigned that post and took a position over at USAID [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Timothy_Ziemer]. Whether he resigned because he didn't want to work with Bolton or because Bolton told him to, I don't know, but based on the timing it had something to do with Bolton. Regardless, Ziemer was in that post warning about pandemic threats from day one, that was sort of his entire job description. You make it sound as if he was fired because he was telling Trump to allocate more resources to pandemic preparation, but he was hired specifically to do that, and did so for more than a year before the restructure.
I know the propaganda makes a really compelling narrative, but it's so full of lies, I wish I wasn't the only one pointing these things out to you.
A lot of what you're complaining about aren't really "lies". They are partial inaccuracies, simplifications and under-contextualised statements, etc.tstorm823 said:
All debates occur with a substantial amount of grey area. Calling them "lies" and "propaganda" is an awfully black-and-white way to think about lots of these things. Given a substantial kernel of truth about them, it's arguably propaganda to call them lies.
I haven't seen any lies here to be pointed out. Tom Bossert was who was fired from the NSC after calling for more resources to be allocated to Pandemic response prior to Trump's administration eliminating Timothy Ziemer's job. They didn't just disband their team, they diluted the resources that were previously allocated specifically to the pandemic response team spreading them to other areas, they took their office away entirely and changed their roles and position to broaden the focus which lead to and resulted in less preparedness for pandemic preparation. The former director even stated that the elimination of the office lead to a "sluggish response" due to having their resources taken away. Even Dr. Fauci, who has been trying to stay on Trump's good side, has expressed a desire to have their office back and stated they worked well there.tstorm823 said:
Why did Trump and his team take so many measures to reduce pandemic preparedness after being warned that it was already insufficient if he was at all concerned about maintaining the the integrity of the program and their ability to deploy necessary resources required in an emergency? It seems pretty apparent that he not only was not concerned about the possibility of having to respond to a pandemic, with his repeated comments on "the federal government not being a shipping service" he did not even seem to understand the federal government's role during a pandemic.
Not only did he try to tell the states they should fend for themselves and have his unqualified son in law come out and tell people the Federal government's ventilators are for the federal government and not for the states, he ALSO seized the ventilators and other medical equipment the states managed to purchase at the ports of entry intercepting them and then failing to distribute them to the states that paid for them in the first place leading to further shortages and delays on the front lines. Forcing the states to fend for themselves while competing with them for supplies and then confiscating what the states managed to obtain in the process only goes to show how mismanaged this has been.
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-federal-govt-fema-accused-taking-states-masks-ventilator-orders-2020-4
https://www.cpr.org/2020/04/08/colorado-coronavirus-ventilators-trump-polis-gardner-fema/
https://www.aspentimes.com/news/federal-government-swooped-in-on-colorados-ventilator-order-gov-polis-says/
I haven't even gotten into how badly they are distributing funding and resources to healthcare providers... This entire debacle has been one big ClusterF@#$%! He has no room to talk about anyone else driving a clown car when he does the things he has done here.
This looks like a classic sort of bureaucratic fuck up.Lil devils x said:
I think it illustrates why it's important for centralised control and organisation: the federal government oversees all purchasing, distribution and supply for a nationwide health crisis. Of course, that's effectively what the NSC advice seems to suggest from what I can see, but the federal government is way too far behind in preparation and organisation to do so currently. Consequently it's told states to fend for themselves whilst - I presume - it builds up its capability.
Thus someone in the federal gov has been told to amass loads of stuff so the federal government can take charge, and been given extraordinary powers to do so. Unfortunately, given the narrow remit to make sure the federal government can do what it wants, it's trampling over the ability of US states currently bearing the brunt.
* * *
As an aside, let me also note from the UK, about smug, compassion-free, tantrum-throwing bully and minister, Priti Patel. Please note that she is my least favourite UK politician (and given the rich variety of awfulness to choose from, including Boris Johnson himself, that's some achievement).
The UK is in significant danger of running out of PPE, to which Patel - background in public relations showing - offered the classic non-apology tactic: "I?m sorry if people feel that there have been failings,". No, Ms. Patel, you should be sorry about your goverment's failings.
Oh I completely agree about the importance of having centralized control during a pandemic, the worst part of it though is that not only was Trump sitting on the Fed's supplies while we had healthcare workers on the front lines not being provided with any PPE in some areas, he told the states to take care of their own front lines and when they actually tried to, he took it away from them to stockpile more instead of making sure the front lines were taken care of first and obtaining his own stockpile elsewhere. He has managed to screw this up at every stage of the process here because he has no clue what he is doing.Agema said:
Yea, I worry about my friends in the UK as well considering you have your own set of bumbling fools running the show there as well. Not as bad as the one's in the US, but this is one of those times I wish we both had better people making the decisions right now.
Bernie suspended his campaign, so NOW it's OK to talk about the rape allegation against Joe Biden in mainstream media.
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1249311728170684418"]
But not too deeply.
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/NeeNeinNyetNo/status/1249327159828774912"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/jeffihaza/status/1249328272497934336"]
Whoops, we accidentally did a journalism, better delete that...
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/HoelandsMokena/status/1249422828052635652"]
their stated reason:
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/sgoodl/status/1249484836349280263"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1249311728170684418"]
But not too deeply.
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/NeeNeinNyetNo/status/1249327159828774912"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/jeffihaza/status/1249328272497934336"]
Whoops, we accidentally did a journalism, better delete that...
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/HoelandsMokena/status/1249422828052635652"]
their stated reason:
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/sgoodl/status/1249484836349280263"]
I was trying to guess what the movement behind Sanders was all about. You weren't specific, so I went with the contempt for wealth and condemnation of anyone who disagrees.Seanchaidh said:
You didn't see the lies and then jumped right into them.Lil devils x said:
Truth as we know it:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-homeland-security-adviser-resigns-amid-continued-turnover-in-trump-administration/2018/04/10/15db518a-3ccb-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html
Tom Bossert wasn't fired, he resigned. That resignation may have been asked for by Bolton, but it is somewhat of a distinction regardless.
Tom Bossert's resignation was seemingly completely unrelated to his work with pandemic response. It was a chain of command conflict. The sentence "Tom Bossert was fired from the NSC after calling for more resources" is true in the same sense that "Jared was arrested after advertising Subway sandwiches" is true. It's a technically correct order of events statement, but you're implying causation that isn't there.
A reminder that you perennially defend a candidate who calls political opponents "losers", "crazy", "deranged", "fat", "Dumbo", "braindead", "dumb", "goofy", etc, etc, etc. You don't have a leg to stand on talking about "condemning" language: nobody has done more to degrade the political discourse and steer it towards aggressive, demeaning rhetoric.tstorm823 said:
Sanders usually attacks those who have vast amounts of unearned wealth.tstorm823 said:
Take Randy Pitchford for example. He promised bonuses to workers for Borderlands 3 and they put up with the crunch and a pay cut. Suprise, suprise, while Borderlands 3 was success, mo bonuses showed up. Except, of course, his $12mil. See also Blizzard/ Activison who got bonus but cut staff due to decreased sales.
Compare this to Nintendo. They weren't doing well before the Switch arrived. So, instead of cutting staff, the whole board took a pay cut.
Sanders would be attacking the first, not the second
Edit: You realise that poor or Communist makes up 90% of the population right?
I agree. But I have a peculiar take on Sanders. I don't think he is the idealist that people believe he is. I think he's just as much a political pragmatist as the other people in Washington, just one who has chosen a unique strategy.trunkage said:
But the movement behind Bernie Sanders has a lot of actual idealists in it. And like, alarmingly extreme ones. I have a modest amount of respect for Bernie Sanders considering how entirely I disagree with most of what he says, I don't believe he's someone who would glorify the Reign of Terror and call for guillotines. I believe he has more sense than to do that, and frankly more genuine compassion for others. Some of his fans though, that's a different story. And like, that's obviously true of every politician, there will be more extreme followers than the leader, but it's easier to aim at Bernie people because of how tied they are to a single prominent figure.
I do, but I didn't say poor or Communist, I said poor and communist. Poor people who aren't communists get no sympathy because they are considered fools (and probably bigots) who vote against their own interests. Rich people get no sympathy regardless of their ideology because they are thought to have only gotten there at the expense of others. You have to be both poor AND communist to be considered fully human by the furthest left on the internet.
Yes, all of this is a strawman, but hey I was taking jabs, there was never gonna be a totally fair rationale behind it.
Kind of? His rhetoric wasn't exactly discriminatory when it came to the wealthy. Hell, at least one writer noted that the wealthiest black entrepreneurs seemed to get erased in the campaigns rhetoric [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-black-billionaires-have-no-place-in-a-bernie-sanders-world/2020/03/06/b81e10d6-5f29-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html].trunkage said:
Still, I do think there was an empathy problem for those who didn't already subscribe to Sanders' worldview and were supporting him, though I think tstorm mostly stirring shit. Like, if you liked Obama, Clinton, and Pelsoi, Sanders essentially was trashing them under the banner of "the Establishment," and did little to appeal to their interests, especially older black voters who view the Democratic establishment, and Obama in particular, with pride. Most of them saw GOP efforts to hamper those politicians and the party and don't hold them responsible for not getting more done (though the truth to that varies widely based on when and what policy is at issue). And, as we can see in even lower-stake issues around identity and around even minor celebrities, Sanders trashing those individuals (even if indirectly), primed them to oppose him rather than give him a shot.
At its core, I think Sanders' loss fundamentally is not a failure of policy, but of politics. Sanders' Medicare for All bill in congress got widespread reflexive support from multiple presidential candidates who cosigned on it [https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-14-senators-introduce-medicare-for-all]. Progressive policies are becoming increasingly popular [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/poll-marijuana-legalization-data-for-progress-radical-ideas-popular-aoc.html]. The biggest problem with Sanders has never been his policies, it's been his politics [https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/04/11/leftist-policy-didnt-lose-marxist-electoral-theory-did/]. It's just not a viable electoral strategy to alienate large portions of the applicable electorate (in this case the primary) by slamming the mainstream establishment politicians they generally support. He also couldn't pull in the voters who the campaign alleged were just waiting in the wings for his style of politics and policy, largely because it doesn't appear they're there in any substantial way, at least in the primary (there's evidence they barely exist at all [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/]).
The future for progressive policies remains coalition building and working within the party system to supplant more moderate members without alienating their voting base (i.e. keeping intra-party fights in the primaries and leadership contests rather than in general elections without turning ugly). Reaching voters where they are rather than demanding they come to you, getting them on board with a campaign that feels actually inclusive (Sanders regularly touted diversity and inclusion in his campaign, but had a problem doing with the largest voting blocks of older black voters [https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/03/06/sanders-claims-working-class-ignore-bidens-black-support-column/4962793002/]), and not treating primary voters who aren't aligned with your campaign like trash or puppets so that next time around you can try to convince voters who's last memory of progressives isn't negative. Get them to slowly identify as progressive (or dress up progressives as moderates in some cases, particularly in swing districts) and we can win the political battle that's needed to win the policy battle.
Progressivism in the real sense is pragmatic and moderate.Tireseas said:
If you want success in the progressive movement, learn to identify when someone isn't actually being progressive and call them out. Progressivism is about the incremental improvement of society to better the human experience, nobody can succeed in that goal if their base of support is communists and political transgressives who want to burn society to the ground. That's why Bernie's never succeeded nationally, because actual progressives get turned off when they see how much he appeals to people who think society is a bad thing.
Your analysis of the campaign did not even mention media bias nor acknowledge that Bernie was at one point winning so hard that he was making Chris Matthews shit his pants comparing him to Hitler on live television, and therefore can be disregarded as not serious. The explanation for Bernie's loss lies in a particular series of events, not the grand theory of political change that you want it to.Tireseas said:
I think you're right. To add to this, as other people have said about Sanders before: The USA is not ready for a massive reform to mimic Nordic Model social democratic policies. No matter if I, sitting an ocean away, think Bernie have the best policies, the simple truth is that neither American voters nor the American system are ready to significantly raise the tax burden, expand federal oversight and massively overhaul and expand social services and healthcare. Sanders end goal is noble and admirable (and probably good for the USA) but his plan for getting there in 4 or 8 years is a pipe dream.Tireseas said:
It took the Nordic countries over half a century of persistent reforms to reach the state they are in today, and Sanders wants to do the same journey in a tenth of the time. It took that long because systems had to be changed or created and voters had to be slowly convinced that every small change actually worked. Even when majority support was achieved for the social democrats, it took time because you can't simply seize privately owned hospitals and turn them into state owned hospitals and you don't build a pervasive social security network over night. You need tons of welfare workers, you need robust guidelines and oversight (to avoid people defrauding the system) and you need for voters to see that handing out their hard earned money to a homeless guy actually does something positive for them.
Sanders has the best end state for the USA, but I think pretty much every other ever so slightly progressive nominee from the Democrats would be a better choice in practice. Because sweeping progressive reforms of the USA will take decades, not years, and a large part of it, as you identify, is making sure that voters see the benefit of the progressive reforms.
The Medicare/medicaid bureaucracy already exists, and single-payer, though applicable to more people, is much simpler than a means-tested program.Gethsemani said:
The United States was close to passing national health insurance in 1948. It's a popular idea now. What obscures your perception of American politics is that we absolutely do not have in any sense a political system that could accurately be called democratic. Your country, I'm sure, comes much closer to a democratic ideal. We are utterly dominated by money. It is easy to assign policy outcomes to voters if you think they're the ones calling the shots but in this country they just are not.Gethsemani said: