This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:10 amFor me at least, it's impossible to gauge what the general populace is actually going to think about a president's "crisis management."
If this were as bad as things were going to get, then I would argue that there's a decent chance than Trump could still spin his way out of it. I suspect that's not the case, though.
But in general, you're right. Crisis can go either way in a presidency - its all about how the leader is perceived to have dealt with it.
ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:10 amFor me at least, it's impossible to gauge what the general populace is actually going to think about a president's "crisis management."
If this were as bad as things were going to get, then I would argue that there's a decent chance than Trump could still spin his way out of it. I suspect that's not the case, though.
But in general, you're right. Crisis can go either way in a presidency - its all about how the leader is perceived to have dealt with it.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:23 pmDemocrats aren't that sour on Sanders.
Democrats are pretty damn sour on Sanders, mostly because he promptly disavowed the party once the 2016 election was over. That really didn't sit well with most Democrats.
But more importantly, this primary has revealed that Sanders is a losing bet. His whole argument for the nomination was that he could bring out voters that no other Democrat could. But as we've seen in primary after primary....he can't. Young people may meme about Sanders but they seemingly can't be bothered to actually vote for him.
Maybe that's because it's the Primary and not the General Election? Bernie has a lot of sway with independents and traditional non-voters. Also five-hour lines outside the few polling places in freezing weather certainly didn't help.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:44 pm
Indeed, if we had universal health care the situation here would be no worse than the UK's.
The NHS's central problem is that it is old - 1946 to be exact. It was designed for a fraction of the population that it caters for today and it was designed for a population that died a good thirty years younger. What once worked spectacularly well now huffs and puffs as it tries to keep up.
A health system designed for TODAY - which is what a USNHS would be - would not face many of the same institutional challenges.
I'm not throwing shade at the NHS. I'm just pointing out that universal health care would not necessarily have prevented this.
No but the disease might spread a little bit slower if Covid 19 tests were not restricted to the Pro Basketball, A-List Celebrity, and Horrible Goblin Senator class.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:44 pm
Indeed, if we had universal health care the situation here would be no worse than the UK's.
The NHS's central problem is that it is old - 1946 to be exact. It was designed for a fraction of the population that it caters for today and it was designed for a population that died a good thirty years younger. What once worked spectacularly well now huffs and puffs as it tries to keep up.
A health system designed for TODAY - which is what a USNHS would be - would not face many of the same institutional challenges.
I'm not throwing shade at the NHS. I'm just pointing out that universal health care would not necessarily have prevented this.
No but the disease might spread a little bit slower if Covid 19 tests were not restricted to the Pro Basketball, A-List Celebrity, and Horrible Goblin Senator class.
And we would have fewer folks being less afraid of contracting the Plague then going bankrupt to get treated for the Plague.
LittleRaven wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:56 pm
I suspect we agree on this point. As I said, Democrats have a problem with Sanders, not with progressive policies. The man is finished, his ideas are not.
Pelosi’s response to the pandemic so far does... not bear this conclusion out.
Democrats have proven to be ideologically committed to means testing and my instinct is this, more than Sanders’ personal foibles, is the biggest reason they have rallied against him.
clearspira wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:15 amWe all know that 9/11 gave Bush his second term.
It did much more than that. It's not hard for a President to get a second term in the US...it's quite normal, actually. But 9-11 rocketed Bush to a 90% approval rating and basically gave him the power to do almost anything he wanted, and THAT doesn't happen very often.
Then Katrina destroyed him. The sword cuts both ways.
Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:44 pm
Indeed, if we had universal health care the situation here would be no worse than the UK's.
The NHS's central problem is that it is old - 1946 to be exact. It was designed for a fraction of the population that it caters for today and it was designed for a population that died a good thirty years younger. What once worked spectacularly well now huffs and puffs as it tries to keep up.
A health system designed for TODAY - which is what a USNHS would be - would not face many of the same institutional challenges.
I'm not throwing shade at the NHS. I'm just pointing out that universal health care would not necessarily have prevented this.
No but the disease might spread a little bit slower if Covid 19 tests were not restricted to the Pro Basketball, A-List Celebrity, and Horrible Goblin Senator class.
And we would have fewer folks being less afraid of contracting the Plague then going bankrupt to get treated for the Plague.
This is failure of American style crook capitalism when only those who have money for it get tested and treated while rest do not allowing Covid-19 keep spreading among populace. In other words rich keep getting richer while everyone else are left to spread virus and possibly die from it without opportunity to get help. This is were universal healthcare would had helped to slow spread.
"In the embrace of the great Nurgle, I am no longer afraid, for with His pestilential favour I have become that which I once most feared: Death.."
- Kulvain Hestarius of the Death Guard
Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:44 pm
Indeed, if we had universal health care the situation here would be no worse than the UK's.
The NHS's central problem is that it is old - 1946 to be exact. It was designed for a fraction of the population that it caters for today and it was designed for a population that died a good thirty years younger. What once worked spectacularly well now huffs and puffs as it tries to keep up.
A health system designed for TODAY - which is what a USNHS would be - would not face many of the same institutional challenges.
I'm not throwing shade at the NHS. I'm just pointing out that universal health care would not necessarily have prevented this.
No but the disease might spread a little bit slower if Covid 19 tests were not restricted to the Pro Basketball, A-List Celebrity, and Horrible Goblin Senator class.
Covid 19 tests are not restricted to the pro basketball A-list celebrity, and horrible goblin senator class, are they?
