Clarence Thomas - Covid

Jarod said:
Sad, but true, he could have used those votes.
Click to expand...

While the Republicans are likely to take the House again and, maybe, the Senate, I'm truly curious to see if there is a COVID fatality effect on both the 2022 and 2024 elections. Trumpers don't give a shit about old people dying and it was old people who make up most of America's 900,000+ Trump's COVID fatalities. Old people vote conservative. The impact of all those facts will be very interesting. It wouldn't surprise me if it flipped a few local or state elections, maybe a House seat or two.

Not just the missing votes of antivax Trumpers, but families of Trumpers who either abstain or go Third Party as they realize they lost loved ones due to Trump's lies. A synergistic effect?

While a lot of factors are involved in the 2016 election, one was Bernie fans who abstained from voting over their disgust regarding Hillary and DNC's corruption. Some might recall Bernie making public pleas as the election drew close since he saw the effect of his fans refusing to vote for Hillary.

Like the 2016 Russian involvement has never been proved to have altered a single vote, the fact the effort was made coupled with common sense says it did have an effect either directly or indirectly. Indirectly would be a Trumper, pumped up by Russian lies and conspiracy theories, persuades a friend or two who are sitting on the fence to vote Trump. There's no way to prove that ever happened, but, again, common sense applies.

My favorite factor about the 2016 election was how the Third Party voters proved their impact on deciding narrow elections. Even if Hillary had won the election based on the "popular vote" and her "3 million more votes", people who don't understand numbers often don't see that:

1) she only had 48.2% of the popular vote. Except for Trump himself with 46.1%, how many Presidents can boast that claim? LOL The answer surprised me: https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Presidential-Election-Results-1788863

2) Sure, she had 3M more votes than Pedo Don, more people voted against Hillary than for her. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Total votes: 136,669,237
Hillary votes: 65,853,514
Total votes against Hillary: 70,815,723 <--what does this say about those pushing the "popular vote"? Should a candidate who doesn't really win the popular vote but wins the election be forced to a run off? Should we rank votes for candidates instead of just vote for the lesser of two evils?
 
Taichiliberal said:
What's the matter, bunky? Don't have the stomach to do some honest research? Obviously, you're ignorant about the most recent famous example of the Southern Strategy....that would educate you about what happened to the KKK friendly Dem party over the century. Here's another clue for ya, "Dixie-crats". Look it up, because I tire of dealing with willfully ignorant right wing wonks like yourself.
Click to expand...

I wish you could do some honest research race hustling dimwit.

The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’

The Democratic Party’s claim to be the party of the good guys, while the Republicans are the party of the bad guys, hinges on the tale of Richard Nixon’s so-called Southern Strategy. According to this narrative, advanced by progressive historians, Nixon orchestrated a party switch on civil rights by converting the racists in the Democratic Party — the infamous Dixiecrats — into Republicans. And now, according to a recent article in The New Republic, President Trump is the “true heir, the beneficiary of the policies the party has pursued for more than half a century.”

Yes, this story is in the textbooks and on the history channel and regularly repeated in the media, but is it true? First, no one has ever given a single example of an explicitly racist pitch by Nixon during his long career. One might expect that a racist appeal to the Deep South actually would have to be made, and to be understood as such. Yet, quite evidently none was.

So progressives insist that Nixon made a racist “dog whistle” appeal to Deep South voters. Evidently he spoke to them in a kind of code. Really? Is it plausible that Nixon figured out how to communicate with Deep South racists in a secret language? Do Deep South bigots, like dogs, have some kind of heightened awareness of racial messages — messages that are somehow indecipherable to the media and the rest of the country?


This seems unlikely, but let’s consider the possibility. Progressives insist that Nixon’s appeals to drugs and law and order were coded racist messaging. Yet when Nixon ran for president in 1968 the main issue was the Vietnam War. One popular Republican slogan of the period described the Democrats as the party of “acid, amnesty and abortion.” Clearly there is no suggestion here of race.
.................
Upon his taking office in 1969, Nixon also put into effect America’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions, first in Philadelphia and then elsewhere. Now, would a man seeking to build an electoral base of Deep South white supremacists actually promote the first program to legally discriminate in favor of blacks? This is absurd.

Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South.
...............
And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans — and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402754-the-myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy
 
Jarod said:
It is. Glad we changed.
Click to expand...

tenor.gif


liar
noun
li·ar | \ ˈlī(-ə)r \
: a person who tells lies
has a reputation as a liar
 
Dutch Uncle said:
While the Republicans are likely to take the House again and, maybe, the Senate, I'm truly curious to see if there is a COVID fatality effect on both the 2022 and 2024 elections. Trumpers don't give a shit about old people dying and it was old people who make up most of America's 900,000+ Trump's COVID fatalities. Old people vote conservative. The impact of all those facts will be very interesting. It wouldn't surprise me if it flipped a few local or state elections, maybe a House seat or two.

Not just the missing votes of antivax Trumpers, but families of Trumpers who either abstain or go Third Party as they realize they lost loved ones due to Trump's lies. A synergistic effect?

While a lot of factors are involved in the 2016 election, one was Bernie fans who abstained from voting over their disgust regarding Hillary and DNC's corruption. Some might recall Bernie making public pleas as the election drew close since he saw the effect of his fans refusing to vote for Hillary.

Like the 2016 Russian involvement has never been proved to have altered a single vote, the fact the effort was made coupled with common sense says it did have an effect either directly or indirectly. Indirectly would be a Trumper, pumped up by Russian lies and conspiracy theories, persuades a friend or two who are sitting on the fence to vote Trump. There's no way to prove that ever happened, but, again, common sense applies.

My favorite factor about the 2016 election was how the Third Party voters proved their impact on deciding narrow elections. Even if Hillary had won the election based on the "popular vote" and her "3 million more votes", people who don't understand numbers often don't see that:

1) she only had 48.2% of the popular vote. Except for Trump himself with 46.1%, how many Presidents can boast that claim? LOL The answer surprised me: https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Presidential-Election-Results-1788863

2) Sure, she had 3M more votes than Pedo Don, more people voted against Hillary than for her. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Total votes: 136,669,237
Hillary votes: 65,853,514
Total votes against Hillary: 70,815,723 <--what does this say about those pushing the "popular vote"? Should a candidate who doesn't really win the popular vote but wins the election be forced to a run off? Should we rank votes for candidates instead of just vote for the lesser of two evils?
Click to expand...

How many votes against Trump?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then why do they continually keep black people down, in poverty, and under the proverbial whip??????
Click to expand...

I understand you believe that, but I believe differently, I think its the policies of the Republicans to intentionally keep money with those whose parents/grandparents/ancestry were rich that keeps those whose families were slaves then actively discriminated against for another 100 years, that keeps them in poverty.
 
Jarod said:
Maybe, if we are talking election reform I have some great ideas, but it aint gunna happen.
Click to expand...

Agreed and neither side wants it. Not sure of your age, but I've been listening to "election reform" since Nixon.
 
PoliTalker said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
As to your first sentence....it is collection of personal anecdotes that indeed make up national policy...it's called consensus.

Your second paragraph seems somewhat rhetorical, as we already know that there are people who don't own guns but are rabid gun rights advocates in the LaPierre/NRA vein. And there are gun owners who are seriously in favor of and advocate for better, more efficient gun control laws. Most of your proposed pre-ownership requirements already exist in many states.

As far as I know off hand, psychological test are not a requirement in any state to own a gun.....to initiate such a policy would be a strong intrusion of someone's personal life, especially since the type of questions would NOT be the same as say the ones used to evaluate police officers (what they would be is anyone's guess). So unless somebody is going to foot the bill to have a national mandate that every potential gun owner go through the same evaluation and testing as cops do PLUS additional psych evaluation, it ain't happening.

Your Sandy Hook reference was a bad poor example, as the perp STOLE those weapons from his mother. She purchased them legally, and if I remember correctly, she was not deemed mentally disturbed in any way. Her kid was another story. Like I said before, it's very hard to legislate against crazy.

We live in a country of individuals who compete for position and resources, of which both are limited. We live in country that is still dealing with its history of near genocide, slavery, economic castes and misogynistic attitudes. So the guns are not going anywhere. But we can regulate them to the best of our ability. So far, that fully hasn't happened.
Click to expand...




Hello Taichiliberal,



And this answer is as much as to say that nothing can be done, that we must all simply accept the carnage, that it is the price of the freedom of a well-minded individual to purchase and own without much encumbrance of regulation, that absolutely crazy people can also acquire weapons and cut innocent lives short at will without warning.

Nothing at all.

And that is indeed a sad state of affairs.

It doesn't set right.

It is inherently wrong.

Is that the case?

Do you see any possibility that the senseless massacres and pointless deaths will ever end?
Click to expand...

Obviously, you ignored the following from my previous post; "... So the guns are not going anywhere. But we can regulate them to the best of our ability. So far, that fully hasn't happened ..."


In other words, the situation and future may look bleak, but that doesn't mean we abandon the effort for better regulations. Remember, it was thought at one time that the Brady Bill would never come to pass, as such with the AWB law (which unfortunately had a "sunset" clause). Eventually, the AWB 1994 list will come back and be reinforced ... unfortunately it will take a few more mass shootings of predominantly white folk for that to happen (yes, race does have a substantial effect on gun control laws). My statements in the previous post, unfortunately, stand valid. But that does NOT mean to abandon the effort for a better society via better gun control.
 
Here's another little tidbit about good ol' Clarence that prohibits me from giving a damn about his health:



Groundswell, Ginni Thomas, And Continued Conflicts Of Interest For Justice Clarence Thomas
New Mother Jones Report Indicates Second Amendment, Voting Rights Conflicts

[J]ust days after healthcare law was upheld (with Clarence Thomas dissenting), new financial forms show that Thomas's wife, Ginni, continued to rake in a profit from opposing healthcare reforms in 2011--even after she previously came under fire for doing so.

According to Thomas's 2011 financial disclosure report form, filed on May 15 and obtained Friday by Whispers, the Thomas's invested up to $15,000 in the political lobbying firm Liberty Consulting, where Ginni Thomas continues to earn a salary and benefits. The firm lobbied actively against the healthcare law, according to liberal news magazine Mother Jones.

Ginni formed Liberty Consulting after she was criticized for her work at Liberty Central, a non-profit tea party organization that also lobbied against the health care law.

In March of this year, Liberty Central was the subject of a letter sent to the IRS by Common Cause, a nonprofit that works for government accountability. The letter argued that Liberty Central violated the proportionality rule for non-profits because the majority of its activities were designed to help Republican candidates.

Ginni later stepped down from Liberty Central, but her involvement in conservative politics extends beyond these two groups. Among Ginni's former employers is the Heritage Foundation, another vocal critic of the healthcare law. She also currently works as a “special correspondent” for the conservative website The Daily Caller.

In January 2011, Justice Thomas “inadvertently” left out information about his wife's employment, including earnings over the past 13 years that added up to as much as $1.6 million.



https://www.mediamatters.org/suprem...ed-conflicts-interest-justice-clarence-thomas
 
Jarod said:
It is dumb not to be vaccinated, some of your party are refusing for political reasons, that’s even more dumb. The “leaders” of the Trump party (while vaccinated themselves) often promote the distrust in science that results in much of unvaccinated.
Click to expand...

A lot of people, who were indifferent toward vaccines, and only became stubbornly resistant after the mandates and public pressure campaigns were independent or apolitical. I agree that it's a dumb reason to take a position.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Their choice. I fully support the right of suicide, "my body, my choice" and other individual rights such as smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.

That said, if people who made risky choices start overwhelming hospitals (e.g. large number of fentanyl OD victims) and causing harm to people with other medical emergencies, do you have a problem with the hospital putting all the druggies in a tent by themselves in order to keep the ER and ICU open?
Click to expand...

Triage is an important part of medical care. I would treat the heart attack before the symptomatic COVID patient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top