American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Ifreann]

Trump considered transferring infected Americans to Guantanamo Bay

During the early stages of the pandemic, then-President Donald Trump was looking for ways not to bring infected Americans in Asia home for care and asked White House staff if sending them to Guantánamo Bay — where the United States holds terrorist suspects — was an option.

This is according to a new book by Washington Post journalists Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta called “Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration’s Response to the Pandemic That Changed History.”

“Don’t we have an island that we own?” the president reportedly asked during a February 2020 meeting in the Situation Room, “What about Guantánamo?”

“We import goods,” Trump reportedly said to his staff. “We are not going to import a virus.” When the president reportedly asked the same question again, stunned aides quickly squashed the idea because of fears of a public backlash over sending sick Americans to Guantánamo.

Trump and then-chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also reportedly tried to fire a State Department official who let 14 Covid-19-positive Americans who had been on the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan travel home to America. But senior officials disagreed with the attempted firing, and Trump and Mulvaney “gave up” after a while. The official’s decision to let the Americans return may have ultimately saved their lives, however, as they flew out on the last available flight to the U.S. But Trump was angry because at the time there were only 14 other cases of Covid-19 in the country, leading the president to complain that it “doubles my numbers overnight.” The book, which according to the Post, draws on interviews with more than 180 people including multiple White House senior staff members and government health leaders, says Trump even complained that the CDC had developed a test for Covid-19 because the number of positive tests would reflect poorly on his administration.

“Testing is killing me!” Trump reportedly yelled at then-Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a March 18th call, “I’m going to lose the election because of testing! What idiot had the federal government do testing?”

“Uh, do you mean Jared?” Azar responded, according to the Post, referring to Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who just days earlier announced he would take charge of the country’s testing strategy by working with the private sector. These comments echo Trump’s public remarks during the pandemic. In the summer of 2020, Trump tweeted that testing “makes us look bad” and told reporters, “When you test, you create cases.”

The chaos and disorder of the Trump administration’s response led the book’s authors to determine that: “Ultimately, there was no accountability, and the response was rudderless.”

Sounds about right for Trump.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Trump considered transferring infected Americans to Guantanamo Bay

During the early stages of the pandemic, then-President Donald Trump was looking for ways not to bring infected Americans in Asia home for care and asked White House staff if sending them to Guantánamo Bay — where the United States holds terrorist suspects — was an option.

This is according to a new book by Washington Post journalists Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta called “Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration’s Response to the Pandemic That Changed History.”

“Don’t we have an island that we own?” the president reportedly asked during a February 2020 meeting in the Situation Room, “What about Guantánamo?”

“We import goods,” Trump reportedly said to his staff. “We are not going to import a virus.” When the president reportedly asked the same question again, stunned aides quickly squashed the idea because of fears of a public backlash over sending sick Americans to Guantánamo.

Trump and then-chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also reportedly tried to fire a State Department official who let 14 Covid-19-positive Americans who had been on the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan travel home to America. But senior officials disagreed with the attempted firing, and Trump and Mulvaney “gave up” after a while. The official’s decision to let the Americans return may have ultimately saved their lives, however, as they flew out on the last available flight to the U.S. But Trump was angry because at the time there were only 14 other cases of Covid-19 in the country, leading the president to complain that it “doubles my numbers overnight.” The book, which according to the Post, draws on interviews with more than 180 people including multiple White House senior staff members and government health leaders, says Trump even complained that the CDC had developed a test for Covid-19 because the number of positive tests would reflect poorly on his administration.

“Testing is killing me!” Trump reportedly yelled at then-Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a March 18th call, “I’m going to lose the election because of testing! What idiot had the federal government do testing?”

“Uh, do you mean Jared?” Azar responded, according to the Post, referring to Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who just days earlier announced he would take charge of the country’s testing strategy by working with the private sector. These comments echo Trump’s public remarks during the pandemic. In the summer of 2020, Trump tweeted that testing “makes us look bad” and told reporters, “When you test, you create cases.”

The chaos and disorder of the Trump administration’s response led the book’s authors to determine that: “Ultimately, there was no accountability, and the response was rudderless.”

You doubt the capabilities of the Guantanamo School of Medicine?

[Cannot think of a name]

It's weird that you think it's a case of lions and antelopes when it should be either all antelopes or all lions.

That was to illustrate the contrast between political parties, not that some are lions and some are antelopes.

Gosh...was it?

Of course I got what you meant, but the examples in your dumbass oversimplified 'explanation' are at the core of the problem, that you think that positions in politics are inherently a predator-prey relationship. Because your divisiveness only works if framed that way when it's not an accurate picture, it's just a cynical hot take that doesn't survive a moments examination.

[Illu-chi]

Trump considered transferring infected Americans to Guantanamo Bay

During the early stages of the pandemic, then-President Donald Trump was looking for ways not to bring infected Americans in Asia home for care and asked White House staff if sending them to Guantánamo Bay — where the United States holds terrorist suspects — was an option.

This is according to a new book by Washington Post journalists Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta called “Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration’s Response to the Pandemic That Changed History.”

“Don’t we have an island that we own?” the president reportedly asked during a February 2020 meeting in the Situation Room, “What about Guantánamo?”

“We import goods,” Trump reportedly said to his staff. “We are not going to import a virus.” When the president reportedly asked the same question again, stunned aides quickly squashed the idea because of fears of a public backlash over sending sick Americans to Guantánamo.

Trump and then-chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also reportedly tried to fire a State Department official who let 14 Covid-19-positive Americans who had been on the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan travel home to America. But senior officials disagreed with the attempted firing, and Trump and Mulvaney “gave up” after a while. The official’s decision to let the Americans return may have ultimately saved their lives, however, as they flew out on the last available flight to the U.S. But Trump was angry because at the time there were only 14 other cases of Covid-19 in the country, leading the president to complain that it “doubles my numbers overnight.” The book, which according to the Post, draws on interviews with more than 180 people including multiple White House senior staff members and government health leaders, says Trump even complained that the CDC had developed a test for Covid-19 because the number of positive tests would reflect poorly on his administration.

“Testing is killing me!” Trump reportedly yelled at then-Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a March 18th call, “I’m going to lose the election because of testing! What idiot had the federal government do testing?”

“Uh, do you mean Jared?” Azar responded, according to the Post, referring to Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who just days earlier announced he would take charge of the country’s testing strategy by working with the private sector. These comments echo Trump’s public remarks during the pandemic. In the summer of 2020, Trump tweeted that testing “makes us look bad” and told reporters, “When you test, you create cases.”

The chaos and disorder of the Trump administration’s response led the book’s authors to determine that: “Ultimately, there was no accountability, and the response was rudderless.”

I don't see the issue with sending them to Guantanamo. Its like quarantining at your home except its just in a prison in a tropical country.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That was to illustrate the contrast between political parties, not that some are lions and some are antelopes.

Gosh...was it?

Of course I got what you meant, but the examples in your dumbass oversimplified 'explanation' are at the core of the problem, that you think that positions in politics are inherently a predator-prey relationship. Because your divisiveness only works if framed that way when it's not an accurate picture, it's just a cynical hot take that doesn't survive a moments examination.

Democratic politics is inherently a predator-prey relationship. While we like to talk up bipartisanship and compromise, at the end of the day someone has to lose in these systems.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Gosh...was it?

Of course I got what you meant, but the examples in your dumbass oversimplified 'explanation' are at the core of the problem, that you think that positions in politics are inherently a predator-prey relationship. Because your divisiveness only works if framed that way when it's not an accurate picture, it's just a cynical hot take that doesn't survive a moments examination.

Democratic politics is inherently a predator-prey relationship. While we like to talk up bipartisanship and compromise, at the end of the day someone has to lose in these systems.

Bipartisanship is very much more alive than most people think in some ways (military industrialism, etc), but it's always been an excuse for the more "progressive" party not to get stuff done. The Democrats are a good example of this, they made so many promises before 2020 but now that they have power they suddenly want to cooperate with their counterparts despite the fact that they're dominated by rabid Trump cultists (some of whom helped incite a coup attempt).

Anyways, it's more of a predator-predator relationship here. The only prey is the proletariat.

[Abla dablism]

I think Jeb should come back and be pres

[Heloin]

I think Jeb should come back and be pres

Maybe someone will clap this time.

[Neoliberal Consensus]

I think Jeb should come back and be pres

I would gladly support principled conservatives like Jeb Bush who respect our democratic institutions and will stand tough against Russian-backed populism. Our democracy has been made better by his family's presence and willingness to stand up to demogogues like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Great political dynasties make our democracy stronger anyways because they ensure rule by the experts and most qualified.

Mr. Bush also supported the Lincoln Project, a trustworthy principled conservative organization that can be trusted because its made up of principled conservatives like Bill Kristol.

[Salus Maior]

Gosh...was it?

Of course I got what you meant, but the examples in your dumbass oversimplified 'explanation' are at the core of the problem, that you think that positions in politics are inherently a predator-prey relationship. Because your divisiveness only works if framed that way when it's not an accurate picture, it's just a cynical hot take that doesn't survive a moments examination.

Democratic politics is inherently a predator-prey relationship. While we like to talk up bipartisanship and compromise, at the end of the day someone has to lose in these systems.

That's why democratic systems should be structured to force consensus politics instead of the retardation we have.

[Bombadil]

Democratic politics is inherently a predator-prey relationship. While we like to talk up bipartisanship and compromise, at the end of the day someone has to lose in these systems.

That's why democratic systems should be structured to force consensus politics instead of the retardation we have.

I've posted this a few times previously but..

Civic hackers thought the internet could be part of the solution, but in Taiwan – like everywhere else – it seemed to be part of the problem. Online politics was polarised. It made people angry and bombarded political leaders with lobbying and abuse. The internet created only heat and noise, and gave citizens no way to express preferences the government could act on.

Their answer to the government’s request was to create a new kind of political process. They wanted to allow citizens to not only vote on questions posed by the government, but also control what questions were asked in the first place. And they wanted these questions to be based on attitudes held in common across Taiwanese society rather than on its divisions. They called the process vTaiwan.

It came out of the G0v hackathons, developed by volunteers, but attended and listened to by government officials. Through constant tweaking, they worked out a set process, partly technological, partly face-to-face, that could be started by government on a specific question. It had to be open for anyone to join, and could only work if people were involved with skin in the game from all sides of any particular question. But it also had to create concrete outputs that the government could turn into new laws.

They knew that online discussions would most likely attract the younger, digitally savvy crowds first, so vTaiwan was at first mostly used to debate questions of technology regulation: “should Uber be allowed?”, or “should alcohol be available to buy online?” Whatever the question, vTaiwan sought to design away the incentives for trolling and abuse and move political debate closer to internet-powered governance: transparent, inclusive and, above all, consensus-seeking.

One evening in mid-July 2019, I saw vTaiwan in action. Citizens gathered around tables in a softly lit room, together with officials from the Ministry of Transport. The issue was electric vehicle regulation. Many had arrived on Segways and e-scooters – vehicles that the government deems illegal – but there wasn’t any shouting. Everyone – government, riders, e-vehicle sellers, pedestrians – had come to talk about what they had in common with each other. This debate was face-to-face, but the people in it had already been drawn closer to each other: vTaiwan had already used an online debate to identify what G0v call “consensus items” – statements many people across most groups broadly agreed with.

Link

[Genivaria]

That's why democratic systems should be structured to force consensus politics instead of the retardation we have.

I've posted this a few times previously but..

Civic hackers thought the internet could be part of the solution, but in Taiwan – like everywhere else – it seemed to be part of the problem. Online politics was polarised. It made people angry and bombarded political leaders with lobbying and abuse. The internet created only heat and noise, and gave citizens no way to express preferences the government could act on.

Their answer to the government’s request was to create a new kind of political process. They wanted to allow citizens to not only vote on questions posed by the government, but also control what questions were asked in the first place. And they wanted these questions to be based on attitudes held in common across Taiwanese society rather than on its divisions. They called the process vTaiwan.

It came out of the G0v hackathons, developed by volunteers, but attended and listened to by government officials. Through constant tweaking, they worked out a set process, partly technological, partly face-to-face, that could be started by government on a specific question. It had to be open for anyone to join, and could only work if people were involved with skin in the game from all sides of any particular question. But it also had to create concrete outputs that the government could turn into new laws.

They knew that online discussions would most likely attract the younger, digitally savvy crowds first, so vTaiwan was at first mostly used to debate questions of technology regulation: “should Uber be allowed?”, or “should alcohol be available to buy online?” Whatever the question, vTaiwan sought to design away the incentives for trolling and abuse and move political debate closer to internet-powered governance: transparent, inclusive and, above all, consensus-seeking.

One evening in mid-July 2019, I saw vTaiwan in action. Citizens gathered around tables in a softly lit room, together with officials from the Ministry of Transport. The issue was electric vehicle regulation. Many had arrived on Segways and e-scooters – vehicles that the government deems illegal – but there wasn’t any shouting. Everyone – government, riders, e-vehicle sellers, pedestrians – had come to talk about what they had in common with each other. This debate was face-to-face, but the people in it had already been drawn closer to each other: vTaiwan had already used an online debate to identify what G0v call “consensus items” – statements many people across most groups broadly agreed with.

Link

Ngl this is cool as hell.

[Galloism]

That's why democratic systems should be structured to force consensus politics instead of the retardation we have.

I've posted this a few times previously but..

Civic hackers thought the internet could be part of the solution, but in Taiwan – like everywhere else – it seemed to be part of the problem. Online politics was polarised. It made people angry and bombarded political leaders with lobbying and abuse. The internet created only heat and noise, and gave citizens no way to express preferences the government could act on.

Their answer to the government’s request was to create a new kind of political process. They wanted to allow citizens to not only vote on questions posed by the government, but also control what questions were asked in the first place. And they wanted these questions to be based on attitudes held in common across Taiwanese society rather than on its divisions. They called the process vTaiwan.

It came out of the G0v hackathons, developed by volunteers, but attended and listened to by government officials. Through constant tweaking, they worked out a set process, partly technological, partly face-to-face, that could be started by government on a specific question. It had to be open for anyone to join, and could only work if people were involved with skin in the game from all sides of any particular question. But it also had to create concrete outputs that the government could turn into new laws.

They knew that online discussions would most likely attract the younger, digitally savvy crowds first, so vTaiwan was at first mostly used to debate questions of technology regulation: “should Uber be allowed?”, or “should alcohol be available to buy online?” Whatever the question, vTaiwan sought to design away the incentives for trolling and abuse and move political debate closer to internet-powered governance: transparent, inclusive and, above all, consensus-seeking.

One evening in mid-July 2019, I saw vTaiwan in action. Citizens gathered around tables in a softly lit room, together with officials from the Ministry of Transport. The issue was electric vehicle regulation. Many had arrived on Segways and e-scooters – vehicles that the government deems illegal – but there wasn’t any shouting. Everyone – government, riders, e-vehicle sellers, pedestrians – had come to talk about what they had in common with each other. This debate was face-to-face, but the people in it had already been drawn closer to each other: vTaiwan had already used an online debate to identify what G0v call “consensus items” – statements many people across most groups broadly agreed with.

Link

So, this is pretty awesome. Would this work in America?

[Bombadil]

I've posted this a few times previously but..

Civic hackers thought the internet could be part of the solution, but in Taiwan – like everywhere else – it seemed to be part of the problem. Online politics was polarised. It made people angry and bombarded political leaders with lobbying and abuse. The internet created only heat and noise, and gave citizens no way to express preferences the government could act on.

Their answer to the government’s request was to create a new kind of political process. They wanted to allow citizens to not only vote on questions posed by the government, but also control what questions were asked in the first place. And they wanted these questions to be based on attitudes held in common across Taiwanese society rather than on its divisions. They called the process vTaiwan.

It came out of the G0v hackathons, developed by volunteers, but attended and listened to by government officials. Through constant tweaking, they worked out a set process, partly technological, partly face-to-face, that could be started by government on a specific question. It had to be open for anyone to join, and could only work if people were involved with skin in the game from all sides of any particular question. But it also had to create concrete outputs that the government could turn into new laws.

They knew that online discussions would most likely attract the younger, digitally savvy crowds first, so vTaiwan was at first mostly used to debate questions of technology regulation: “should Uber be allowed?”, or “should alcohol be available to buy online?” Whatever the question, vTaiwan sought to design away the incentives for trolling and abuse and move political debate closer to internet-powered governance: transparent, inclusive and, above all, consensus-seeking.

One evening in mid-July 2019, I saw vTaiwan in action. Citizens gathered around tables in a softly lit room, together with officials from the Ministry of Transport. The issue was electric vehicle regulation. Many had arrived on Segways and e-scooters – vehicles that the government deems illegal – but there wasn’t any shouting. Everyone – government, riders, e-vehicle sellers, pedestrians – had come to talk about what they had in common with each other. This debate was face-to-face, but the people in it had already been drawn closer to each other: vTaiwan had already used an online debate to identify what G0v call “consensus items” – statements many people across most groups broadly agreed with.

Link

So, this is pretty awesome. Would this work in America?

I think the underlying technology is out of the US, I guess you'd have to trial it in a state - it wouldn't work just enacting it at a Federal level I suspect.

Citizens gathered around tables in a softly lit room, together with officials from the Ministry of Transport. The issue was electric vehicle regulation. Many had arrived on Segways and e-scooters

So it worked about as well as a poll on TikTok about whether TikTok should be banned.

So in the Uber example they gave, the government concerns weren't public concerns at all - government tends to come at things in terms of 'should this be allowed', whereas the public is more 'how do we ensure it's safe', which are two slightly different questions to some extent - so I'd imagine similar here, it's as much agreeing on the question that needs to be resolved over the answers. And to this point, perhaps it's assumed electric vehicle are a good thing by the public so the question is 'how do we encourage greater use' as opposed to a more government attitude of 'how do we restrict use to certain spaces'

However the point is to create consensus around the questions first before diving into solution.

[Cannot think of a name]

So, this is pretty awesome. Would this work in America?

I think the underlying technology is out of the US, I guess you'd have to trial it in a state - it wouldn't work just enacting it at a Federal level I suspect.

So it worked about as well as a poll on TikTok about whether TikTok should be banned.

So in the Uber example they gave, the government concerns weren't public concerns at all - government tends to come at things in terms of 'should this be allowed', whereas the public is more 'how do we ensure it's safe', which are two slightly different questions to some extent - so I'd imagine similar here, it's as much agreeing on the question that needs to be resolved over the answers. And to this point, perhaps it's assumed electric vehicle are a good thing by the public so the question is 'how do we encourage greater use' as opposed to a more government attitude of 'how do we restrict use to certain spaces'

However the point is to create consensus around the questions first before diving into solution.

Good lord, just the simplicity of it...so many issues that have stemmed from the fact that people aren't arguing solutions but different questions.

Though, now that I'm sitting here, I can think of one example of it maybe falling apart.

Because right now we see that 'reasonable center' falling for the solution in search of a problem, voter ID. There is no in person voter fraud problem, full stop. Especially on the scale necessary to sway an election. The 'solution' to the problem is to acknowledge that there isn't a problem. But advocates for voter suppression have successfully created a situation where the question 'what to do about in person voter fraud' as a legitimate question regardless of the lack of evidence such a problem exists.

[Kowani]

An Act in which Kysten Sinema fucks all of us

Everyday Arizonans are focused on questions that matter most in their daily lives.
Is my job secure? Can I expand my business? Can we afford college? What about health care? When can I retire? Is my community safe?
Meanwhile, much of Washington’s focus is on a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to advance most legislation.
Arizonans expect me to do what I promised when I ran for the House and the Senate: to be independent — like Arizona — and to work with anyone to achieve lasting results.

Lasting results — rather than temporary victories, destined to be reversed, undermining the certainty that America’s families and employers depend on. The best way to achieve durable, lasting results? Bipartisan cooperation.
I understand bipartisanship seems outdated to many pundits. But the difficult work of collaboration is what we expect in Arizona. And I still believe it is the best way to identify realistic solutions — instead of escalating all-or-nothing political battles that result in no action, or in whipsawing federal policy reversals.

Since I was elected to Congress, a bipartisan approach has produced laws curbing suicide among our troops and veterans, boosting American manufacturing, delivering for Native American communities, combating hate crimes, and protecting public lands.
It’s no secret that I oppose eliminating the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I held the same view during three terms in the U.S. House, and said the same after I was elected to the Senate in 2018. If anyone expected me to reverse my position because my party now controls the Senate, they should know that my approach to legislating in Congress is the same whether in the minority or majority.
Once in a majority, it is tempting to believe you will stay in the majority. But a Democratic Senate minority used the 60-vote threshold just last year to filibuster a police reform proposal and a covid-relief bill that many Democrats viewed as inadequate. Those filibusters were mounted not as attempts to block progress, but to force continued negotiations toward better solutions.

And, sometimes, the filibuster, as it’s been used in previous Congresses, is needed to protect against attacks on women’s health, clean air and water, or aid to children and families in need.
My support for retaining the 60-vote threshold is not based on the importance of any particular policy. It is based on what is best for our democracy. The filibuster compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles.
To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority?
To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to expand health-care access or retirement benefits: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to later see that legislation replaced by legislation dividing Medicaid into block grants, slashing earned Social Security and Medicare benefits, or defunding women’s reproductive health services?To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to empower federal agencies to better protect the environment or strengthen education: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see federal agencies and programs shrunk, starved of resources, or abolished a few years from now?

This question is less about the immediate results from any of these Democratic or Republican goals — it is the likelihood of repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government.
And to those who fear that Senate rules will change anyway as soon as the Senate majority changes: I will not support an action that damages our democracy because someone else did so previously or might do so in the future. I do not accept a new standard by which important legislation can only pass on party-line votes — and when my party is again in the Senate minority, I will work just as hard to preserve the right to shape legislation. Good-faith arguments have been made both criticizing and defending the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I share the belief expressed in 2017 by 31 Senate Democrats opposing elimination of the filibuster — a belief shared by President Biden. While I am confident that several senators in my party still share that belief, the Senate has not held a debate on the matter.

It is time for the Senate to debate the legislative filibuster, so senators and our constituents can hear and fully consider the concerns and consequences. Hopefully, senators can then focus on crafting policies through open legislative processes and amendments, finding compromises that earn broad support. A group of 10 Democrats and 11 Republicans that I am helping lead has reached an agreement on an infrastructure investment framework. We are now negotiating with the administration. Bipartisan working groups to which I belong are negotiating how to address our broken immigration system and raise the federal minimum wage. I strongly support bipartisan discussions underway on police reform. The Senate recently passed a critical water infrastructure bill, as well as crucial research, development and manufacturing legislation.
It’s possible that not all of these efforts will succeed — and those that do may not go as far as some of us wish. But bipartisan policies that stand the test of time could help heal our country’s divisions and strengthen Americans’ confidence that our government is working for all of us and is worthy of all of us.

Instability, partisanship and tribalism continue to infect our politics. The solution, however, is not to continue weakening our democracy’s guardrails. If we eliminate the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, we will lose much more than we gain.

[Bombadil]

Good lord, just the simplicity of it...so many issues that have stemmed from the fact that people aren't arguing solutions but different questions.

Though, now that I'm sitting here, I can think of one example of it maybe falling apart.

Because right now we see that 'reasonable center' falling for the solution in search of a problem, voter ID. There is no in person voter fraud problem, full stop. Especially on the scale necessary to sway an election. The 'solution' to the problem is to acknowledge that there isn't a problem. But advocates for voter suppression have successfully created a situation where the question 'what to do about in person voter fraud' as a legitimate question regardless of the lack of evidence such a problem exists.

So I'd already say 'what to do about in person voter fraud' isn't necessarily the concern.. where the fundamental underlying question is 'how do I ensure I feel fairly represented', and I'd say part of the partisan divide being exploited where the message 'they hate you' is ascribed to the 'other party', can be closed by finding a means of allowing people to feel heard.

..so the solution might be 'how do we ensure people feel their voice is heard', and that's a different solution to 'how do we stop [non-existent] voter fraud'.

Such a platform might be the answer to that question, a mechanism whereby the public identify the problems for the government to solve rather than the government devising a list of problems guided as much by donors and media as it is in the public interest.

Anyway, not to derail the thread.. just to note that there are experiments as to how to make politics less partisan and more consensus through technology.

[Cannot think of a name]

Good lord, just the simplicity of it...so many issues that have stemmed from the fact that people aren't arguing solutions but different questions.

Though, now that I'm sitting here, I can think of one example of it maybe falling apart.

Because right now we see that 'reasonable center' falling for the solution in search of a problem, voter ID. There is no in person voter fraud problem, full stop. Especially on the scale necessary to sway an election. The 'solution' to the problem is to acknowledge that there isn't a problem. But advocates for voter suppression have successfully created a situation where the question 'what to do about in person voter fraud' as a legitimate question regardless of the lack of evidence such a problem exists.

So I'd already say 'what to do about in person voter fraud' isn't necessarily the concern.. where the fundamental underlying question is 'how do I ensure I feel fairly represented', and I'd say part of the partisan divide being exploited where the message 'they hate you' is ascribed to the 'other party', can be closed by finding a means of allowing people to feel heard.

..so the solution might be 'how do we ensure people feel their voice is heard', and that's a different solution to 'how do we stop [non-existent] voter fraud'.

Such a platform might be the answer to that question, a mechanism whereby the public identify the problems for the government to solve rather than the government devising a list of problems guided as much by donors and media as it is in the public interest.

Anyway, not to derail the thread.. just to note that there are experiments as to how to make politics less partisan and more consensus through technology.

I'd be interested in seeing this applied out of Taiwan, it intrigues me.

[Kowani]

yang man you gotta quit while you're behind

In the final hours of the New York City mayoral campaign, candidate Andrew Yang doubled down on his comments on the mentally ill and homeless. Phoning into a radio show with billionaire John Catsimatidis on Monday, Yang complained that mentally ill people affect the city's tourism.

Yang was responding to Catsimatidis's statement that too many mentally ill people live on the streets instead of in hospitals. He agreed with Catsimatidis that money is better spent on building facilities to treat people.

"We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City,'" Yang said. "We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment," Yang added.

The comments Yang made on Monday were similar to those he made at the NYC mayoral debate last Wednesday, for which he received backlash on social media.

"Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights? We do! The people and families of the city," Yang said last week during the debate."We have the right to walk the street and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us."

According to a New York Times report, Yang said at an event later on Monday with fellow candidate Kathryn Garcia that he stood by the comments he made to Catsimatidis. Yang also emphasized the need for "public safety."

"There will not be an economic recovery until people feel safe walking our streets and walking our subways," said Yang to the New York Times.

Other candidates campaigning against Yang for the mayoral seat denounced Yang's comments on mentally ill New Yorkers.

Zack Fink from Spectrum News NY1 interviewed mayoral candidate Maya Wiley, who said that Yang and Garcia asked her to campaign with them on Monday. But Wiley told NY1 that she turned the duo down because she thought Yang's statements during Wednesday's debate were "highly insensitive."

Meanwhile, the Times quoted candidate Eric Adams, who said he was "really disturbed" by Yang's remarks.

[North Washington Republic]

yang man you gotta quit while you're behind

In the final hours of the New York City mayoral campaign, candidate Andrew Yang doubled down on his comments on the mentally ill and homeless. Phoning into a radio show with billionaire John Catsimatidis on Monday, Yang complained that mentally ill people affect the city's tourism.

Yang was responding to Catsimatidis's statement that too many mentally ill people live on the streets instead of in hospitals. He agreed with Catsimatidis that money is better spent on building facilities to treat people.

"We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City,'" Yang said. "We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment," Yang added.

The comments Yang made on Monday were similar to those he made at the NYC mayoral debate last Wednesday, for which he received backlash on social media.

"Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights? We do! The people and families of the city," Yang said last week during the debate."We have the right to walk the street and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us."

According to a New York Times report, Yang said at an event later on Monday with fellow candidate Kathryn Garcia that he stood by the comments he made to Catsimatidis. Yang also emphasized the need for "public safety."

"There will not be an economic recovery until people feel safe walking our streets and walking our subways," said Yang to the New York Times.

Other candidates campaigning against Yang for the mayoral seat denounced Yang's comments on mentally ill New Yorkers.

Zack Fink from Spectrum News NY1 interviewed mayoral candidate Maya Wiley, who said that Yang and Garcia asked her to campaign with them on Monday. But Wiley told NY1 that she turned the duo down because she thought Yang's statements during Wednesday's debate were "highly insensitive."

Meanwhile, the Times quoted candidate Eric Adams, who said he was "really disturbed" by Yang's remarks.

Why did Yang get a lot of support from left-wing populists when he ran as President. There were quite a lot of Tulsi-Yang/Yang-Tulsi.

Let me guess, they were viewed as “anti-establishment”, and thus got the support from left-win populists…right?

[Corrian]

I feel like the NYC Mayor race has quickly just become a mess to be honest.

[Lazarene Ryccia]

Get along? That's a joke, right? Ah ha ha ha ha ha....we're so f*cked.

[New haven america]

yang man you gotta quit while you're behind

In the final hours of the New York City mayoral campaign, candidate Andrew Yang doubled down on his comments on the mentally ill and homeless. Phoning into a radio show with billionaire John Catsimatidis on Monday, Yang complained that mentally ill people affect the city's tourism.

Yang was responding to Catsimatidis's statement that too many mentally ill people live on the streets instead of in hospitals. He agreed with Catsimatidis that money is better spent on building facilities to treat people.

"We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City,'" Yang said. "We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment," Yang added.

The comments Yang made on Monday were similar to those he made at the NYC mayoral debate last Wednesday, for which he received backlash on social media.

"Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights? We do! The people and families of the city," Yang said last week during the debate."We have the right to walk the street and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us."

According to a New York Times report, Yang said at an event later on Monday with fellow candidate Kathryn Garcia that he stood by the comments he made to Catsimatidis. Yang also emphasized the need for "public safety."

"There will not be an economic recovery until people feel safe walking our streets and walking our subways," said Yang to the New York Times.

Other candidates campaigning against Yang for the mayoral seat denounced Yang's comments on mentally ill New Yorkers.

Zack Fink from Spectrum News NY1 interviewed mayoral candidate Maya Wiley, who said that Yang and Garcia asked her to campaign with them on Monday. But Wiley told NY1 that she turned the duo down because she thought Yang's statements during Wednesday's debate were "highly insensitive."

Meanwhile, the Times quoted candidate Eric Adams, who said he was "really disturbed" by Yang's remarks.

Why did Yang get a lot of support from left-wing populists when he ran as President. There were quite a lot of Tulsi-Yang/Yang-Tulsi.

Let me guess, they were viewed as “anti-establishment”, and thus got the support from left-win populists…right?

No, it's because he was seemingly the only one who had any idea of how modern youth culture worked and promised UBI.

Other than that he didn't really do much.

[North Washington Republic]

Why did Yang get a lot of support from left-wing populists when he ran as President. There were quite a lot of Tulsi-Yang/Yang-Tulsi.

Let me guess, they were viewed as “anti-establishment”, and thus got the support from left-win populists…right?

No, it's because he was seemingly the only one who had any idea of how modern youth culture worked and promised UBI.

Other than that he didn't really do much.

Hold up. Young people liked him…because he could meme? Holy shit! That’s…sad. I’m sorry but that is just…childish…

[New haven america]

No, it's because he was seemingly the only one who had any idea of how modern youth culture worked and promised UBI.

Other than that he didn't really do much.

Hold up. Young people liked him…because he could meme? Holy shit! That’s…sad. I’m sorry but that is just…childish…

Basically, yeah.