What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

[guest1163268]

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

Quote

Joe Biden’s approval ratings may have slipped, but that doesn’t mean voters are nostalgic for Donald Trump.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2022-02-11/bidens-loss-isn't-trumps-gain

While the mid-terms are a good ways away, I agree with Beerman it's going to be a tough one for Democrats and Biden.  Similar to the one Obama and Biden had to endure when republicans around the country won a historic number of elections.  Obama was so unpopular candidates had to distance themselves from him and now candidates find themselves in the same situation.

Obama turned around and won re-election against a pretty moderate candidate.  America I don't think wants to go backwards to Trumpism and they need to let him go.  

Still I think while the public's mood is sour on Biden and may not approve of his agenda, it doesn't mean people think Republicans in general are that much better although even their approval ratings are up as they sour on Democrats.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/23/poll-congressional-approval-rating-12-year-high-gallup-shows/4558198001/

Quote

Americans are strongly interested in seeing cooperation between Republicans and Democrats. Sixty-two percent want the parties to cooperate with each other, suggesting a rising appetite for productive deliberation between factions.

Notably, 71% of Americans would prefer Republicans in Congress find ways to work with Biden, compared to the 25% of Americans who would rather they serve as a check on the president's agenda.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/27/monmouth-poll-americans-want-congress-cooperate-joe-biden/4277323001/

[Beerman, BSN]

2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

I hadn't realized I had "backed down", although I did neglect to include that those less able to participate in traditional in-person / short duration voting are those in urban or at least non-rural areas.  And yes, voters of lower-mid to lower socioeconomic status in non-rural areas are overwhelming Democratic voters.

I don't really agree that trying to facilitate the ability to vote is just a tit-for-tat compared to trying to keep people from voting.

It seems strange that you neglected to mention that.  Never the less, I stand corrected.

I would agree that it's harder for those in the demographics you mentioned to vote in person on election day, or "short duration voting".

Where I disagree is that 11 days of early voting, plus election day, is "short duration voting".

What would the right number of days be?

Why do you think states like NH, Connecticut,  and Delaware put restrictions on mail in voting on the first place?  To safeguard against fraud, or to make it harder for certain demographics to vote?

2 hours ago, Tweety said:

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2022-02-11/bidens-loss-isn't-trumps-gain

While the mid-terms are a good ways away, I agree with Beerman it's going to be a tough one for Democrats and Biden.  Similar to the one Obama and Biden had to endure when republicans around the country won a historic number of elections.  Obama was so unpopular candidates had to distance themselves from him and now candidates find themselves in the same situation.

Obama turned around and won re-election against a pretty moderate candidate.  America I don't think wants to go backwards to Trumpism and they need to let him go.  

Still I think while the public's mood is sour on Biden and may not approve of his agenda, it doesn't mean people think Republicans in general are that much better although even their approval ratings are up as they sour on Democrats.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/23/poll-congressional-approval-rating-12-year-high-gallup-shows/4558198001/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/27/monmouth-poll-americans-want-congress-cooperate-joe-biden/4277323001/

I don't disagree that the midterms may swing toward republicans. It will be interesting to see what public opinion holds for republicans as the January 6th details emerge over the coming months.  It's widely expected that any republicans who might lose elections will claim fraud or cheating was the reason. 

The important thing is to protect our republic. 

 

26 minutes ago, Beerman said:

It seems strange that you neglected to mention that.  Never the less, I stand corrected.

I would agree that it's harder for those in the demographics you mentioned to vote in person on election day, or "short duration voting".

Where I disagree is that 11 days of early voting, plus election day, is "short duration voting".

What would the right number of days be?

Why do you think states like NH, Connecticut,  and Delaware put restrictions on mail in voting on the first place?  To safeguard against fraud, or to make it harder for certain demographics to vote?

It's difficult to know, isn't it? NH was a state that required preclearance under the VRA. Connecticut was sympathetic to the southern stance on blacks and voting prior to the civil war.  It took the state 6 years to ratify the 15th amendment.  Delaware was a slave state and struggled with voting rights for blacks and women.  Some old habits linger maybe? 

It's difficult to justify placing restrictions on mail in voting to prevent fraud when there's no evidence that mail in voting is associated with increased fraud.  

Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

Confirmed: Trump’s big U.S.-China trade deal was a flop

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/13/us-china-trade-deal/

That's unfortunate. 

Quote

The results are in: China didn’t buy anything extra from the United States.
The purchases of U.S. exports that China did make in the past two years barely got back to the amount China was purchasing in 2017 — before Mr. Trump started his trade war, according to calculations by Chad P. Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. U.S. exporters will never get back the sales they lost, and few have seen any meaningful growth in their sales to China under the “deal.” “The only undisputed ‘historical’ aspect of that agreement is its failure,” said Mr. Bown.
The main result of Mr. Trump’s bluster on trade was higher costs to the American public. Numerous studies have shown how tariffs were mostly passed along to American consumers, causing prices to rise on thousands of popular everyday items. It was a debacle that was easy to predict. Business leaders, economists and former trade officials from both parties warned the Trump White House repeatedly that the nation would have been better off without the trade war and the tenuous agreement that was ultimately reached with China (and not adhered to).

Quote

The smarter move would have been to keep the United States in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the big trade deal with other nations in the Pacific, including Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, Australia and Chile. The whole purpose of the TPP was to boost trade among other nations and lessen reliance on China, which was excluded from the deal. But Mr. Trump pulled out of the TPP in his first week in office, and other nations went ahead and completed the trade pact on their own. In an ironic twist, China is now petitioning to join.

I guess Biden will have to figure out how to hold China accountable. 

A staunch conservative’s urgent warning to the GOP about Trump and 2024

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/14/2024-coup-electoral-count-act-luttig/

We should rid ourselves of the ECA.

[Beerman, BSN]

14 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

15 hours ago, Beerman said:

It seems strange that you neglected to mention that.  Never the less, I stand corrected.

I would agree that it's harder for those in the demographics you mentioned to vote in person on election day, or "short duration voting".

Where I disagree is that 11 days of early voting, plus election day, is "short duration voting".

What would the right number of days be?

Why do you think states like NH, Connecticut,  and Delaware put restrictions on mail in voting on the first place?  To safeguard against fraud, or to make it harder for certain demographics to vote?

It's difficult to know, isn't it? NH was a state that required preclearance under the VRA. Connecticut was sympathetic to the southern stance on blacks and voting prior to the civil war.  It took the state 6 years to ratify the 15th amendment.  Delaware was a slave state and struggled with voting rights for blacks and women.  Some old habits linger maybe?

It's difficult to justify placing restrictions on mail in voting to prevent fraud when there's no evidence that mail in voting is associatED with increased fraud.  

Yes, you've said that several times.   But have avoided the question I asked and that Tweety referenced.   With tens of millions of additional ballots being sent out,  you don't think the risk of fraud increases?

Having said that, I don't think your point is totally invalid.  I guess where we disagree is what we consider to be restrictive.  I don't see how proving who you are, having some limits on early voting timeframes, and sending ballots out only to those who want them as being restrictive.  I also think there needs to be laws on what third parties can and how many ballots they can collect.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

15 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I don't disagree that the midterms may swing toward republicans. It will be interesting to see what public opinion holds for republicans as the January 6th details emerge over the coming months.  It's widely expected that any republicans who might lose elections will claim fraud or cheating was the reason. 

The important thing is to protect our republic. 

Pessimistically I don't think anything that comes out of January 6th investigation is going to matter.  It's way down on the news cycle and interest.  People care about bread and butter issues like the rise in crime, inflation and while it doesn't affect their day to day lives republicans add the border crisis to that.  Also the culture wars are alive and well.    But January 6th...meh.

If January 6th was that important people wouldn't be predicting a beating to Biden and Democrats in the mid-terms would they?

3 hours ago, Beerman said:

Yes, you've said that several times.   But have avoided the question I asked and that Tweety referenced.   With tens of millions of additional ballots being sent out,  you don't think the risk of fraud increases?

Having said that, I don't think your point is totally invalid.  I guess where we disagree is what we consider to be restrictive.  I don't see how proving who you are, having some limits on early voting timeframes, and sending ballots out only to those who want them as being restrictive.  I also think there needs to be laws on what third parties can and how many ballots they can collect.

Oh...there's an expectation that questions get answered now...OK. I've answered the question...no I wouldn't because there is no evidence that mailed ballots result in more voter fraud.  A large number multiplied by a tiny number equals a small number.  

If there was an identified risk of fraud demonstrated to be associated with mailed ballots then...sure...but you can't actually tell us what that risk is at baseline that causes such concern that changes are necessitated. 

Are you recommending that we change election laws based upon feelings and unsubstantiated beliefs or fears? It seems like it. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/01/898184573/how-washington-state-s-mail-in-elections-play-out

3 hours ago, Tweety said:

Pessimistically I don't think anything that comes out of January 6th investigation is going to matter.  It's way down on the news cycle and interest.  People care about bread and butter issues like the rise in crime, inflation and while it doesn't affect their day to day lives republicans add the border crisis to that.  Also the culture wars are alive and well. But January 6th...meh.

If January 6th was that important people wouldn't be predicting a beating to Biden and Democrats in the mid-terms would they?

Millions of Fox News, OANN and Newsmax devotees have no idea what the January 6th select committee is doing or reporting.  They won't get a whiff of that until the major news outlets are reporting on the public hearings and statements or evidence. Public sentiment about 0106 is likely going to get heated and more contentious as conservatives are confronted with realities that they are more comfortable ignoring. 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Public sentiment about 0106 is likely going to get heated and more contentious as conservatives are confronted with realities that they are more comfortable ignoring. 

I don't think so. I don't mean all conservatives, but some don't believe the media, or like one of my coworkers says "I just don't know what to believe..." even when confronted with the truth and facts.  It doesn't matter.  Especially if Trump comes along and says it's fake news.

Progressives might be the same way.  How often to you hear "the main stream media is ignoring...blah blah blah....".

[Beerman, BSN]

3 hours ago, Tweety said:

Pessimistically I don't think anything that comes out of January 6th investigation is going to matter.  It's way down on the news cycle and interest.  People care about bread and butter issues like the rise in crime, inflation and while it doesn't affect their day to day lives republicans add the border crisis to that.  Also the culture wars are alive and well.    But January 6th...meh.

If January 6th was that important people wouldn't be predicting a beating to Biden and Democrats in the mid-terms would they?

I agree.  People have their own worries.  And, as often happens,  Democrats have overplayed their hand by comparing it to 9/11, Pearl Harbor,  and the holocaust.  Republicans aren't listening to them to begin with, and indendents stop listening to that kind of rhetoric. 

If asked what the date 1/6 means to them, most of the country couldn't come up with something. 

[Beerman, BSN]

3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Oh...there's an expectation that questions get answered now...OK. I've answered the question...no I wouldn't because there is no evidence that mailed ballots result in more voter fraud.  A large number multiplied by a tiny number equals a small number.  

If there was an identified risk of fraud demonstrated to be ***ociated with mailed ballots then...sure...but you can't actually tell us what that risk is at baseline that causes such concern that changes are necessitated. 

Are you recommending that we change election laws based upon feelings and unsubstantiated beliefs or fears? It seems like it. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/01/898184573/how-washington-state-s-mail-in-elections-play-out

Millions of Fox News, OANN and Newsmax devotees have no idea what the January 6th select committee is doing or reporting.  They won't get a whiff of that until the major news outlets are reporting on the public hearings and statements or evidence. Public sentiment about 0106 is likely going to get heated and more contentious as conservatives are confronted with realities that they are more comfortable ignoring. 

You still didn't answer the question about how showing a ID or limiting early voting to 11 days is a targeted measure to suppress the vote of poor people and minorities.

What we're left is, that your objection to the laws is that they aren't necessary.  Kind of ironic coming from someone who supports the Demicratic party.

But, anyway, I disagree but also understand that.  It's not a totally unreasonable argument.  Where your side goes off the rails is where they once again try to make the issue about targeting poor people and minorities.