4 ms·

If layoffs are the only downside we have to massive unemployment, then I will consider us very lucky. Another scenario that commonly follows periods of high un

If layoffs are the only downside we have to massive unemployment, then I will consider us very lucky. Another scenario that commonly follows periods of high unemployment is severe political unrest. That’s the kind of fertile environment that has historically preceded some very bad things. I hope the shutdown is worth it.

taywrobel 6y ago
The president just suggested that people inject disinfectants and then lied about it being sarcasm the very next day. Even if that were true, what kind of world leader thinks it’s a good idea to be sarcastic during a global pandemic to troll the media? Maybe it’s time for severe political unrest.
- ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  >Maybe it’s time for severe political unrest. Yikes, you might not like Trump, but can you not call for "severe political unrest."
  - taywrobel 6y ago
    Our political system is full of perverse incentives that leads to a false sense of democracy. The electoral college and first past the post voting leads to a constant two party system, where people in most states don’t get a real vote since their state is safe for one party and winner takes all. Neither party has any incentive to address it tho, since it benefits them both both equally. They hate each other and are as separate politically as they can be (often times taking a position just to spite the other party). But with only two parties with any real chance of winning, they’re chances are better and arguments easier to make than when facing a half dozen parties spanning the whole political spectrum. So we go from more extreme liberal to more extreme conservatism leader, like America as a whole is manic depressive. We’re more polarized as a nation than we’ve ever been before, including the lead up to the civil war. But now politician is a career, not a duty. And people make decisions that protect their careers. So in the current world we’ll never see an alternative vote introduced giving moderate candidates a shot. We’ll never see a change to the electoral college to make it so that votes against a “safe state”’s party matters at all. I’m not calling for unrest. Lord no, that’s against the law. All I’m saying is that there is a real risk of it happening due to the current climate, but maybe that’s not entirely a bad thing.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >I’m not calling for unrest. Lord no, that’s against the law. All I’m saying is that there is a real risk of it happening due to the current climate, but maybe that’s not entirely a bad thing. I don't know. Every president since GWB has been considered illegitimate by a significant fraction of the opposing party, some mix of Hitler (for the red team) or Stalin (for the blue team.) People believed Obama was a Kenyan born Al-Qaeda double agent, and the person most responsible for spreading that conspiracy theory is currently running the country (with, as expected, everyone on the other side certain he stole the election and is going to put everyone into the gas chambers.) I've been hearing about the "cold civil war" ready to boil over into violence for years now, but it hasn't happened. Trump's election is the biggest response to that "unrest" that I'm aware of, and it seems to have been a net negative for American society and political discourse. I agree that the electoral college and FPTP voting are problems that need to be addressed - but the parties themselves should stop fielding one and only one candidate per election. I feel like the primary phase should be done away with entirely.
      - taywrobel 6y ago
        > but the parties themselves should stop fielding one and only one candidate per election Putting up two candidates in the election is a guaranteed way to never win again with our current system. All you’ll do is split the vote for your party, handing the win to the opposition wrapped up with a bow.
        krapp 6y ago
        We could stand to do away with a lot of our current system, I'm just saying the game theory that leads to two candidates per presidental election is a big part of the problem, and one that at least doesn't require a constitutional convention to solve.
- hackermang 6y ago
  He didn’t actually suggest that. Why are you being dishonest?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - taywrobel 6y ago
    Here’s the full, direct quote. Please let me know where the dishonesty is: "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets on the lungs and it does a tremendous number, so it will be interesting to check that. So that you're going to have to use medical doctors.” Your only possible argument for him not suggesting the injection of disinfectants is that it’s barely a coherent thought, like most of his brainless dribble. But if your defense for stupid statements is that the president of the United States is illiterate, you need to take a hard look in the mirror.
- jrockway 6y ago
  I am not sure we need "unrest". We have democratic elections in November. Make sure you're registered to vote, then go vote!
  - gnulinux 6y ago
    Haha yes we have exactly 2 choices. "Democratic" elections.
    - jrockway 6y ago
      The system is certainly biased towards having only two presidential candidates. (If one candidate is too similar to another candidate, they split the vote, and the most dissimilar one wins. That is the intrinsic design of first-past-the-post voting, and is a reason why we should get rid of it.) My advice is to turn the focus local, where you can have more of an impact. The President of the United States is accountable for 330 million people, so your individual views matter very little. In your own congressional district, or city, or state, though, representatives are more accessible. You just have to decide what problems you want to solve and who can do it for you. Very often, the President doesn't have that power, so you probably don't have to feel too sad about not liking the choices.
- aaronbrethorst 6y ago
  Or simply voting in November. Seems easier.
izzydata 6y ago
Having 10 times the amount of people show up at hospitals and having to turn away 80% of them and leave them to die would have been a pretty gruesome sight.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago
  I’m not suggesting the shutdown wasn’t the right choice. I’m only reminding people that there’s potentially a lot of things that can go wrong now. Unemployment is not the worst of them.

taywrobel 6y ago

The president just suggested that people inject disinfectants and then lied about it being sarcasm the very next day. Even if that were true, what kind of world leader thinks it’s a good idea to be sarcastic during a global pandemic to troll the media? Maybe it’s time for severe political unrest.

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
>Maybe it’s time for severe political unrest. Yikes, you might not like Trump, but can you not call for "severe political unrest."
- taywrobel 6y ago
  Our political system is full of perverse incentives that leads to a false sense of democracy. The electoral college and first past the post voting leads to a constant two party system, where people in most states don’t get a real vote since their state is safe for one party and winner takes all. Neither party has any incentive to address it tho, since it benefits them both both equally. They hate each other and are as separate politically as they can be (often times taking a position just to spite the other party). But with only two parties with any real chance of winning, they’re chances are better and arguments easier to make than when facing a half dozen parties spanning the whole political spectrum. So we go from more extreme liberal to more extreme conservatism leader, like America as a whole is manic depressive. We’re more polarized as a nation than we’ve ever been before, including the lead up to the civil war. But now politician is a career, not a duty. And people make decisions that protect their careers. So in the current world we’ll never see an alternative vote introduced giving moderate candidates a shot. We’ll never see a change to the electoral college to make it so that votes against a “safe state”’s party matters at all. I’m not calling for unrest. Lord no, that’s against the law. All I’m saying is that there is a real risk of it happening due to the current climate, but maybe that’s not entirely a bad thing.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >I’m not calling for unrest. Lord no, that’s against the law. All I’m saying is that there is a real risk of it happening due to the current climate, but maybe that’s not entirely a bad thing. I don't know. Every president since GWB has been considered illegitimate by a significant fraction of the opposing party, some mix of Hitler (for the red team) or Stalin (for the blue team.) People believed Obama was a Kenyan born Al-Qaeda double agent, and the person most responsible for spreading that conspiracy theory is currently running the country (with, as expected, everyone on the other side certain he stole the election and is going to put everyone into the gas chambers.) I've been hearing about the "cold civil war" ready to boil over into violence for years now, but it hasn't happened. Trump's election is the biggest response to that "unrest" that I'm aware of, and it seems to have been a net negative for American society and political discourse. I agree that the electoral college and FPTP voting are problems that need to be addressed - but the parties themselves should stop fielding one and only one candidate per election. I feel like the primary phase should be done away with entirely.
    - taywrobel 6y ago
      > but the parties themselves should stop fielding one and only one candidate per election Putting up two candidates in the election is a guaranteed way to never win again with our current system. All you’ll do is split the vote for your party, handing the win to the opposition wrapped up with a bow.
      - krapp 6y ago
        We could stand to do away with a lot of our current system, I'm just saying the game theory that leads to two candidates per presidental election is a big part of the problem, and one that at least doesn't require a constitutional convention to solve.
hackermang 6y ago
He didn’t actually suggest that. Why are you being dishonest?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- taywrobel 6y ago
  Here’s the full, direct quote. Please let me know where the dishonesty is: "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets on the lungs and it does a tremendous number, so it will be interesting to check that. So that you're going to have to use medical doctors.” Your only possible argument for him not suggesting the injection of disinfectants is that it’s barely a coherent thought, like most of his brainless dribble. But if your defense for stupid statements is that the president of the United States is illiterate, you need to take a hard look in the mirror.
jrockway 6y ago
I am not sure we need "unrest". We have democratic elections in November. Make sure you're registered to vote, then go vote!
- gnulinux 6y ago
  Haha yes we have exactly 2 choices. "Democratic" elections.
  - jrockway 6y ago
    The system is certainly biased towards having only two presidential candidates. (If one candidate is too similar to another candidate, they split the vote, and the most dissimilar one wins. That is the intrinsic design of first-past-the-post voting, and is a reason why we should get rid of it.) My advice is to turn the focus local, where you can have more of an impact. The President of the United States is accountable for 330 million people, so your individual views matter very little. In your own congressional district, or city, or state, though, representatives are more accessible. You just have to decide what problems you want to solve and who can do it for you. Very often, the President doesn't have that power, so you probably don't have to feel too sad about not liking the choices.
aaronbrethorst 6y ago
Or simply voting in November. Seems easier.

izzydata 6y ago

Having 10 times the amount of people show up at hospitals and having to turn away 80% of them and leave them to die would have been a pretty gruesome sight.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago
I’m not suggesting the shutdown wasn’t the right choice. I’m only reminding people that there’s potentially a lot of things that can go wrong now. Unemployment is not the worst of them.