JoshAllenHasBigHands

Says the guy who's only meaningful contribution is "this comes down to the value of life in preventable deaths and disability, and the party of "pro-life" and "family values" has taken a very hypocritical, but not unsurprising, stance here." Tell me more about how this is not politics.

Like I said, @wAcKy ZeBrA, this is the stuff I'm talking about. It's about politics. Not doing what's right.

I think that is a bit misleading. Here is what I mean: we usually describe the numbers in terms of "how is that state doing." So, for example, New York was doing very badly early on. Well, that wasn't quite true. New York City was doing very badly. The rest of the State, more or less, did quite well. The same is true for Arizona (Phoenix); California (L.A.); etc. I would wager that more American schools can reopen than cannot. But, it is a case by case analysis. In addition, all districts should plan on reopening from a purely practical standpoint. It is easier to cancel school than it is to try to start it back up.

For what its worth, my wife is also a teacher. We are all for reopening the schools.

That is just sort of where our politics are. Earlier in this thread someone suggested that if even one kid or teacher could be affected by COVID-19, schools should not reopen. That is what I mean by "won't have the conversation." That is silly and a comment that doesn't serve a purpose. Our basic starting point needs to be that schools should reopen. Then we need to figure out how to make it happen. If there are hot spots, or schools that can't reopen safely, we should not open those schools. I'm not pulling that commentary out of thin air. That comes straight from the White House. It also comports with what the AAP is saying. And, I imagine at least, you and most people generally agree with this approach. Yet, for whatever reason, this is controversial.

Even the Trump administration doesn't disagree with this. I don't think anyone ever suggested there should be a "one-size-fits-all approach." I don't think anyone suggested that it would be easy, that it wouldn't require greater precautions. The point I'm making is that there is a substantial contingent of the country that won't even have the conversation.

I am blown away by the number of people who are not aware of this.

I guess you missed that whole #wewanttoplay thing

These kind of statements are about politics, not science. I'm referring to Dr.Dawkenstein, of course, not plenzmd1.

So teachers are officially the only American worker exempt from risk? I mean, rhetorically, everything you say sounds great. It's just complete gibberish. Let me give you some other comparisons: If even one teacher could die from a car accident on the way to work, school should be cancelled. If even one teacher could die from the flu, school should be cancelled. If even one teacher could die from slipping and falling on the steps, school should be cancelled. You need to start over with your baseline expectation.

I don't know who you are quoting there. I googled a piece of your quote, and I found nothing. It goes without saying that there are prerequisites to getting to a place where we can reopen schools. The problem is that the posturing does even get us there. On one side, all that is being said is that we have to reopen. On the other side, they are only saying that we shouldn't even try. Obsessing over this stage of the debate means we can't get to a place where we figure out how to meet the prereqs necessary to open schools.

It can be done - Just create a bubble for each team. The NFLPA just doesn't want to do it.

I am speaking specifically about schools.

The American Academy of Pediatrics? Are you serious? And of course they rewrite guidelines. You evolve as you learn, just like when Fauci changed course and started saying we needed to wear masks. Also, who watches the news? Its 2020. All cable news is garbage--whether its Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson.

Its sort of the like the school reopening debate. The medical community generally, if not universally, supports the reopening posture. Yet, somehow, the teachers unions have framed the debate as reopening being against the advice of medical consensus, when that is not at all true.

I just can't imagine making this work without a bubble. That said, with the MLB/NFL style protocols, if I had to guess which city would have the most problems, it would be Miami.

And its stupid to name him the best QB of all time after 2 years.

I wasnt disputing that America is a center-right country. I know this chart is true. Im saying our Democratic Party is farther left on that spectrum than its ever been. Couple others were disagreeing, arguing that FDR was far more progressive than today’s party.

So we not respecting the rules of the board?

Ah. There is so much I want to dive into, but at some point I have to respect the rules of the board. I think we are compelled to find a different venue for this, and so I will only make three brief points: first, FDR wanted universal healthcare to accompany the Social Security Act; it was removed because he thought he would lose the rest of the bill if it included universal healthcare, illustrating that he made political calculi similar to what today's Party make. Second, most of what you say here are reasons the Party is not far enough left, and are not reasons FDR was farther left than today's party. Third, though your point on social justice issues is well taken, I don't think the Party has ever so radically redefined its approach to social justice issues. Where it once was dragged begrudgingly to address these issues, the approach of today's Party is to lean into them. Let's just keep in mind that FDR interned Japanese Americans and refused to support anti-lynching legislation. There is more to be said, and I would like to go deeper, but like I said, this isn't really the right forum.

This is a super marxist approach to historical analysis. Not very vogue for today's political climate. The fact that you describe Bernie Sanders as "a fairly moderate social Democrat" tells me that your issue is not that the Democrats aren't liberal, but that they aren't liberal enough. It colors everything you think about the party today v. the party then. Let's start with universal healthcare. FDR supported it, but knew he couldn't get it passed, which is why he never seriously pushed it. Why couldn't he pass it? Because he couldn't get the votes from his own party, nor the Republicans. Its basically the same situation that today's Democratic party is faced with. Still, as of today, over 50% support universal healthcare. There has never been more support for universal healthcare, both inside and outside of government. Sanders, who almost took Biden, supported universal healthcare, as did every other major Democratic challenger. Even now, I think its pretty obvious that the only reason Biden doesn't openly support it is he is trying to win swing votes, and all he has to do to win the election is not be controversial. I don't really know what the 10% military budget cut gets you. It didn't pass the Senate, despite considerable Democratic support. By the time it got to the House, it was all political calculus: no use taking a controversial stance if isn't going anywhere. Besides, its not like FDR was the pro-peace candidate. Aso the wildly generic and nonsensical statement: "'[t]he vast majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class." I don't really even know what this means. If you want to know what empty rhetoric looks like, it is this. Your argument on social issues is just "yeah, it was inevitable." That isn't an argument. Those issues enjoy almost universal support from the Democratic party in a way that could not be dreamed of even 10 years ago. You can't just glaze over that, because you want more from the party.

Economic v Social policy. Your point is well taken. My argument is that the leaps in social justice policy, and the fact that they are still so close to the FDR era in terms of economic policy, makes them the farthest left the party has ever been.

The answer isn't just "yes." The answer is "obviously, yes."

Wowwww, they picked a wildly generic and unoriginal name. Who saw that one coming...

That's fair. But whatever distance the Democratic Party traveled away from the FDR era in regard to economic policy is more than made up for by their positions on the environment, social justice, immigration, etc. I suppose that is the problem with vague and generalized expressions like "moving to the left."