Coronavirus (general - personal, gov't response, etc. - not sports-specific)

zambonir 2020-07-30 23:55:17 UTC #203

We haven't talked about this much, but there's been a fair amount of discussion about aerosol transmisssion in the past month.

Seems like that would have some real implications for clubhouses and indoor batting cages. In theory the clubhouse attendants could have spent very little time in there simultaneously with the players, but still caught it when they entered afterwards - especially if the players weren't masked.

It's not clear to me how much time teams are spending in clubhouses, obviously they aren't hanging out there all day and they are not supposed to change or shower there, but there is still of downtime during and after BP.

bkox 2020-07-31 00:49:00 UTC #204

Lawman 2020-07-31 18:55:25 UTC #205

Talk about bi-partisan support:

I hear both sides of the coin here. On one hand, politicians don't want to be seen as obtaining special privileges for themselves. On the other hand, you have a lot of people from multiple regions of the country and various ages in close proximity to each other.

zambonir 2020-07-31 19:04:42 UTC #206

They shouldn't even be meeting in person. DC still advises telework and gatherings cap is 50. I realize they are probably exempt. They are also all almost high-risk (at least in the Senate).

They could also solve this by actually passing some bills, then they get to go on recess.

Lawman 2020-07-31 19:29:24 UTC #207

Funniest thing I've seen all day. Imagine that, someone expecting Congress to pass bills.

schillingfan 2020-07-31 22:09:24 UTC #208

Mitch McConnell has so subverted the senate process that it’s impossible. Back when I was studying for my P.hD in American Government I learned that committees held hearings, then a bill was passed out of the committee and sent to the floor. Once on the floor, amendments would be offered and opted up or down, then the bill as amended would be voted on. It’s really rad to pass legislation if you never get legislation on the floor of the Senate. If any Covid bill had been put on the floor, they could have found a majority between the the two parties for certain amendments and then final passage. McConnell won’t put a bill on the floor unless a most of the Republicans agree with it with no amendments. It’s offensive.

Lawman 2020-07-31 22:26:56 UTC #209

At this point I distrust both parties, and certain individuals in parties even less. I have no faith in seeing political leadership ever moving back to bi-partisanship efforts to govern this great country with respectful disagreement between the two. I'm sick of politicians on both sides of the aisle playing to sound bites, social media clips, and the like. Seriously, I think the first rule should be that if you're elected to any national office, you and your staff are not allowed to have any social media accounts.

McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, Nadler, Trump....all need to go.

The senior Democrats messed up that Barr hearing so badly, I was wondering if anyone bothered to read the questions.

This country needs serious saving right now, and between Biden and Trump I don't either of them providing leadership enough to do it.

Purduke 2020-07-31 22:28:55 UTC #210

That didn't start with McConnell. Ever hear of a guy named Harry Reid? When you are a Democratic leader the media calls you a "strategist." When you are Republican you are an "obstructionist."

schillingfan 2020-07-31 23:23:22 UTC #211

The good example of two wrongs make a right logical fallacy. (More commonly referred to these days whataboutism. Whether or not Harry Reid engaged in certain tactics does not make what Mitch McConnell is doing now okay. Harry is gone, so he’s irrelevant to whether or not how Mitch McConnel runs the senate.

LoneStarPhan 2020-07-31 23:57:08 UTC #212

It seems that our members of Congress are so ridged in their party line that it doesn't matter which party is in control, they still remain unwilling to work together to solve problems and do what is right for the people. I would love to see leadership in both parties that sought to work across the aisle to hammer out bills that had support from both parties.

BostonRoss 2020-08-01 02:29:01 UTC #213

A big problem with the Senate majority leader and House speaker positions is that they wield immense power but are not directly elected by the entire country. These positions should really have term limits, like the presidency. Absolute power and all that.

Perhaps he did not have the opportunity, but Harry Reid never did anything like the Merrick Garland fiasco, which is the responsibility of Mitch McConnell. Putting the interests of party over the country by leaving a Supreme Court opening should be grounds for removal from office. And since McConnell is on the record as saying he would push through any nomination Trump makes before the end of this term is the epitome of hypocrisy. Of course when you have absolute power and are answerable to only 1% of the population, you can afford to be a hypocrite.

McConnell's poor reputation is not a media creation. It's well earned.

LoneStarPhan 2020-08-01 03:15:55 UTC #214

All appointments made by a President that require confirmation by the Senate including all judicial appointments should have to be acted on by the Senate within 60 days of the appointment being sent to the Senate by the President. If the Senate fails to either approve or vote down the appointment by the 60th day, it should automatically become confirmed on the 61st day.

Just my opinion, but I have felt this way strongly for a long time during administrations of both parties. The Senate has a responsibility to approve these appointments and delaying or holding them from a vote is a dereliction of their duty.

I also strongly feel that the vote should be a majority vote only. 51 votes and the appointment is approved. Delaying tactics and requiring 60 votes to bring it to a vote on the floor would only lead to the eventual automatic approval at day 61.

Philsmania 2020-08-01 14:51:27 UTC #215

BostonRoss:

A big problem with the Senate majority leader and House speaker positions is that they wield immense power but are not directly elected by the entire country. These positions should really have term limits, like the presidency. Absolute power and all that.

Perhaps he did not have the opportunity, but Harry Reid never did anything like the Merrick Garland fiasco, which is the responsibility of Mitch McConnell. Putting the interests of party over the country by leaving a Supreme Court opening should be grounds for removal from office. And since McConnell is on the record as saying he would push through any nomination Trump makes before the end of this term is the epitome of hypocrisy. Of course when you have absolute power and are answerable to only 1% of the population, you can afford to be a hypocrite.

McConnell's poor reputation is not a media creation. It's well earned.

History will say that Mitch McConnell did to the Senate what Newt Gingrich did to the House, in terms of poisoning the chamber longterm.

allentown 2020-08-01 16:29:47 UTC #216

This is a Hail Mary play by McConnell, who thinks he needs a big win in rolling the Dems to get a plus-plus deal, in order to save his job. He is counting on the fact that the Dems in House care about the harm a delay is doing to the poor people who will suffer and that the Dems will fold, because they know he and his caucus and Trump don't give a crap. So, Dems will 'win' with a compromise $400-450/week in extra unemployment, McConnell will get his liability from lawsuits which will unlock more campaign cash, and Trump will get the defense $billions to replace what he 'borrowed' for the wall. The Dems will 'win' peanuts in aid to state and local governments. If the impasse had caused the stock market to tank on Friday, Trump, and by proxy, McConnell would be worried and feel pressure to act, but it didn't tank.\

zambonir 2020-08-01 17:25:49 UTC #217

None of the politics of this makes any sense to me right now, tbh: dead schoolteachers and an even worse economy isn't going to be much of an election bump, unless you think the worse it gets the easier it is going to be to suppress the vote, mess with mail balloting, gum up states with challenges and recounts.

Purduke 2020-08-01 19:23:34 UTC #218

I didn't really offer the comment as a "whataboutism" Used to like then because it demonstrated how one-sided much of our perspectives were on topics, but they are so common now that it is the lazy substitution for a disagreement. Probably why the lazy media has fallen in love with them (that and the fact that the Republicans have been in power the last three years).

I offered Harry Reid because you were citing how government is supposed to work, and IMO that all stopped with Harry Reid, not Mitch McConnell. It is probably a truism that in power politics an extreme stance at one pole results in payback when the electorate changes. Say what you will about Bill Frist (or Daschle or Lott) but he didn't create the need for Harry Reid and the total lack of minority input in Senate scheduling, the first Nuclear Option on the filibuster etc. When Frist and the Repubs were frustrated by Reid's minority filibusters, it was resolved by creating the Gang of 14. When Reid confronted the same it was Dr Strangelove time.

As to putting a bill on the floor (Senate or House) when your party doesn't support it - come on. That isn't offensive -- it'd be suicide. Nobody does that. The day that happens your party removes you as their majority leader. It doesn't matter if it is Nancy, Chuck or a republican.

Purduke 2020-08-01 19:49:06 UTC #219

I think you are giving McConnell too much credit for what the final deal will be. I only wish some of that would happen.

I think McConnell has the weaker hand -- if for no other reason than his "wingman" in the White House doesn't really care what the deal is, and is probably more amenable to the Dems demands than the majority of the Repubs in the Senate. Even the absurdity of paying people more not to work than they get by working doesn't seem to give much traction in these days. How long do we think we can go on this way? That's $35,000 a year guaranteed NOT to work and we will kick in a few more thousand every so often in stimulant money and -- oh by the way -- you don't have to pay your rent either. And Nancy wants to extend that until next summer? And McConnell's the problem?

Remember the days when we extended EXISTING unemployment benefits for 6 months, before every one became entitled to full wage replacement?

I have 12 nieces and nephews, 8 are unaffected jobs-wise by CoVid. Three were unemployed the day that the $600 went into effect. All three stopped looking for work that week. My sister had a hair appointment scheduled in Jersey for early Jul just as soon as salons could open. Day before the appointment the owner called to cancel because her usual stylist informed him she wasn't going to be accepting appointments until August 1. Geez, I wonder where that date came from. On Friday the owner called to apologize because she decided not to come back to work "for another week" so he had to fire her. I actually felt compelled to give my barber a $20 tip and thank her for coming to work when I had my cut a couple weeks ago.

Purduke 2020-08-01 22:24:53 UTC #220

Reid did a lot worse, at least as it related to turning the Senate into another version of the partisan House. Daschle and Lott were partisan, but if you read their books you realize the respect they had for the Senate and how it tempered their actions. Again, when Frist raised the possibility of nuclear option regarding judges because of the Estrada fillibuster etc, (and Reid went ballistic), it was resolved by forming the Gang of 14 to negotiate a settlement. A year later when Reid has the majority and is frustrated by minority filibuster (and supported by the Parliamentarian), he blows up a hundred years of Senate rules and the media loved him for it -- "Reid taking the reins of the Senate" yada yada. Quislings.

As to the horrendous offense inflicted on Garland. That one drives me nuts. Is what happened to Garland anything compared to what the Dems did to Bork? Did they send investigators to his library to find out what books he had checked out (thereby laying groundwork for a Federal law prohibiting the behavior? Did they pay a clerk at Blockbuster to see what movies he was renting (hopefully porn)? Or have a hypocritical demagogue like Teddy Kennedy besmirch his rulings and reputation painting images of back alley abortions and segregated lunch counters?

Or 7 years later lead the political lynching of Clarence Thomas. A sexual predator like Teddy Kennedy who used to prowl the restaurants in DC with my former senior senator looking for young, nubile waitresses to turn into their favorite "waitress sandwich?" Here Chris, sit down, let me throw this one into your lap and climb on -- let's make a grinder! And this guy acts like he's some sort of sexual harassment crusader while a complicit media revels in his hypocrisy.

Did any of that happen to Garland? Why is it that liberal Dems only pull out the Big Boy pants when they get to throw the punches? What happened to Garland was a pure play of power politics. It happens all the time with judicial appointments, albeit not previously with SCOTUS. At the time I was against McConnell doing it -- but that may have been influenced by my belief that it wouldn't really alter anything. But acting like that is the least bit comparable to what Thomas' family, Bork and then Kavanaugh's family were put through is simply not being honest.

As to McConnell's "hypocrisy" regarding rubberstamping judges (over which he probably has a fair amount of influence) -- there have been a half dozen or so not rubberstamped. But, if I can trudge into the world of speculative "whataboutism," do you honestly think Schumer's standard or Nancy's if she led the Senate would be any different? It is the process. Democratic and republican.

The only difference is that were Nancy in charge of confirmations the plea to the Senate caucus would be something like "But we need to confirm this appointment tonight so that we can find out who the President is nominating tomorrow!"

julio 2020-08-01 22:42:11 UTC #221

Well, that was an interesting partisan diatribe.

Robert Bork. Clarence Thomas.

Robert Bork's character was defined, for the rest of his life and for history, on October 20, 1973. Nominating him to the Supreme Court was a travesty, based on his actions on that day alone. Period.

Clarence Thomas was "lynched" - by Anita Hill, I guess. We're all familiar with the history of black men being lynched by black women who worked for them. Yeah. And the focus on Ted Kennedy, coupled with not one word about Anita Hill or the actual alleged behavior? That's because the screed was just that, a partisan screed.

What was done to Merrick Garland was a travesty, a clear abuse of power by Mitch McConnell - and the hypocrisy of McConnell's comments upon hearing of Ginsburg's recurring cancer was monumental. What was done in the post above, to distract from that, to "justify" that, is what is now called "whataboutism." It's pretty pathetic, frankly. It's partisanship overwhelming common sense, and even common decency.

allentown 2020-08-01 22:42:41 UTC #222

Yes, Garland is awful, compared to Bork treatment. Bork got a hearing and a vote. He did not deserve to be a Supreme Court justice aft leading the Saturday Night Massacre. The next Republican nominee put up to replace him was duly considered and confirmed. Obama is the only president in my lifetime to have a partisan Senate deny him a nomination. I really don't understand why Republicans belly-ache over Bork. He was a partisan hack who did the bidding of a corrupt president by firing his accuser. The other officials of Justice Department, also appointed by Nixon, had more integrity and loyalty to democracy and our Constitution than that. Bork was the scoundrel outlier. He was the Barr of that era, worse than Mitchell. Not a judicial temperament at all.

And yeah, a Democratic-majority Senate actually confirmed Clarence Thomas, with Joe Biden and my state's Arlen Spector doing the heavy lifting for him. So again, what do republicans have to gripe about here? He got his hearing, he cot his vote, and despite a Republican minority in the Senate, he was confirmed. Isn't that what you wanted? Anita Hill had a right to be seriously heard. In the end, the Senators didn't believe her.