Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 312858 times)

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
    • Military Saints
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3150 on: May 09, 2020, 12:38:53 PM »
Civil asset forfeiture isn't really a Libertarian issue is it?  It's an incredible abuse of government power that all parties should be against.  Which Drmocrats or Republicans have come out strongly in favour of it?

That's the thing, Democrats and Republicans won't explicitly come out in favor of it. They just won't even entertain it as an issue. Similar examples abound. The Patriot Act passed with almost unanimous consent and was re-authorized multiple times by Democrats and Republicans. Even after Edward Snowden leaked that the NSA was spying on basically all of our telecommunications. The two parties have more in common than most people realize. They're both in favor of more spending, just different priorities on what to spend it on. The idea of reducing spending is a concept they won't even consider. In their lexicon a budget cut means growing spending less - but still growing it.

Even though almost everyone can agree that civil asset forfeiture is nothing more than legalized theft, there's still little desire by politicians to actually stop it.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3151 on: May 09, 2020, 01:30:31 PM »
Civil asset forfeiture isn't really a Libertarian issue is it?  It's an incredible abuse of government power that all parties should be against.  Which Drmocrats or Republicans have come out strongly in favour of it?

That's the thing, Democrats and Republicans won't explicitly come out in favor of it. They just won't even entertain it as an issue. Similar examples abound. The Patriot Act passed with almost unanimous consent and was re-authorized multiple times by Democrats and Republicans. Even after Edward Snowden leaked that the NSA was spying on basically all of our telecommunications. The two parties have more in common than most people realize. They're both in favor of more spending, just different priorities on what to spend it on. The idea of reducing spending is a concept they won't even consider. In their lexicon a budget cut means growing spending less - but still growing it.

Even though almost everyone can agree that civil asset forfeiture is nothing more than legalized theft, there's still little desire by politicians to actually stop it.

How much are issues like that discussed on the major media? Do the talking heads even bring things like that issue to the forefront?

When I do see these Cable Network news channels, it seems like they are talking about BS things rather than addressing issues that affect or could improve the lives of the general populace.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2933
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3152 on: May 09, 2020, 08:22:42 PM »
It has been interesting watching Obama resurface in the news, stating things that are a
Obvious, but would be difficult to say. Specifically, with candor that Biden can't really have. Such as describing the Trump response to civid as a chaotic failure. It would be interesting to see Obama be more of the pitbull, though also having to be careful not to outshine the candidate.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3153 on: May 10, 2020, 07:51:57 AM »
Maybe his VP could be the pitbull.

Would it be unconstitutional for Biden to pick Obama as his vice president?

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1192
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3154 on: May 10, 2020, 08:02:36 AM »
Maybe his VP could be the pitbull.

Would it be unconstitutional for Biden to pick Obama as his vice president?

Heres the wiki entry on the interaction between the 12th and 22nd amendments to the constitution:

As worded, the primary focus of the 22nd Amendment is on limiting individuals twice elected to the presidency from being elected again. Due to this, several issues could be raised regarding the amendment's meaning and application, especially in relation to the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, which states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States".[23] While it is clear that under the 12th Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear whether someone who is ineligible to be elected president could be elected vice president. Because of this apparent ambiguity, there may be a loophole in the 22nd Amendment whereby a two-term former president could be elected vice president and then succeed to the presidency as a result of the incumbent's death, resignation, or removal from office (or even succeed to the presidency from some other stated office in the presidential line of succession).[8][24]

Some argue that the 22nd Amendment and 12th Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the presidential line of succession.[25] Others contend that the original intent of the 12th Amendment concerns qualification for service (age, residence, and citizenship), while the 22nd Amendment, concerns qualifications for election, and thus (strictly applying the text) a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president (neither amendment restricts the number of times an individual can be elected to the vice presidency), and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term (though prohibited from running for election to an additional term).[26][27]

The practical applicability of this distinction has not been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency. In 1980, former president Gerald Ford (never elected to the presidency) was mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan, and there were some negotiations between the two camps, but nothing ever came of the idea.[28] During Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, she jokingly said that she had considered naming her husband Bill Clinton (twice-elected to the presidency) as her vice presidential running mate, but had been advised it would be unconstitutional.[29] Most likely, the constitutional question raised will remain unanswered unless the situation actually occurs.[1]

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5674
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3155 on: May 10, 2020, 08:09:40 AM »
Would it be unconstitutional for Biden to pick Obama as his vice president?

Relevant text from the 12th amendment:

Quote
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Relevant text from the 22nd amendment:

Quote
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.

So it boils down to whether the 22nd amendment's restrictions on who may be elected to the presidency is also a restriction on who is eligible to hold the office.

Personally I think that yes, these two amendments put together disqualify a two-term former president from service as vice president.

But Biden could try it, and it would undoubtedly end up in the supreme court. And, if the Biden-Obama ticket won a majority of electoral votes AND the supreme court ruled in their favor everything would be fine. If not, you could potential end up with some ridiculous outcomes. One option would be for the Supreme Court to disqualify Obama's electoral votes for vice president, throwing the election of the vice president to the senate, and producing a Biden-Pence win.*

*Or something even weirder. If the GOP deployed faithless electors effectively, with Obama's electoral votes disqualified they could arrange for the two people with the most electoral votes for vice president to be Trump and someone the democrats would like to see in the office even less. This would produce a Biden-Trump victory, putting Trump one heartbeat away from taking over Biden's presidency.

Overall, why take the risk to test an odd edge case in the constitution?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6015
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3156 on: May 10, 2020, 08:55:49 AM »
Of course, Biden has already said heís picking a woman.

And if Obama took the VP nomination, Iím pretty sure Michelle would file for divorce.

So, seems like a pretty moot point.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5697
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3157 on: May 10, 2020, 12:28:27 PM »
*Or something even weirder. If the GOP deployed faithless electors effectively, with Obama's electoral votes disqualified they could arrange for the two people with the most electoral votes for vice president to be Trump and someone the democrats would like to see in the office even less. This would produce a Biden-Trump victory, putting Trump one heartbeat away from taking over Biden's presidency.

Trump would never, ever, agree to being 2nd fiddle. He can deflect or ignore when it comes to his wealth (re:the fact that Bezos has 100x more) but actually holding a job with the title of "Vice President?" No way.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5674
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3158 on: May 10, 2020, 02:25:54 PM »
*Or something even weirder. If the GOP deployed faithless electors effectively, with Obama's electoral votes disqualified they could arrange for the two people with the most electoral votes for vice president to be Trump and someone the democrats would like to see in the office even less. This would produce a Biden-Trump victory, putting Trump one heartbeat away from taking over Biden's presidency.

Trump would never, ever, agree to being 2nd fiddle. He can deflect or ignore when it comes to his wealth (re:the fact that Bezos has 100x more) but actually holding a job with the title of "Vice President?" No way.

Well then we'd be back to the marginally less implausible outcome of Biden as president and Pence as vice president calling over to the west wing each morning to check on the president's health. The potential for either outcome doesn't seem worth even to get a popular former president back on the ticket. 

Particularly since, as Kris points out, before Biden had even become the presumptive nominee he preemptively ruled out half of the US population (including Barak Obama) from consideration for the VP slot.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3159 on: May 10, 2020, 08:06:17 PM »
Warren could be good.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/496948-republicans-hope-biden-picks-warren-for-vp

With all the money Uncle Sam has been throwing over to various well of special interest groups, she may help the country be more fiscally aligned with helping the rest of us.  The ballooning debt cannot be ignored forever.

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
    • Military Saints
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3160 on: May 11, 2020, 04:49:31 AM »
Warren could be good.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/496948-republicans-hope-biden-picks-warren-for-vp

With all the money Uncle Sam has been throwing over to various well of special interest groups, she may help the country be more fiscally aligned with helping the rest of us.  The ballooning debt cannot be ignored forever.

No, but it can always be ignored until the next election. After all, it's not like Congress is spending their own money. If there's one thing both parties can agree on, it is spending money. Any talk to the contrary is usually dismissed as a fringe idea only worthy of eye rolling or ridicule from most of their colleagues.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14779
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3161 on: May 11, 2020, 05:31:11 AM »
Warren could be good.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/496948-republicans-hope-biden-picks-warren-for-vp

With all the money Uncle Sam has been throwing over to various well of special interest groups, she may help the country be more fiscally aligned with helping the rest of us.  The ballooning debt cannot be ignored forever.

No, but it can always be ignored until the next election. After all, it's not like Congress is spending their own money. If there's one thing both parties can agree on, it is spending money. Any talk to the contrary is usually dismissed as a fringe idea only worthy of eye rolling or ridicule from most of their colleagues.

At some point, the debt will be an issue... or at least most economics believe it will.  However, so far we havenít hit that point.  Itís really remarkable how little the debt has mattered thus far in our post-WWII economy.  Is it going to come crashing down in the next few years?  ::shrug::

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3162 on: May 11, 2020, 07:27:12 AM »
Warren could be good.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/496948-republicans-hope-biden-picks-warren-for-vp

With all the money Uncle Sam has been throwing over to various well of special interest groups, she may help the country be more fiscally aligned with helping the rest of us.  The ballooning debt cannot be ignored forever.

No, but it can always be ignored until the next election. After all, it's not like Congress is spending their own money. If there's one thing both parties can agree on, it is spending money. Any talk to the contrary is usually dismissed as a fringe idea only worthy of eye rolling or ridicule from most of their colleagues.

At some point, the debt will be an issue... or at least most economics believe it will.  However, so far we havenít hit that point.  Itís really remarkable how little the debt has mattered thus far in our post-WWII economy.  Is it going to come crashing down in the next few years?  ::shrug::

At the end of WWII, the debt was large enough that it did matter. Our economy grew rapidly so as to make it less important. The same can happen again.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3163 on: May 11, 2020, 07:49:49 AM »

- SNIP -

At the end of WWII, the debt was large enough that it did matter. Our economy grew rapidly so as to make it less important. The same can happen again.

Maybe this will happen.  People are the greatest resource in the economy and it is my opinion that this resource has been increasingly squandered over the past few decades.  There are a lot of smart people working at menial jobs.  If government and industry set their sights at retraining these people for needed tasks, the sky may be the limit.  Of course, opinions will differ.

Otherwise, all this borrowing lowers the value of the dollar and we can expect inflation.

If the value of the dollar does go down, perhaps it would raise the world demand for US goods and services.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5674
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3164 on: May 11, 2020, 08:02:47 AM »
Otherwise, all this borrowing lowers the value of the dollar and we can expect inflation.

A minor but important correction: borrowing itself doesn't lower the value of the dollar at all so long as other people are buying that debt and paying for it with dollars they already have.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14779
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3165 on: May 11, 2020, 08:23:01 AM »
Warren could be good.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/496948-republicans-hope-biden-picks-warren-for-vp

With all the money Uncle Sam has been throwing over to various well of special interest groups, she may help the country be more fiscally aligned with helping the rest of us.  The ballooning debt cannot be ignored forever.

No, but it can always be ignored until the next election. After all, it's not like Congress is spending their own money. If there's one thing both parties can agree on, it is spending money. Any talk to the contrary is usually dismissed as a fringe idea only worthy of eye rolling or ridicule from most of their colleagues.

At some point, the debt will be an issue... or at least most economics believe it will.  However, so far we havenít hit that point.  Itís really remarkable how little the debt has mattered thus far in our post-WWII economy.  Is it going to come crashing down in the next few years?  ::shrug::

At the end of WWII, the debt was large enough that it did matter. Our economy grew rapidly so as to make it less important. The same can happen again.
Did it though?  In really donít know. I remember from my Econ classes that there was a lot of teeth gnashing at the end of the war that we had won the battles but the debt was all but certain to destroy our economy. In retrospect that never happened because (as you said) we grew out of that debt. We benefited enormously from being the last large industrial economy standing.

Then TARP and QE1,2 was supposed to trigger massive inflation and possibly default. Again, it didnít happen.

Honestly have no idea what will happen this time. We are at debt levels not seen since the end of WW2. Will inflation allow us to get out of it, since it seems unlikely we will grow at 4-5% this time?  I have no idea. I do know that billions of t-bills are being held at near zero rates (good for borrowing)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3166 on: May 11, 2020, 08:52:02 AM »
We had no inflation from the 1 Trillion created from the QE of 2008 and Japan continues to run at 240% Debt - GDP ratio without any inflation as well. Actually Japan runs at negative inflation.

Inflation I think is more related to resource availability than it is to the number of dollars floating through the economy. Even with more money floating in the economy the basic rules of supply and demand exist and therefor printing more money does not necessarily cause inflation.

As long as the economy provides enough resources to meet demand, then the debt doesn't really matter. At any point, the government could buy its own bonds and then cancel them. So there's no looming impending doom on our debt. Maybe, maybe years and years from now, if the debt to GDP ratio got really out of hand at 300-500% we'd be moving into new economic territory, but it's far from a foregone conclusion what that would actually mean for our economy.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3167 on: May 11, 2020, 09:49:17 AM »
Most of the time when you borrow money, it must be paid back.  If you do not pay it back, it is called robbery.

Will the national debt ever have to be paid back?  Can the can be kicked down the road forever?

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rwagner/shellgame.pdf

That money is real resources.  Can those resources simply be wiped out as though they were never used, never existed?

States that have high debt are being forced to raise taxes to pay for obligations such as pensions.  Will the same effect apply to the Federal Government or are they just too big to fail?

Great rhetoric can be applied, but reality eventually overcomes great rhetoric.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2933
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3168 on: May 11, 2020, 10:27:03 AM »
Warren could be good.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/496948-republicans-hope-biden-picks-warren-for-vp

With all the money Uncle Sam has been throwing over to various well of special interest groups, she may help the country be more fiscally aligned with helping the rest of us.  The ballooning debt cannot be ignored forever.

No, but it can always be ignored until the next election. After all, it's not like Congress is spending their own money. If there's one thing both parties can agree on, it is spending money. Any talk to the contrary is usually dismissed as a fringe idea only worthy of eye rolling or ridicule from most of their colleagues.

At some point, the debt will be an issue... or at least most economics believe it will.  However, so far we havenít hit that point.  Itís really remarkable how little the debt has mattered thus far in our post-WWII economy.  Is it going to come crashing down in the next few years?  ::shrug::

At the end of WWII, the debt was large enough that it did matter. Our economy grew rapidly so as to make it less important. The same can happen again.
... plus historically high marginal income tax rates in the post war period. The debt only goes down in absolute terms if you have inflation or tax revenue directed to those debts. You can make it go down as a share of GDP with a strong economy alone, but that just makes it easier to borrow.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14779
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3169 on: May 11, 2020, 10:40:03 AM »
Most of the time when you borrow money, it must be paid back.  If you do not pay it back, it is called robbery.

Will the national debt ever have to be paid back?  Can the can be kicked down the road forever?

We pay back the money continuously in the form of bonds, even as we issue new bonds.  Despite boneheaded musing about defaulting, the US has not defaulted on any of its debt.  The only reason we can continue running a deficit is that the world (including tons of US investors) are more than willing to buy bonds, given the estimately likelihood that they will be paid back.

Maybe at some point that will change.  A couple decades ago I head 80% debt-to-GDP floated around as the point where it might become unstable.  Then 100%.  Now it's 240%-500%  Truth is we're just making educated guesses, and no one really knows.

...and to be completely semantic, what you are describing above is larceny, not robbery.  And no, it doesn't apply here.

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2609
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3170 on: May 11, 2020, 10:56:33 AM »
Technically the Mint could issue trillion dollar coins and deposit them into the Treasury account and fund the government forever.  Your currency wouldn't be worth much with that happening though.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3171 on: May 11, 2020, 11:00:45 AM »
Most of the time when you borrow money, it must be paid back.  If you do not pay it back, it is called robbery.

Will the national debt ever have to be paid back?  Can the can be kicked down the road forever?

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rwagner/shellgame.pdf

That money is real resources.  Can those resources simply be wiped out as though they were never used, never existed?

States that have high debt are being forced to raise taxes to pay for obligations such as pensions.  Will the same effect apply to the Federal Government or are they just too big to fail?

Great rhetoric can be applied, but reality eventually overcomes great rhetoric.

Comparing Bonds to Personal Debt is apples and oranges. They really have nothing to do with each other.

Plus it's incorrect to assume that somehow this would be a cliff that the US would default on Bond payments. And that the US would somehow declare bankruptcy a la Soviet Union style. A far more likely scenario is that the US eventually enters into an economic period of negative bond rates. Another scenario could be that somehow the US is seen as a less attractive investment and so bonds start getting sold on the open market at 10-20% discounts, and the government then buys back its own debt at huge discounts.

The cliff of US default is just completely unrealistic and 100% never happening. Economic disaster can happen, but it wouldn't be because of the debt. The debt would merely be a side issue.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5674
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3172 on: May 11, 2020, 11:06:27 AM »
Maybe at some point that will change.  A couple decades ago I head 80% debt-to-GDP floated around as the point where it might become unstable.  Then 100%.  Now it's 240%-500%  Truth is we're just making educated guesses, and no one really knows.

It seems to be interest rates have to enter into the picture as well. A couple of decades ago (well three decades ago) In the 1980s and 1990s servicing the interest on the national debt took a much larger share of GDP than either in the postwar era or today.



Of course if a country has a 250% debt to GDP ratio and interest rates start trending upwards there's a lot less freedom the maneuver (short of paying off the debt with newly created money) than a country that spends the same % of GDP on servicing its debt but at a higher interest rate so the debt is a smaller proportion of GDP.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3173 on: May 11, 2020, 11:58:28 AM »
Maybe at some point that will change.  A couple decades ago I head 80% debt-to-GDP floated around as the point where it might become unstable.  Then 100%.  Now it's 240%-500%  Truth is we're just making educated guesses, and no one really knows.

It seems to be interest rates have to enter into the picture as well. A couple of decades ago (well three decades ago) In the 1980s and 1990s servicing the interest on the national debt took a much larger share of GDP than either in the postwar era or today.



Of course if a country has a 250% debt to GDP ratio and interest rates start trending upwards there's a lot less freedom the maneuver (short of paying off the debt with newly created money) than a country that spends the same % of GDP on servicing its debt but at a higher interest rate so the debt is a smaller proportion of GDP.

If interest rates go up, then wouldn't that mean that the US could replace existing debt at a lower price? Not that they would, but increased interest rates would likely mean increased inflation, and that means that old US debt is effectively being devalued to the benefit of the government.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3174 on: May 11, 2020, 03:07:42 PM »
Thanks for the info.  I have to read up on this stuff.  It will bore me to tears, but I will do it.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3175 on: May 11, 2020, 07:50:19 PM »
Indeed you will not regret more study, @pecunia , some of us still find this stuff interesting.

The reason people like you and me are asked to pay down our debts is because our earning power will eventually diminish until we die (at which point it will be worth zero). But a government's earning power is its sovereign ability to tax the economy, which will not die.

Government debt is not limitless, but the market is much more forgiving because that sovereign ability to tax and print money is more durable.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3545
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3176 on: May 11, 2020, 09:11:03 PM »
Indeed you will not regret more study, @pecunia , some of us still find this stuff interesting.

The reason people like you and me are asked to pay down our debts is because our earning power will eventually diminish until we die (at which point it will be worth zero). But a government's earning power is its sovereign ability to tax the economy, which will not die.

Government debt is not limitless, but the market is much more forgiving because that sovereign ability to tax and print money is more durable.

That and US dollars seem to be in near-perpetual demand worldwide.

Thanks for the info.  I have to read up on this stuff.  It will bore me to tears, but I will do it.

Suggest you take a peak at the "US getting off world reserve currency" thread in Investing. It has some insight into this phenomenon.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3177 on: May 12, 2020, 06:08:33 AM »
I have a question.

Was reading an article today about what happens if a presidential candidate dies in between the vote and the swearing in.

Then it got technical about exactly when the candidate would die.

- A week before the people vote, and it would be too late to reprint ballot papers. So you vote for the dead guy and the electoral college votes go to whoever the party has chosen as the nominee.
- After the people's vote but before the electoral college votes... in which case the electoral college does whatever it wants(?)
- After the electoral college vote but before the electoral college votes are read in congress (constitution doesn't have a mechanism for this(?)) The House chooses the President via one vote from each State?
- After the electoral college votes are read... the VP nominee gets the nod?

If Pence finds himself President because DJT dies of Covid, who would likely be his replacement as Vice President?

And on the demo side... Bernie doesn't automatically get the nomination?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14779
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3178 on: May 12, 2020, 06:23:13 AM »
The 25th amendment (which was ratified to bring clarity to Presidential succession) stipulates that upon becoming President the former VP (Pence) would select a new Vice President, subject to approval by both the House and Senate

Hereís the relevant text:
Quote
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.


On the Democrats side - no, Bernie is not automatically nominated.  Biden still has his delegates (as does Warren and several others) - they are not released merely because a candidate drops out or dies.  The most likely scenario seems to be a brokered convention.  While Sanders and his supporters would likely claim they should be the nominee after coming in second, itís not an iron-clad claim as Sandersí support was never particularly high outside of his home state. 

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1192
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3179 on: May 12, 2020, 07:48:48 AM »
I have a question.

Was reading an article today about what happens if a presidential candidate dies in between the vote and the swearing in.

Then it got technical about exactly when the candidate would die.

- A week before the people vote, and it would be too late to reprint ballot papers. So you vote for the dead guy and the electoral college votes go to whoever the party has chosen as the nominee.
- After the people's vote but before the electoral college votes... in which case the electoral college does whatever it wants(?)
- After the electoral college vote but before the electoral college votes are read in congress (constitution doesn't have a mechanism for this(?)) The House chooses the President via one vote from each State?
- After the electoral college votes are read... the VP nominee gets the nod?

If Pence finds himself President because DJT dies of Covid, who would likely be his replacement as Vice President?

And on the demo side... Bernie doesn't automatically get the nomination?

The popular and fun Shonda Rhimes show Scandal has this exact plotline in one season (president won election in November, died before the electoral college vote). I don't recall how it was resolved, but it would be a fun way to learn more (because that 's about as close as we have at the moment and because it was overall a pretty great show).

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3180 on: May 12, 2020, 07:50:59 AM »
interesting discussion about a President Elect possibly dying.

Did you know that FDR survived an assassination attempt while President Elect? That winter of 1932 was a bleak time in the country, already.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3181 on: May 12, 2020, 11:09:49 AM »
Best assassination story is the one that happened to Teddy Roosevelt:

https://www.history.com/news/shot-in-the-chest-100-years-ago-teddy-roosevelt-kept-on-talking

I believe this was the year he split the party and enabled Wilson to become president.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3182 on: May 12, 2020, 03:08:16 PM »
The year Roosevelt ran as a Bull-moose candidate was 1912.

The speech stopping the bullet story is--frankly--badass. No other way to react to it.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3183 on: May 12, 2020, 04:06:28 PM »
The 25th amendment (which was ratified to bring clarity to Presidential succession) stipulates that upon becoming President the former VP (Pence) would select a new Vice President, subject to approval by both the House and Senate

Hereís the relevant text:
Quote
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.


On the Democrats side - no, Bernie is not automatically nominated.  Biden still has his delegates (as does Warren and several others) - they are not released merely because a candidate drops out or dies.  The most likely scenario seems to be a brokered convention.  While Sanders and his supporters would likely claim they should be the nominee after coming in second, itís not an iron-clad claim as Sandersí support was never particularly high outside of his home state.

Who do you think Pence would select as his VP?

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3184 on: May 13, 2020, 08:06:21 AM »
I'm gonna say Pence would pick Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy won't be speaker assuming the House stays in Democrats' hands. He has raised a decent amount of money this year ($12m) and he is much better dealing with the press and public than Pence. Pence needs someone who can speak publicly cause he is very bad at it.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2933
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3185 on: May 13, 2020, 10:02:44 AM »
The 25th amendment (which was ratified to bring clarity to Presidential succession) stipulates that upon becoming President the former VP (Pence) would select a new Vice President, subject to approval by both the House and Senate

Hereís the relevant text:
Quote
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.


On the Democrats side - no, Bernie is not automatically nominated.  Biden still has his delegates (as does Warren and several others) - they are not released merely because a candidate drops out or dies.  The most likely scenario seems to be a brokered convention.  While Sanders and his supporters would likely claim they should be the nominee after coming in second, itís not an iron-clad claim as Sandersí support was never particularly high outside of his home state.

Who do you think Pence would select as his VP?
Well, we know he wouldn't pick a woman because he might have to be alone with them without his mother wife present.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14779
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3186 on: May 13, 2020, 10:14:57 AM »
The 25th amendment (which was ratified to bring clarity to Presidential succession) stipulates that upon becoming President the former VP (Pence) would select a new Vice President, subject to approval by both the House and Senate

Hereís the relevant text:
Quote
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.


On the Democrats side - no, Bernie is not automatically nominated.  Biden still has his delegates (as does Warren and several others) - they are not released merely because a candidate drops out or dies.  The most likely scenario seems to be a brokered convention.  While Sanders and his supporters would likely claim they should be the nominee after coming in second, itís not an iron-clad claim as Sandersí support was never particularly high outside of his home state.

Who do you think Pence would select as his VP?
Well, we know he wouldn't pick a woman because he might have to be alone with them without his mother wife present.

Initially I thought that too, btu then realized that the President and VP are prohibited from traveling together, and need not actually work together all that closely.
I do think a Pence hypothetical would be white, evangelical and married.  Plenty to chose from in the current GOP ranks.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3187 on: May 13, 2020, 03:17:20 PM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1469
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3188 on: May 13, 2020, 04:01:15 PM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)



DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3189 on: May 13, 2020, 04:06:37 PM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)

Sociologists, anthropologists, and demographers exist.  He says scientists don't know a community's characteristics but it's what those people literally do.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3190 on: May 13, 2020, 04:07:19 PM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)


Maybe because he's saying that we should trust small business owners to make and enforce their own healthcare policy? That's just insane and anyone that has done any work in public policy like Justin Amash should clearly know better.

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1469
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3191 on: May 14, 2020, 08:00:19 AM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)

Sociologists, anthropologists, and demographers exist.  He says scientists don't know a community's characteristics but it's what those people literally do.

Of course they exist. His point is that the aggregated research of scientists does not take into account the idiosyncrasies of a community. His point is that decisions are best made at a local level. He tweets that states should encourage certain guidelines but stop short of policing the decisions that he believes are best made a community level.

You might disagree, just as some conservatives disagreed with Obama's "you didn't build that" statement about how businesses have benefited from state-provided infrastructure. But just as it's a bad faith argument to insist that Obama was saying business owners didn't build their businesses, it's a bad faith argument to insist that Amash is saying scientists don't study these things.

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1469
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3192 on: May 14, 2020, 08:22:36 AM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)


Maybe because he's saying that we should trust small business owners to make and enforce their own healthcare policy? That's just insane and anyone that has done any work in public policy like Justin Amash should clearly know better.

Or perhaps he believes mayors are better suited to come up with social distancing policies for their cities. I'm not sure.

What evidence backs up your claim that that's just insane? I think the best possibility you have for evidence would be to compare the covid stats of states that haven't done issued any lockdown orders vs the national average or vs similar states (which is a tricky thing to figure).

But there's nothing there to support your thesis that states that have issued lockdowns are faring better than those that haven't.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s

ND, SD, NE, IA, and AR are the insane states with remarkably average covid stats. Nothing seems to support a thesis that these governors should be regarded as negligent or insane and when there is some SBA data available, we might find that they were more successful at preserving the livelihoods of business owners and employees. We don't know, and it's not helpful to assume we do know that this decision was "insane".


Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2933
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3193 on: May 14, 2020, 09:20:05 AM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)


Maybe because he's saying that we should trust small business owners to make and enforce their own healthcare policy? That's just insane and anyone that has done any work in public policy like Justin Amash should clearly know better.

Or perhaps he believes mayors are better suited to come up with social distancing policies for their cities. I'm not sure.

What evidence backs up your claim that that's just insane? I think the best possibility you have for evidence would be to compare the covid stats of states that haven't done issued any lockdown orders vs the national average or vs similar states (which is a tricky thing to figure).

But there's nothing there to support your thesis that states that have issued lockdowns are faring better than those that haven't.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s

ND, SD, NE, IA, and AR are the insane states with remarkably average covid stats. Nothing seems to support a thesis that these governors should be regarded as negligent or insane and when there is some SBA data available, we might find that they were more successful at preserving the livelihoods of business owners and employees. We don't know, and it's not helpful to assume we do know that this decision was "insane".

Compare urban centers Seattle and San Francisco to New York and surrounding New Jersey. The west coast was faster as moving towards SD protocols. Compare WA, which had less lead time, to Florida and their recent explosion in cases. The virus does not care about your mayor, it cares about contact rates.

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1469
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3194 on: May 14, 2020, 09:43:37 AM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)


Maybe because he's saying that we should trust small business owners to make and enforce their own healthcare policy? That's just insane and anyone that has done any work in public policy like Justin Amash should clearly know better.

Or perhaps he believes mayors are better suited to come up with social distancing policies for their cities. I'm not sure.

What evidence backs up your claim that that's just insane? I think the best possibility you have for evidence would be to compare the covid stats of states that haven't done issued any lockdown orders vs the national average or vs similar states (which is a tricky thing to figure).

But there's nothing there to support your thesis that states that have issued lockdowns are faring better than those that haven't.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s

ND, SD, NE, IA, and AR are the insane states with remarkably average covid stats. Nothing seems to support a thesis that these governors should be regarded as negligent or insane and when there is some SBA data available, we might find that they were more successful at preserving the livelihoods of business owners and employees. We don't know, and it's not helpful to assume we do know that this decision was "insane".

Compare urban centers Seattle and San Francisco to New York and surrounding New Jersey. The west coast was faster as moving towards SD protocols. Compare WA, which had less lead time, to Florida and their recent explosion in cases. The virus does not care about your mayor, it cares about contact rates.

67% of NYC residents commute by public transit. Bay area is about 7.6% and Seattle is about 10%. Apples and oranges.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/04/coronavirus-spread-map-city-urban-density-suburbs-rural-data/609394/

We may find that some things we want to encourage in cities, like tight social bonds and civic capital, make them more vulnerable.  ďWhen itís all said and done, weíre going to find that COVID was uniquely lethal to people with high social capital,Ē demographer Lyman Stone suggested on Twitter.

It's no secret that residents of rural areas across the world are falling very far behind their urban counterparts economically - for many of them, their economies are already on life support. There is a good argument to be made that some statewide rules should apply very differently to rural areas who have low risk of contagion and incredibly high risk of economic failure.


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3195 on: May 14, 2020, 10:12:53 AM »
https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/1260654122048487425?s=19

I don't think Justin Amash is very smart lmao.

Because he's engaging with a smartass troll, or because you think he's wrong?

Amash is right that not every community should be given blanket recommendations from the federal and often even state gov.

To me it reads like the troll is just trying to dunk on him, zeroing on details outside of the core argument that he can use to earn himself a badge for a Twitter Takedown(R)


Maybe because he's saying that we should trust small business owners to make and enforce their own healthcare policy? That's just insane and anyone that has done any work in public policy like Justin Amash should clearly know better.

Or perhaps he believes mayors are better suited to come up with social distancing policies for their cities. I'm not sure.

What evidence backs up your claim that that's just insane? I think the best possibility you have for evidence would be to compare the covid stats of states that haven't done issued any lockdown orders vs the national average or vs similar states (which is a tricky thing to figure).

But there's nothing there to support your thesis that states that have issued lockdowns are faring better than those that haven't.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s

ND, SD, NE, IA, and AR are the insane states with remarkably average covid stats. Nothing seems to support a thesis that these governors should be regarded as negligent or insane and when there is some SBA data available, we might find that they were more successful at preserving the livelihoods of business owners and employees. We don't know, and it's not helpful to assume we do know that this decision was "insane".

Compare urban centers Seattle and San Francisco to New York and surrounding New Jersey. The west coast was faster as moving towards SD protocols. Compare WA, which had less lead time, to Florida and their recent explosion in cases. The virus does not care about your mayor, it cares about contact rates.

67% of NYC residents commute by public transit. Bay area is about 7.6% and Seattle is about 10%. Apples and oranges.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/04/coronavirus-spread-map-city-urban-density-suburbs-rural-data/609394/

We may find that some things we want to encourage in cities, like tight social bonds and civic capital, make them more vulnerable.  ďWhen itís all said and done, weíre going to find that COVID was uniquely lethal to people with high social capital,Ē demographer Lyman Stone suggested on Twitter.

It's no secret that residents of rural areas across the world are falling very far behind their urban counterparts economically - for many of them, their economies are already on life support. There is a good argument to be made that some statewide rules should apply very differently to rural areas who have low risk of contagion and incredibly high risk of economic failure.

"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1469
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3196 on: May 14, 2020, 10:24:28 AM »
"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

So if you can't dismiss a rebuttal, parody it?

You are insisting B is the explanation because it matches your conclusion better. Your parody applies to you as well.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3197 on: May 14, 2020, 01:34:13 PM »
"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

So if you can't dismiss a rebuttal, parody it?

You are insisting B is the explanation because it matches your conclusion better. Your parody applies to you as well.

Dismissing would be saying that your explanation is dumb or ridiculous. My rather snarky reply is closer to reducing your statement down to its logical construction. So, no, I didn't dismiss. Parody maybe.

Medical experts who do research in this field have studied that social distancing reduces the spread of the disease. Cities that implemented social distancing earlier and harder have seen better results overall. You claim that it's not due to social distancing but due to the NYC metro. If that were true, then we would see that people who ride public transit even in cities such as Seattle or San Fran would have higher rates of covid. But they don't.

No my statement is more in line with:

"Medical experts and researchers have concluded that implementing B reduces the R0 thus by reducing the number of people who get infected. They have already modeled this even in rural areas and have suggested that social distancing will be necessary even for them. This is further evidenced by comparing the social distancing policies of Seattle and NYC. 'A' may be a small factor, but is not a primary cause."

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
    • Military Saints
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3198 on: May 14, 2020, 03:02:10 PM »
"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

So if you can't dismiss a rebuttal, parody it?

You are insisting B is the explanation because it matches your conclusion better. Your parody applies to you as well.

Dismissing would be saying that your explanation is dumb or ridiculous. My rather snarky reply is closer to reducing your statement down to its logical construction. So, no, I didn't dismiss. Parody maybe.

Medical experts who do research in this field have studied that social distancing reduces the spread of the disease. Cities that implemented social distancing earlier and harder have seen better results overall. You claim that it's not due to social distancing but due to the NYC metro. If that were true, then we would see that people who ride public transit even in cities such as Seattle or San Fran would have higher rates of covid. But they don't.

No my statement is more in line with:

"Medical experts and researchers have concluded that implementing B reduces the R0 thus by reducing the number of people who get infected. They have already modeled this even in rural areas and have suggested that social distancing will be necessary even for them. This is further evidenced by comparing the social distancing policies of Seattle and NYC. 'A' may be a small factor, but is not a primary cause."

Is the same policy applicable in rural upstate New York as in New York City? Should local conditions be taken into account or should the government enact blanket policies at the state or national level?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3199 on: May 14, 2020, 03:52:38 PM »
"B cannot be the explanation because Cities X and Y have difference A. So that must explain the difference because it matches my conclusion better."

So if you can't dismiss a rebuttal, parody it?

You are insisting B is the explanation because it matches your conclusion better. Your parody applies to you as well.

Dismissing would be saying that your explanation is dumb or ridiculous. My rather snarky reply is closer to reducing your statement down to its logical construction. So, no, I didn't dismiss. Parody maybe.

Medical experts who do research in this field have studied that social distancing reduces the spread of the disease. Cities that implemented social distancing earlier and harder have seen better results overall. You claim that it's not due to social distancing but due to the NYC metro. If that were true, then we would see that people who ride public transit even in cities such as Seattle or San Fran would have higher rates of covid. But they don't.

No my statement is more in line with:

"Medical experts and researchers have concluded that implementing B reduces the R0 thus by reducing the number of people who get infected. They have already modeled this even in rural areas and have suggested that social distancing will be necessary even for them. This is further evidenced by comparing the social distancing policies of Seattle and NYC. 'A' may be a small factor, but is not a primary cause."

Is the same policy applicable in rural upstate New York as in New York City? Should local conditions be taken into account or should the government enact blanket policies at the state or national level?

There should be both. There should be a national policy, state level policy, and local level policy. And it is up to your leaders to effectively communicate and enforce those measures. New York City cannot run an effective quarantine without the support of surrounding municipalities having a unified strategy through the state government. And States cannot all afford to run individual tests, trials, and research without the federal government purchasing that research for the benefit of all states.

There is already a policy difference between NY and NYC, so I'm not sure why you seem to think the NYC lockdown is being applied to the entire state. There are state-level policies, and then there are city specific policies layered on top of that. And the professionals that determine the effectiveness of certain policies are in the CDC, so the only alternative to science being suggested here is to shrug and say "maybe this won't kill as many people as they say it will". If you don't trust professionals to actually give us good data and information, then the only alternative people like Amash are saying is to let any old mayor or business owner throw their hands up in the air and say "I don't know... Let's just open and see what happens."