Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The Politics Thread

1687688690692693

Comments

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,255
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Fandraxx wrote: »
    Just to try and piggyback a bit off @BallpointMan ...

    This is from out in Iowa. Obviously state polls are different, but Iowa is still pretty solidly a swing-state (Obama/Clinton won twice. Gore won it, as well) so seeing this is surprising.

    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/21/president-joe-biden-job-approval-rating-plunges-after-afghanistan-covid-surge/8378224002/

    Ann Selzer, the woman who conducted it, might be the best pollster in the country at the moment. Pretty sure she gets an A from 538, for people who are a fan of those guys. If there's a rebound in store, it certainly isn't showing in this data.

    Iowa, like Florida and Ohio, is a swing-state in name only at this point. I would view a Democrat winning any of them in 2024 as a massive upset. On the other side, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico are now incredibly difficult for Republicans. The new swing states replacing them are Georgia, Arizona, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.

    If I was running a campaign, Ohio and Iowa wouldn't even be on my radar. Florida is still a conceivable though very tough get, and worth fighting for. Ohio and Iowa are gone barring a major shift in the make-up of those populations and their recent voting habits. Neither one were remotely close to what the polling suggested was possible in 2020. Trump walked away with both of them. The one outlier being the pollster you mention above. But I'm certainly not going to quake in my boots about Biden's approval among the demographics in Iowa. Any crossover support he had there was tepid at best.

    I'll maintain my position that no one is going to cast their vote in 2024 on whether Joe Biden didn't make a strategically sound decision about the use of Bagram Air Force Base in the summer of 2021. The American people completely erased the entire conflict from their memory for 15+ years. The idea they're gonna have vivid and hardened views on the subject 3 years from now gives the American voter's attention span far, FAR more credit than it deserves. Trump assassinated one of the most high ranking military and political leaders in Iran and was one poorly prepared Big Mac away from war with them, and it wasn't even a top 100 issue in the last campaign.

    I mostly agree with your viewpoint. The fact that merely 100 Americans are being discussed as 'left behind' is pretty much verification that this is miniscule as a major talking point with moderates. The optics are pretty bad temporarily. However, I don't think anybody is going to change their politics based solely on Afghanistan so politically this is probably a non-issue..

  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,166
    edited September 22
    @WarChiefZeke

    If you read through the article again you’ll note that, while its primary focus is the ethnonationalist right, and its historical connections to environmentalism, it’s not just conservatives who are likely to use environmental issues to bolster support for their particular programmes. For example it makes mention of how some left wingers have also made use of ‘watermelon politics’, and have regarded democracy as being incompatible with thoroughgoing environmentalism, and how Macron has implied that the rainforests should be protected via military intervention if necessary.

    Not being an American myself I don’t really find helpful the implication that President Biden and the Democrats’ conduct should be the sole or even primary focus of an international forum, but if you go back a few pages you’ll note that I was rather critical of the manner of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,655
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Fandraxx wrote: »
    Just to try and piggyback a bit off @BallpointMan ...

    This is from out in Iowa. Obviously state polls are different, but Iowa is still pretty solidly a swing-state (Obama/Clinton won twice. Gore won it, as well) so seeing this is surprising.

    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/21/president-joe-biden-job-approval-rating-plunges-after-afghanistan-covid-surge/8378224002/

    Ann Selzer, the woman who conducted it, might be the best pollster in the country at the moment. Pretty sure she gets an A from 538, for people who are a fan of those guys. If there's a rebound in store, it certainly isn't showing in this data.

    Iowa, like Florida and Ohio, is a swing-state in name only at this point. I would view a Democrat winning any of them in 2024 as a massive upset. On the other side, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico are now incredibly difficult for Republicans. The new swing states replacing them are Georgia, Arizona, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.

    If I was running a campaign, Ohio and Iowa wouldn't even be on my radar. Florida is still a conceivable though very tough get, and worth fighting for. Ohio and Iowa are gone barring a major shift in the make-up of those populations and their recent voting habits. Neither one were remotely close to what the polling suggested was possible in 2020. Trump walked away with both of them. The one outlier being the pollster you mention above. But I'm certainly not going to quake in my boots about Biden's approval among the demographics in Iowa. Any crossover support he had there was tepid at best.

    I'll maintain my position that no one is going to cast their vote in 2024 on whether Joe Biden didn't make a strategically sound decision about the use of Bagram Air Force Base in the summer of 2021. The American people completely erased the entire conflict from their memory for 15+ years. The idea they're gonna have vivid and hardened views on the subject 3 years from now gives the American voter's attention span far, FAR more credit than it deserves. Trump assassinated one of the most high ranking military and political leaders in Iran and was one poorly prepared Big Mac away from war with them, and it wasn't even a top 100 issue in the last campaign.

    I mostly agree with your viewpoint. The fact that merely 100 Americans are being discussed as 'left behind' is pretty much verification that this is miniscule as a major talking point with moderates. The optics are pretty bad temporarily. However, I don't think anybody is going to change their politics based solely on Afghanistan so politically this is probably a non-issue..


    One thing I will say is that Trump made the 2020 race pretty close despite being super underwater in terms of approval rating to that point. We seemed to have hit a point (about in 2016) where polarization became such an unbelievably massive factor in voting trends that people will readily and happily vote for someone they disapprove of just to prevent the potential of another candidate taking office.


    I cannot speak to what this will mean in 2024, but we really (really, really) shouldnt write off the impact on 2022. Trump was deeply unpopular in 2018, and paid for it with what was eventually deemed a "wave election" will a 40 seat loss. There's no reason to believe that Democrats will buck this trend in the least.

    I honestly believe the only way that Democrats keep either the House or Senate in 2022 at this point is if the general populace become concerned about what a GOP run house/senate might do to decertify an election in 2024. That's more or less the only thing I can think of which would stem the support of the GOP (and for the record, it's enough of a hypothetical and far enough away that I dont think it will make much of a difference).

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 22
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Fandraxx wrote: »
    Just to try and piggyback a bit off @BallpointMan ...

    This is from out in Iowa. Obviously state polls are different, but Iowa is still pretty solidly a swing-state (Obama/Clinton won twice. Gore won it, as well) so seeing this is surprising.

    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/21/president-joe-biden-job-approval-rating-plunges-after-afghanistan-covid-surge/8378224002/

    Ann Selzer, the woman who conducted it, might be the best pollster in the country at the moment. Pretty sure she gets an A from 538, for people who are a fan of those guys. If there's a rebound in store, it certainly isn't showing in this data.

    Iowa, like Florida and Ohio, is a swing-state in name only at this point. I would view a Democrat winning any of them in 2024 as a massive upset. On the other side, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico are now incredibly difficult for Republicans. The new swing states replacing them are Georgia, Arizona, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.

    If I was running a campaign, Ohio and Iowa wouldn't even be on my radar. Florida is still a conceivable though very tough get, and worth fighting for. Ohio and Iowa are gone barring a major shift in the make-up of those populations and their recent voting habits. Neither one were remotely close to what the polling suggested was possible in 2020. Trump walked away with both of them. The one outlier being the pollster you mention above. But I'm certainly not going to quake in my boots about Biden's approval among the demographics in Iowa. Any crossover support he had there was tepid at best.

    I'll maintain my position that no one is going to cast their vote in 2024 on whether Joe Biden didn't make a strategically sound decision about the use of Bagram Air Force Base in the summer of 2021. The American people completely erased the entire conflict from their memory for 15+ years. The idea they're gonna have vivid and hardened views on the subject 3 years from now gives the American voter's attention span far, FAR more credit than it deserves. Trump assassinated one of the most high ranking military and political leaders in Iran and was one poorly prepared Big Mac away from war with them, and it wasn't even a top 100 issue in the last campaign.

    I mostly agree with your viewpoint. The fact that merely 100 Americans are being discussed as 'left behind' is pretty much verification that this is miniscule as a major talking point with moderates. The optics are pretty bad temporarily. However, I don't think anybody is going to change their politics based solely on Afghanistan so politically this is probably a non-issue..


    One thing I will say is that Trump made the 2020 race pretty close despite being super underwater in terms of approval rating to that point. We seemed to have hit a point (about in 2016) where polarization became such an unbelievably massive factor in voting trends that people will readily and happily vote for someone they disapprove of just to prevent the potential of another candidate taking office.


    I cannot speak to what this will mean in 2024, but we really (really, really) shouldnt write off the impact on 2022. Trump was deeply unpopular in 2018, and paid for it with what was eventually deemed a "wave election" will a 40 seat loss. There's no reason to believe that Democrats will buck this trend in the least.

    I honestly believe the only way that Democrats keep either the House or Senate in 2022 at this point is if the general populace become concerned about what a GOP run house/senate might do to decertify an election in 2024. That's more or less the only thing I can think of which would stem the support of the GOP (and for the record, it's enough of a hypothetical and far enough away that I dont think it will make much of a difference).

    They've almost lost the House (within one or two seats) on redistricting alone at this point. I'd give them a 15% chance of holding at best. The Senate isn't as bad, but far more consequential. If Breyer doesn't retire (and it doesn't seem like he's going to) that's the first problem. The other is, of course, what you mention. Will they certify any Democratic Presidential victory if they hold both chambers?? Given the revelations learned just the last few days about how Trump's lawyers had a six-point plan (in writing) for how Pence could refuse to certify Biden this past January, it doesn't really seem like a hypothetical to me at all. The dry run has already been attempted, and they've found that, for the most part, people have forgotten that Trump unleashed a literal ATTACK on a co-equal branch of government 9 months ago. It's more than likely what would happen. Which basically now raises the stakes to the point where Democrats not only have to win a Presidential election, but will also have to win BOTH chambers of Congress to have that win recognized.

    ThacoBell
  • FandraxxFandraxx Member Posts: 181
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Iowa, like Florida and Ohio, is a swing-state in name only at this point. I would view a Democrat winning any of them in 2024 as a massive upset. On the other side, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico are now incredibly difficult for Republicans. The new swing states replacing them are Georgia, Arizona, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.

    I would not be so sure about Georgia being a swing state. It's gotten bluer in recent years, no doubt, but an eerily similar situation unfolded back in 1992. Clinton barely eked out a victory against the wildly unpopular and, frankly, boring Bush Sr. By next cycle, get a fresh start, it was back to Republican and even more so by the time Jr. ran. I wouldn't be surprised if we see something similar happen in 2024, though I would wager that it would be more likely to happen in Arizona. Georgia's gonna be a weird one, and the outcome of the midterms will likely have something to do with it.

    And, taking states completely off the radar because they haven't gone your way for two cycles doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Biden's own internal polling had him winning some of those states. Stuff changes and different candidates strike different chords with people. Biden and any other candidates are fools if they don't at least do their due diligence in places like Ohio.

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,655
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Fandraxx wrote: »
    Just to try and piggyback a bit off @BallpointMan ...

    This is from out in Iowa. Obviously state polls are different, but Iowa is still pretty solidly a swing-state (Obama/Clinton won twice. Gore won it, as well) so seeing this is surprising.

    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/21/president-joe-biden-job-approval-rating-plunges-after-afghanistan-covid-surge/8378224002/

    Ann Selzer, the woman who conducted it, might be the best pollster in the country at the moment. Pretty sure she gets an A from 538, for people who are a fan of those guys. If there's a rebound in store, it certainly isn't showing in this data.

    Iowa, like Florida and Ohio, is a swing-state in name only at this point. I would view a Democrat winning any of them in 2024 as a massive upset. On the other side, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico are now incredibly difficult for Republicans. The new swing states replacing them are Georgia, Arizona, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.

    If I was running a campaign, Ohio and Iowa wouldn't even be on my radar. Florida is still a conceivable though very tough get, and worth fighting for. Ohio and Iowa are gone barring a major shift in the make-up of those populations and their recent voting habits. Neither one were remotely close to what the polling suggested was possible in 2020. Trump walked away with both of them. The one outlier being the pollster you mention above. But I'm certainly not going to quake in my boots about Biden's approval among the demographics in Iowa. Any crossover support he had there was tepid at best.

    I'll maintain my position that no one is going to cast their vote in 2024 on whether Joe Biden didn't make a strategically sound decision about the use of Bagram Air Force Base in the summer of 2021. The American people completely erased the entire conflict from their memory for 15+ years. The idea they're gonna have vivid and hardened views on the subject 3 years from now gives the American voter's attention span far, FAR more credit than it deserves. Trump assassinated one of the most high ranking military and political leaders in Iran and was one poorly prepared Big Mac away from war with them, and it wasn't even a top 100 issue in the last campaign.

    I mostly agree with your viewpoint. The fact that merely 100 Americans are being discussed as 'left behind' is pretty much verification that this is miniscule as a major talking point with moderates. The optics are pretty bad temporarily. However, I don't think anybody is going to change their politics based solely on Afghanistan so politically this is probably a non-issue..


    One thing I will say is that Trump made the 2020 race pretty close despite being super underwater in terms of approval rating to that point. We seemed to have hit a point (about in 2016) where polarization became such an unbelievably massive factor in voting trends that people will readily and happily vote for someone they disapprove of just to prevent the potential of another candidate taking office.


    I cannot speak to what this will mean in 2024, but we really (really, really) shouldnt write off the impact on 2022. Trump was deeply unpopular in 2018, and paid for it with what was eventually deemed a "wave election" will a 40 seat loss. There's no reason to believe that Democrats will buck this trend in the least.

    I honestly believe the only way that Democrats keep either the House or Senate in 2022 at this point is if the general populace become concerned about what a GOP run house/senate might do to decertify an election in 2024. That's more or less the only thing I can think of which would stem the support of the GOP (and for the record, it's enough of a hypothetical and far enough away that I dont think it will make much of a difference).

    They've almost lost the House (within one or two seats) on redistricting alone at this point. I'd give them a 15% chance of holding at best. The Senate isn't as bad, but far more consequential. If Breyer doesn't retire (and it doesn't seem like he's going to) that's the first problem. The other is, of course, what you mention. Will they certify any Democratic Presidential victory if they hold both chambers?? Given the revelations learned just the last few days about how Trump's lawyers had a six-point plan (in writing) for how Pence could refuse to certify Biden this past January, it doesn't really seem like a hypothetical to me at all. The dry run has already been attempted, and they've found that, for the most part, people have forgotten that Trump unleashed a literal ATTACK on a co-equal branch of government 9 months ago. It's more than likely what would happen. Which basically now raises the stakes to the point where Democrats not only have to win a Presidential election, but will also have to win BOTH chambers of Congress to have that win recognized.

    Yeah. I dont think you're wrong. The basic hope is that when the rubber meets the road, less than the entire GOP caucus will support a refusal to certify. For example only like 60 or 70 house members objected to Biden's win in one or more states(IIRC)... now, they KNEW they couldnt stop the election, which might have scared off a few would-be objectors. Conversely, if they did feel like they could actually break Democracy, would they be so willing to do it?

    I'm honestly not sure. I feel like there are a lot of members of the GOP that would do it, but I also feel like there are a lot of members that wouldnt. If they cannot meet a simple majority in the house, then they cannot even really begin the process.

    Balrog99
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    At this point, I've lost all patience with the game Kristen Sinema and Joe Manchin are playing. This is not an issue of them standing up to big spending and debt (another issue NO ONE actually votes on). This is mixture of attention seeking narcissism and doing the bidding of the lobbyists of the industries that give then campaign contributions. This happens to most elected officials to a certain extent, but not to such a nakedly obvious level as these two. Their "political strategy" is to go back to Arizona and West Virginia and say "I sunk this massively popular infrastructure bill"?? Sinema at this point is just plain reversing position she used to hold on things like prescription drugs. The only thing that changed is her donor list. If there is something we ignore all too often here, it's the fact that our system of government is basically legalized bribery since Citizens United.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,255
    Here's my dilemma in a nutshell. I literally couldn't have said it better myself...

    https://www.thebulwark.com/why-im-a-single-issue-voter/

    Grond0Fandraxx
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,267
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Here's my dilemma in a nutshell. I literally couldn't have said it better myself...

    https://www.thebulwark.com/why-im-a-single-issue-voter/

    While I don't agree on principle (the republican party has gotten away with a lot of crap because of abusing single issue voters), "Doesn't want to end american democracy" is a pretty good issue to choose.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 23
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Here's my dilemma in a nutshell. I literally couldn't have said it better myself...

    https://www.thebulwark.com/why-im-a-single-issue-voter/

    While I don't agree on principle (the republican party has gotten away with a lot of crap because of abusing single issue voters), "Doesn't want to end american democracy" is a pretty good issue to choose.

    They are, once again, holding the country hostage over the debt ceiling. For what seems like the 5th or 6th time in the last ten years. We've established infinite times in this thread they don't care one iota about the debt. What they constantly threaten to do on this subject is no different than one if us getting our credit card statement in the mail and declaring all the interest going forward invalid. There are no beliefs, there is no actual policy, it's just endless cynical power grabs one after the other.

    And because no one actually thinks they care about governing, they get a pass every time, and the party that does care about it is left with all the responsibility and all the blame. It's like we've just internalized and accepted the idea that Republicans are going to break things, and Democrats are going to make attempts to clean it up, and pretend we're living in a functional cyclical relationship rather than an abusive one.

    I don't know what can be done to make the debt ceiling raise automatic, but if that isn't done, Republicans will keep doing this every 1 or 2 years until no one who visits this forum is even alive anymore. And the Beltway press will continue to pretend Republican politicians have legitimate concerns about spending, despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

    ThacoBell
  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 2,314
    That the debt ceiling exists at all is an active legislative choice. There is absolutely no legal reason that they couldn't just say the country is authorized to borrow as much as it needs, indefinitely.

    Just a couple of years ago, in fact, the debt ceiling agreement was "suspend it until 2021". Why 2021? Because the Republicans weren't sure they would be in power then, and wanted to have the option of doing exactly what they're doing now.

    Grond0DinoDinThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    jmerry wrote: »
    That the debt ceiling exists at all is an active legislative choice. There is absolutely no legal reason that they couldn't just say the country is authorized to borrow as much as it needs, indefinitely.

    Just a couple of years ago, in fact, the debt ceiling agreement was "suspend it until 2021". Why 2021? Because the Republicans weren't sure they would be in power then, and wanted to have the option of doing exactly what they're doing now.

    Basically, reconciliation can only be used a certain amount of times in the fiscal year. Republicans will filibuster raising the debt ceiling to force the Democrats to use it on that rather than the infrastructure bill. Essentially, they are saying "give up your entire agenda, or we'll nuke the economy". Whether there is any way to roll the debt ceiling into the infrastructure bill I do not know, but my guess is Joe Fucking Manchin probably has some inane and ridiculous reason for opposing doing so.

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,655
    I dont have any direct issue with Senator Manchin or Sinema. As I have said before, and will say hundreds of times more I'm sure - if it werent for moderate Democrats capable of winning in fairly conservative areas of the country, the Democrats would rarely if ever actually have 50 votes in the senate.

    Manchin winning in WV is precisely the reason that McCain had the leverage to stop the GOP from nuking Obamacare and kicking 20 million people off of healthcare. You can hate them all you want for their centrism, but the structural disadvantages of the US Senate mean that without folks like them, the Senate would remain a GOP institution in perpetuity.


    The debt ceiling stuff is all obnoxious. Everyone knows that the GOP only complains about the debt when they're out of power.

    ThacoBellDinoDin
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 23
    I dont have any direct issue with Senator Manchin or Sinema. As I have said before, and will say hundreds of times more I'm sure - if it werent for moderate Democrats capable of winning in fairly conservative areas of the country, the Democrats would rarely if ever actually have 50 votes in the senate.

    Manchin winning in WV is precisely the reason that McCain had the leverage to stop the GOP from nuking Obamacare and kicking 20 million people off of healthcare. You can hate them all you want for their centrism, but the structural disadvantages of the US Senate mean that without folks like them, the Senate would remain a GOP institution in perpetuity.

    The debt ceiling stuff is all obnoxious. Everyone knows that the GOP only complains about the debt when they're out of power.

    West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the country. No doubt SOMETHING accounts for Manchin's ability to keep getting elected there, but is one of those things opposing large infrastructure spending?? What is "moderate" about his position on this bill?? Because he's spouting the same nonsense the GOP is. About the price tag. The cost of anything strikes me as utterly meaningless after the last four years and the pandemic relief bills. He and his partner in crime have already whittled it down to half of what it started at, and every time we arrive at a new number they say "no, still too high".

    Frankly, I don't really buy they are doing this out of any sense of caring about the debt OR that their voters give a shit about it. It's all performative. For Manchin, so he can go home and say he threw it in the face of the liberals, for Sinema.......idk honestly, the less said about her the better at this point. But the performance just keeps going on......and on......and on. Whatever point they are trying to make to these so-called deficit voters in WV and AZ has been made at this point. Unless the goal is to actually kill the bill completely, in which case they are dealing a possibly fatal wound to the President. Does anyone even know what they're trying to accomplish here?? Do they even know??

    I mean, Jon Tester is a centrist. Chris Coons is a centrist. What those two aren't is outright saboteurs of the entire First Term agenda. And it's impossible to argue that Tester isn't fighting on ground at least as inhospitable to a Democrat as Manchin is (Montana). I feel like calling Manchin and Sinema centrists isn't as accurate as calling them contrarian. Which they are doing for the sole purpose of being CALLED a centrist in the media. But what they are doing has little to do with any policy. They are just throwing up roadblocks for the sake of being able to say they did so.

    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    bleusteelThacoBellDinoDin
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,450
    I find myself agreeing a bit with both of what you're saying. I do think Sinema deserves less of a pass than Manchin, as Biden won Arizona, and a Democrat won the Senate race there and Mark Kelly hasn't been an issue.

    Certainly willing to give some leeway to Manchin as the only Democrat winning in WV, and has done so for a long time.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,255
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 25
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    This is really scary and, unfortunately, very accurate imho.

    https://www.wonkette.com/anti-vaxxers-fast-becoming-anti-icu-ers

    I've read so many dozens of anecdotal accounts of nurses and doctors in hospitals and ICU's that I no longer consider them anecdotal. They all say the same thing. People insisting they don't actually have COVID-19 when told they do, demanding to see another doctor or nurse, demanding the snake oil drugs, and some even insisting to their literal dying breath that it isn't real.

    I used to wonder how the people at Jonestown could sacrifice themselves for a man (Jim Jones) who had quite clearly lost his mind. While it isn't concentrated in one place, what is happening with the virus is the same dynamic. This doesn't actually have anything to do with the safety or efficacy of vaccines. This outright denialism (separate from those who are hesitant) is, at it's core, a statement of tribal support for a man who has actually (utterly half-heartedly) recommended they get the vaccine.

    But people like Trump know it's the FIRST impressions they give that matter. Ardent followers assume any walk-backs or reversals later are just cynical attempts to placate the media. In the end, they still basically believe what they believed in March of 2020. That it wasn’t real, if it was real it was just the flu, and that it would go away by Easter (these are just SOME of the myriad of positions they turned to). Everything from that point has been a double-down on their original bad bet. And some people will keep raising the pot until they are six feet under rather than fold. And it is scary, because if these people are willing to die for this "cause", what in the world makes anyone think they care about small-d democracy??

    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,032
    We had a fair amount of discussion some time ago about the detention of Meng Wanzhou in December 2018 and the US attempt to extradite her from Canada. She's now returned to China following a deal with US prosecutors.

    It's not obvious what incentive prosecutors had to do this deal. One possibility is that they felt the case was too weak, but I suspect the motives were slightly different. The original decision to prosecute always looked a bit political and it may be that, with the removal of the original political impetus, the Justice Department started looking for a way out of a troublesome case.

    Balrog99BallpointMan
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,655
    edited September 25
    Grond0 wrote: »
    We had a fair amount of discussion some time ago about the detention of Meng Wanzhou in December 2018 and the US attempt to extradite her from Canada. She's now returned to China following a deal with US prosecutors.

    It's not obvious what incentive prosecutors had to do this deal. One possibility is that they felt the case was too weak, but I suspect the motives were slightly different. The original decision to prosecute always looked a bit political and it may be that, with the removal of the original political impetus, the Justice Department started looking for a way out of a troublesome case.

    I dont professed to have spent much time looking at this case, but did the US ever get her extradicted? I ask because I cannot help but notice headlines that China has released several Canadian prisoners that were held, essentially as a tit-for-tat relating to Meng Wanzhou.

    My guess is this was essentially a prisoner swap, but again, I'm fairly ignorant of the details...


    Edit - also, though it scarcely deserves mention: The ridiculous partisan audit in Arizona released their report on Maricopa county and found... it was almost identical to official records.

    A - I'm a bit shocked they didnt just outright lie about their findings

    B - Trump immediately demanded an audit in Texas (you know, where he won by margins above what the polls predicted). I suppose he's desperate to find wrongdoing to justify his crusade (I dont know why. something like 75% of Republicans believe the election was stolen despite any evidence to support that).

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 25
    Grond0 wrote: »
    We had a fair amount of discussion some time ago about the detention of Meng Wanzhou in December 2018 and the US attempt to extradite her from Canada. She's now returned to China following a deal with US prosecutors.

    It's not obvious what incentive prosecutors had to do this deal. One possibility is that they felt the case was too weak, but I suspect the motives were slightly different. The original decision to prosecute always looked a bit political and it may be that, with the removal of the original political impetus, the Justice Department started looking for a way out of a troublesome case.

    I dont professed to have spent much time looking at this case, but did the US ever get her extradicted? I ask because I cannot help but notice headlines that China has released several Canadian prisoners that were held, essentially as a tit-for-tat relating to Meng Wanzhou.

    My guess is this was essentially a prisoner swap, but again, I'm fairly ignorant of the details...


    Edit - also, though it scarcely deserves mention: The ridiculous partisan audit in Arizona released their report on Maricopa county and found... it was almost identical to official records.

    A - I'm a bit shocked they didnt just outright lie about their findings

    B - Trump immediately demanded an audit in Texas (you know, where he won by margins above what the polls predicted). I suppose he's desperate to find wrongdoing to justify his crusade (I dont know why. something like 75% of Republicans believe the election was stolen despite any evidence to support that).

    To the point about the audit:

    1.) I don't put any stock in the fact they actually found more votes for Biden. Nothing they were doing was legitimate in the first place. Nothing they say should even be acknowledged, much less be branded as the last word on the count in Arizona.

    2.) Texas isn't about finding wrongdoing. It's about always have some audit going on somewhere at all times so there is always some new date or revelation around the corner for the rubes to wait for. When it arrives, and nothing happens, some other red state will start an "audit".

    DinoDin
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    edited September 25
    Grond0 wrote: »
    We had a fair amount of discussion some time ago about the detention of Meng Wanzhou in December 2018 and the US attempt to extradite her from Canada. She's now returned to China following a deal with US prosecutors.

    It's not obvious what incentive prosecutors had to do this deal. One possibility is that they felt the case was too weak, but I suspect the motives were slightly different. The original decision to prosecute always looked a bit political and it may be that, with the removal of the original political impetus, the Justice Department started looking for a way out of a troublesome case.

    Well, with the two Michael's returning to Canada, it was all a political movement and nothing to do with justice. Her pleading guilty is just allowing the US to save some face and pretend it was a fair judicial process.

    That said, her being charged by the Trump administration to begin with was a political move itself (being tough on China) which backfired horribly mostly for Canadians and the Michael's who were caught up in it.
    Grond0 wrote: »
    We had a fair amount of discussion some time ago about the detention of Meng Wanzhou in December 2018 and the US attempt to extradite her from Canada. She's now returned to China following a deal with US prosecutors.

    It's not obvious what incentive prosecutors had to do this deal. One possibility is that they felt the case was too weak, but I suspect the motives were slightly different. The original decision to prosecute always looked a bit political and it may be that, with the removal of the original political impetus, the Justice Department started looking for a way out of a troublesome case.

    I dont professed to have spent much time looking at this case, but did the US ever get her extradicted? I ask because I cannot help but notice headlines that China has released several Canadian prisoners that were held, essentially as a tit-for-tat relating to Meng Wanzhou.

    My guess is this was essentially a prisoner swap, but again, I'm fairly ignorant of the details...


    Edit - also, though it scarcely deserves mention: The ridiculous partisan audit in Arizona released their report on Maricopa county and found... it was almost identical to official records.

    A - I'm a bit shocked they didnt just outright lie about their findings

    B - Trump immediately demanded an audit in Texas (you know, where he won by margins above what the polls predicted). I suppose he's desperate to find wrongdoing to justify his crusade (I dont know why. something like 75% of Republicans believe the election was stolen despite any evidence to support that).

    This article explains it a bit better of what actually happened:https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/china-releases-detained-canadians-kovrig-spavor-after-extradition-against-meng-wanzhou-dropped-1.5598969

    Meng and the US prosecution reached a deal where she pleads guilty to a lesser charge but can go back to China. Canada can then drop the extradition trial as it is no longer needed. Once the extradition was dropped (China got what it want) it released the Michaels.

    Grond0
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,255
    Another good read. Authoritarian leaning is not just a right-wing phenomenon. Gee, who woulda thought?

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/psychological-dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 25
    I'm seeing alot of stories like this the last week, and it comes off to me as (mostly) complete BS. The new excuse is that people want to get the vaccine, but can't, because it requires things like getting to a place that has it and doing it when you're not working.

    Look, I understand the problem of the logistics of this. I don't have a car either (by choice, but still). I also understand what it's like to not have alot of money. But these "excuses" don't just apply to vaccines. Literally ANYTHING you do in this society that isn't your job involves going somewhere when you're not at work, and finding a way to get there. This isn't like voting in a Presidential election, where you have a 12-hour window once every 4 years if your state doesn't offer alternatives. This thing has been available at pharmacies, grocery stores, not to mention clinics for MONTHS, and it doesn't cost a dime.

    If anything, it is far easier to find a vaccine at this point than MOST things you probably shop for or put on your to-do list. I don't understand why this excuse is being trotted out for this when you could easily apply it to any routine, necessary activity. No one would say "well yes, she should have fed her kids, but going to the grocery store requires travel and time off work, so I can understand why she didn't". Again, EVERYTHING you do that isn't work requires using time you are off work.

    People also apparently still think the vaccine costs money. I mean, good god, it has been shouted from the rooftops by the President himself a dozen times. Could he make a speech about it everyday and say the same thing?? I guess. But at some point we're dealing with people who aren't receiving the correct information because they a.) don't pay attention to anything and b.) are choosing to pay attention to sources that confirm what they already believe. Eventually, you have to take some responsibility to consume and receive information that is important and not spend every waking second watching football or Real Housewives. How about a little civic engagement??

    I feel like this subject is turning me into a caricature of a cranky conservative, but fuck man, this is not difficult stuff, nor is it remotely as hard to obtain as people are making it out to be. The doses are just sitting there waiting all over the damn place:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/23/covid-unvaccinated-but-willing/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    ThacoBellBalrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,255
    edited September 25
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'm seeing alot of stories like this the last week, and it comes off to me as (mostly) complete BS. The new excuse is that people want to get the vaccine, but can't, because it requires things like getting to a place that has it and doing it when you're not working.

    Look, I understand the problem of the logistics of this. I don't have a car either (by choice, but still). I also understand what it's like to not have alot of money. But these "excuses" don't just apply to vaccines. Literally ANYTHING you do in this society that isn't your job involves going somewhere when you're not at work, and finding a way to get there. This isn't like voting in a Presidential election, where you have a 12-hour window once every 4 years if your state doesn't offer alternatives. This thing has been available at pharmacies, grocery stores, not to mention clinics for MONTHS, and it doesn't cost a dime.

    If anything, it is far easier to find a vaccine at this point than MOST things you probably shop for or put on your to-do list. I don't understand why this excuse is being trotted out for this when you could easily apply it any routine, necessary activity. No one would say "well yes, she should have fed her kids, but going to the grocery store requires travel and time off work, so I can understand why she didn't". Again, EVERYTHING you do that isn't work requires using time you are off work.

    People also apparently still think the vaccine costs money. I mean, good god, it has been shouted from the rooftops by the President himself a dozen times. Could he make a speech about it everyday and say the same thing?? I guess. But at some point we're dealing with people who aren't receiving the correct information because they a.) don't pay attention to anything and b.) are choosing to pay attention to sources that confirm what they already believe. Eventually, you have to take some responsibility to consume and receive information that is important and not spend every waking second watching football or Real Housewives. How about a little civic engagement??

    I feel like this subject is turning me into a caricature of a cranky conservative, but fuck man, this is not difficult stuff, nor is it remotely as hard to obtain as people are making it out to be. The doses are just sitting there waiting all over the damn place:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/23/covid-unvaccinated-but-willing/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    Maybe the government should send healthcare workers to knock on their doors and offer them a jab. I'm sure that's what they're waiting for...

    Edit: Better yet, equip the Amazon drivers with vaccine injectors. That way they can get a jab when their Christmas presents get dropped off. "Here's your X-Box sir. Would you like a Moderna, or a Pfizer shot with that?".

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 25
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'm seeing alot of stories like this the last week, and it comes off to me as (mostly) complete BS. The new excuse is that people want to get the vaccine, but can't, because it requires things like getting to a place that has it and doing it when you're not working.

    Look, I understand the problem of the logistics of this. I don't have a car either (by choice, but still). I also understand what it's like to not have alot of money. But these "excuses" don't just apply to vaccines. Literally ANYTHING you do in this society that isn't your job involves going somewhere when you're not at work, and finding a way to get there. This isn't like voting in a Presidential election, where you have a 12-hour window once every 4 years if your state doesn't offer alternatives. This thing has been available at pharmacies, grocery stores, not to mention clinics for MONTHS, and it doesn't cost a dime.

    If anything, it is far easier to find a vaccine at this point than MOST things you probably shop for or put on your to-do list. I don't understand why this excuse is being trotted out for this when you could easily apply it any routine, necessary activity. No one would say "well yes, she should have fed her kids, but going to the grocery store requires travel and time off work, so I can understand why she didn't". Again, EVERYTHING you do that isn't work requires using time you are off work.

    People also apparently still think the vaccine costs money. I mean, good god, it has been shouted from the rooftops by the President himself a dozen times. Could he make a speech about it everyday and say the same thing?? I guess. But at some point we're dealing with people who aren't receiving the correct information because they a.) don't pay attention to anything and b.) are choosing to pay attention to sources that confirm what they already believe. Eventually, you have to take some responsibility to consume and receive information that is important and not spend every waking second watching football or Real Housewives. How about a little civic engagement??

    I feel like this subject is turning me into a caricature of a cranky conservative, but fuck man, this is not difficult stuff, nor is it remotely as hard to obtain as people are making it out to be. The doses are just sitting there waiting all over the damn place:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/23/covid-unvaccinated-but-willing/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    Maybe the government should send healthcare workers to knock on their doors and offer them a jab. I'm sure that's what they're waiting for...

    Edit: Better yet, equip the Amazon drivers with vaccine injectors. That way they can get a jab when their Christmas presents get dropped off. "Here's your X-Box sir. Would you like a Moderna, or a Pfizer shot with that?".

    I mean, this is exactly the kind of jokes I was making with a co-worker over IM the other day. I mean, no one is going to deliver it to your bedroom for you. When people WERE suggesting door to door outreach, people claimed it was tyranny. So we jokingly suggested we put vaccines in blow-darts and shoot them at passerby from the bushes, like the class bullies would do with spitballs in junior high.

    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,255
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'm seeing alot of stories like this the last week, and it comes off to me as (mostly) complete BS. The new excuse is that people want to get the vaccine, but can't, because it requires things like getting to a place that has it and doing it when you're not working.

    Look, I understand the problem of the logistics of this. I don't have a car either (by choice, but still). I also understand what it's like to not have alot of money. But these "excuses" don't just apply to vaccines. Literally ANYTHING you do in this society that isn't your job involves going somewhere when you're not at work, and finding a way to get there. This isn't like voting in a Presidential election, where you have a 12-hour window once every 4 years if your state doesn't offer alternatives. This thing has been available at pharmacies, grocery stores, not to mention clinics for MONTHS, and it doesn't cost a dime.

    If anything, it is far easier to find a vaccine at this point than MOST things you probably shop for or put on your to-do list. I don't understand why this excuse is being trotted out for this when you could easily apply it any routine, necessary activity. No one would say "well yes, she should have fed her kids, but going to the grocery store requires travel and time off work, so I can understand why she didn't". Again, EVERYTHING you do that isn't work requires using time you are off work.

    People also apparently still think the vaccine costs money. I mean, good god, it has been shouted from the rooftops by the President himself a dozen times. Could he make a speech about it everyday and say the same thing?? I guess. But at some point we're dealing with people who aren't receiving the correct information because they a.) don't pay attention to anything and b.) are choosing to pay attention to sources that confirm what they already believe. Eventually, you have to take some responsibility to consume and receive information that is important and not spend every waking second watching football or Real Housewives. How about a little civic engagement??

    I feel like this subject is turning me into a caricature of a cranky conservative, but fuck man, this is not difficult stuff, nor is it remotely as hard to obtain as people are making it out to be. The doses are just sitting there waiting all over the damn place:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/23/covid-unvaccinated-but-willing/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    Maybe the government should send healthcare workers to knock on their doors and offer them a jab. I'm sure that's what they're waiting for...

    Edit: Better yet, equip the Amazon drivers with vaccine injectors. That way they can get a jab when their Christmas presents get dropped off. "Here's your X-Box sir. Would you like a Moderna, or a Pfizer shot with that?".

    I mean, this is exactly the kind of jokes I was making with a co-worker over IM the other day. I mean, no one is going to deliver it to your bedroom for you. When people WERE suggesting door to door outreach, people claimed it was tyranny. So we jokingly suggested we put vaccines in blow-darts and shoot them at passerby from the bushes, like the class bullies would do with spitballs in junior high.

    Or we can just hope they eat their 'salads'. 😉

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/09/24/covid-19-vaccines-in-salad-dressing-heres-what-michael-flynn-claimed/

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'm seeing alot of stories like this the last week, and it comes off to me as (mostly) complete BS. The new excuse is that people want to get the vaccine, but can't, because it requires things like getting to a place that has it and doing it when you're not working.

    Look, I understand the problem of the logistics of this. I don't have a car either (by choice, but still). I also understand what it's like to not have alot of money. But these "excuses" don't just apply to vaccines. Literally ANYTHING you do in this society that isn't your job involves going somewhere when you're not at work, and finding a way to get there. This isn't like voting in a Presidential election, where you have a 12-hour window once every 4 years if your state doesn't offer alternatives. This thing has been available at pharmacies, grocery stores, not to mention clinics for MONTHS, and it doesn't cost a dime.

    If anything, it is far easier to find a vaccine at this point than MOST things you probably shop for or put on your to-do list. I don't understand why this excuse is being trotted out for this when you could easily apply it any routine, necessary activity. No one would say "well yes, she should have fed her kids, but going to the grocery store requires travel and time off work, so I can understand why she didn't". Again, EVERYTHING you do that isn't work requires using time you are off work.

    People also apparently still think the vaccine costs money. I mean, good god, it has been shouted from the rooftops by the President himself a dozen times. Could he make a speech about it everyday and say the same thing?? I guess. But at some point we're dealing with people who aren't receiving the correct information because they a.) don't pay attention to anything and b.) are choosing to pay attention to sources that confirm what they already believe. Eventually, you have to take some responsibility to consume and receive information that is important and not spend every waking second watching football or Real Housewives. How about a little civic engagement??

    I feel like this subject is turning me into a caricature of a cranky conservative, but fuck man, this is not difficult stuff, nor is it remotely as hard to obtain as people are making it out to be. The doses are just sitting there waiting all over the damn place:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/23/covid-unvaccinated-but-willing/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    Maybe the government should send healthcare workers to knock on their doors and offer them a jab. I'm sure that's what they're waiting for...

    Edit: Better yet, equip the Amazon drivers with vaccine injectors. That way they can get a jab when their Christmas presents get dropped off. "Here's your X-Box sir. Would you like a Moderna, or a Pfizer shot with that?".

    I mean, this is exactly the kind of jokes I was making with a co-worker over IM the other day. I mean, no one is going to deliver it to your bedroom for you. When people WERE suggesting door to door outreach, people claimed it was tyranny. So we jokingly suggested we put vaccines in blow-darts and shoot them at passerby from the bushes, like the class bullies would do with spitballs in junior high.

    Or we can just hope they eat their 'salads'. 😉

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/09/24/covid-19-vaccines-in-salad-dressing-heres-what-michael-flynn-claimed/

    Yeah, I was gonna mention that too but figured I wasn't even up for discussing something that ridiculous today.

    Balrog99
Sign In or Register to comment.