** KAMALA HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT -PART DEUX **
Comments
-
In Philadelphia during the Influenza outbreak, city leaders refused to honor masking and isolation recommendations. Instead they had a parade, leading to huge acceleration of the outbreak, and of course significant death. You're right, we don't learn shit.njhaley1 said:
I'm in healthcare/infectious disease, and the way he handled all of this - and directed his minions to handle it - was beyond mortifying and still pisses me right the F off. I have absolutely zero patience or tolerance for the anti-vax bullshit he forced on the country.Tim Simmons said:I don’t blame him for Covid, but the Obama admin had in place a program to deal with a pandemic, but Trumps admin disregarded it.
At the same time, not unprecedented. There was a plague outbreak in San Francisco in the early 1900s and city/state politicians did everything they could to vilify the man leading the charge against it. Blamed the Chinese for it then, too. History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.0 -
Yeah, that’s my problem with some of this bad faith pushback (policy successes/failures, a president as a friend, vibes). Ignoring the failures on just a decent human being level, this man tried to overthrow the government. We’re comparing these people on an apples to apples basis. Which fine if Trumps presidency was normal, but it didn’t end normal at all.mrussel1 said:Oh and @EdsonNascimento, not only was Jan 6th completely disqualifying forevermore, it was criminal in my book. So I don't care if Harris has a policy that you can take a shit on sidewalks, that's still better than turning a mob on the Capitol.0 -
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.mrussel1 said:
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.pjl44 said:
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.mrussel1 said:
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.EdsonNascimento said:
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.mrussel1 said:
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:EdsonNascimento said:
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?Halifax2TheMax said:
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.EdsonNascimento said:
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.The Juggler said:
Lol...right.pjl44 said:
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.EdsonNascimento said:
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.Gern Blansten said:
53/47 Harris...I can live with that
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to.
2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia.
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion
2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis.
3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.0 -
Don't claim you've got peace in the middle east and don't even address Palestine. Like I said, those two countries are all well and good. Congrats. But Trump didn't attack the one that, to your point, vexes everyone. Sorry, it's not even close to moving my vote. And don't condescend me either. I've got a firm grasp, but I don't fall for shallow victories.pjl44 said:
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.mrussel1 said:
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.pjl44 said:
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.mrussel1 said:
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.EdsonNascimento said:
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.mrussel1 said:
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:EdsonNascimento said:
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?Halifax2TheMax said:
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.EdsonNascimento said:
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.The Juggler said:
Lol...right.pjl44 said:
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.EdsonNascimento said:
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.Gern Blansten said:
53/47 Harris...I can live with that
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to.
2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia.
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion
2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis.
3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.0 -
Look I'm sorry but if you're intimating that the Abraham Accords were about staving off a hot war between Bahrain and Israel, some light condescension is justifiedmrussel1 said:
Don't claim you've got peace in the middle east and don't even address Palestine. Like I said, those two countries are all well and good. Congrats. But Trump didn't attack the one that, to your point, vexes everyone. Sorry, it's not even close to moving my vote. And don't condescend me either. I've got a firm grasp, but I don't fall for shallow victories.pjl44 said:
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.mrussel1 said:
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.pjl44 said:
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.mrussel1 said:
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.EdsonNascimento said:
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.mrussel1 said:
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:EdsonNascimento said:
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?Halifax2TheMax said:
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.EdsonNascimento said:
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.The Juggler said:
Lol...right.pjl44 said:
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.EdsonNascimento said:
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.Gern Blansten said:
53/47 Harris...I can live with that
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to.
2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia.
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion
2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis.
3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.0 -
chicago has fallen._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Evidently you just missed the sardonic nature of my post. I'm still struggling with your 'coin flip' comment.pjl44 said:
Look I'm sorry but if you're intimating that the Abraham Accords were about staving off a hot war between Bahrain and Israel, some light condescension is justifiedmrussel1 said:
Don't claim you've got peace in the middle east and don't even address Palestine. Like I said, those two countries are all well and good. Congrats. But Trump didn't attack the one that, to your point, vexes everyone. Sorry, it's not even close to moving my vote. And don't condescend me either. I've got a firm grasp, but I don't fall for shallow victories.pjl44 said:
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.mrussel1 said:
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.pjl44 said:
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.mrussel1 said:
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.EdsonNascimento said:
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.mrussel1 said:
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:EdsonNascimento said:
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?Halifax2TheMax said:
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.EdsonNascimento said:
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.The Juggler said:
Lol...right.pjl44 said:
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.EdsonNascimento said:
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.Gern Blansten said:
53/47 Harris...I can live with that
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to.
2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia.
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion
2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis.
3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
But I guess we forgot to discuss Sudan as well, who got a guaranteed loan for their still, un-ratified treaty.
And do you give Biden credit for normalizing relations between Israel and Oman?
If Trump was the first president to negotiate normalized relations between an Arab country and Israel, then maybe some extra credit. But he wasn't.
0 -
A few pages back, @pjl44 brought up the very important point that, despite what you or I might think about the whole situation, Trump and Harris are still polling neck and neck for all intents and purposes. Given what you and I firmly believe in our hearts about the guy, why is this race so damn close?mrussel1 said:
I'm still struggling with your 'coin flip' comment.pjl44 said:
Look I'm sorry but if you're intimating that the Abraham Accords were about staving off a hot war between Bahrain and Israel, some light condescension is justifiedmrussel1 said:
Don't claim you've got peace in the middle east and don't even address Palestine. Like I said, those two countries are all well and good. Congrats. But Trump didn't attack the one that, to your point, vexes everyone. Sorry, it's not even close to moving my vote. And don't condescend me either. I've got a firm grasp, but I don't fall for shallow victories.pjl44 said:
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.mrussel1 said:
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.pjl44 said:
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.mrussel1 said:
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.EdsonNascimento said:
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.mrussel1 said:
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:EdsonNascimento said:
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?Halifax2TheMax said:
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.EdsonNascimento said:
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.The Juggler said:
Lol...right.pjl44 said:
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.EdsonNascimento said:
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.Gern Blansten said:
53/47 Harris...I can live with that
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to.
2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia.
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion
2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis.
3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
There are moderate/independents who still need reaching, and for some like @pjl44 that requires a real thorough discussion of policy. Can't fault them for that and I agree, despite being sold on Harris by a long shot.0 -
So Trump didn’t mobilize and help get funding for the vaccines and get it produced in a record time? Oknjhaley1 said:
I'm in healthcare/infectious disease, and the way he handled all of this - and directed his minions to handle it - was beyond mortifying and still pisses me right the F off. I have absolutely zero patience or tolerance for the anti-vax bullshit he forced on the country.Tim Simmons said:I don’t blame him for Covid, but the Obama admin had in place a program to deal with a pandemic, but Trumps admin disregarded it.
At the same time, not unprecedented. There was a plague outbreak in San Francisco in the early 1900s and city/state politicians did everything they could to vilify the man leading the charge against it. Blamed the Chinese for it then, too. History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
0 -
Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.0
-
That's about as long as a response needs to be. He treated the very people he needed to help get things under control terribly, and directed his cult following to do the same in the single largest assault - literally and figuratively - on my profession in my lifetime.Tim Simmons said:Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.
May as well pat him on the back for wearing a rubber while banging a porn star behind his pregnant wife's back.0 -
He did, but he also sabotaged his own strategy with his comments and giving oxygen to the anti-vax movement. He was caught between what he knew to be right, and his MAGA base of crazy people.teskeinc said:
So Trump didn’t mobilize and help get funding for the vaccines and get it produced in a record time? Oknjhaley1 said:
I'm in healthcare/infectious disease, and the way he handled all of this - and directed his minions to handle it - was beyond mortifying and still pisses me right the F off. I have absolutely zero patience or tolerance for the anti-vax bullshit he forced on the country.Tim Simmons said:I don’t blame him for Covid, but the Obama admin had in place a program to deal with a pandemic, but Trumps admin disregarded it.
At the same time, not unprecedented. There was a plague outbreak in San Francisco in the early 1900s and city/state politicians did everything they could to vilify the man leading the charge against it. Blamed the Chinese for it then, too. History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.0 -
Checking my notes... he went bareback.njhaley1 said:
That's about as long as a response needs to be. He treated the very people he needed to help get things under control terribly, and directed his cult following to do the same in the single largest assault - literally and figuratively - on my profession in my lifetime.Tim Simmons said:Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.
May as well pat him on the back for wearing a rubber while banging a porn star behind his pregnant wife's back.0 -
He did many things well. Plenty of Democratic politicians (Newsom) in particular thanked Trump for bypassing red tape and getting their states what they needed quickly. You all hate Trump, you spend many hours of your lives each day justifying the hate to everyone here, I get it. There were many mistakes made by Trump and then Biden. Following Faucis science was now a fraud. No one knew what to do, even the so called experts.Tim Simmons said:Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.0 -
Yawn. Same old schtick. I have no time for sea lions any more.0
-
Well, now that we have the 20/20 hindsight, what should we have done better to prevent deaths and mitigate spreading the disease?teskeinc said:
He did many things well. Plenty of Democratic politicians (Newsom) in particular thanked Trump for bypassing red tape and getting their states what they needed quickly. You all hate Trump, you spend many hours of your lives each day justifying the hate to everyone here, I get it. There were many mistakes made by Trump and then Biden. Following Faucis science was now a fraud. No one knew what to do, even the so called experts.Tim Simmons said:Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.
0 -
His playbook was straight out of 1920s Soviet Lysenkoism. Hard to say if our country's health care apparatus will ever recover, at least not until Darwin has taken his share.0
-
I don’t think much. Covid is still around. A lot of people got sick in Ireland when Ed did earlier this year. Lockdowns hurt worse, people lost businesses, kids lost a year of education. All because of the 6 foot rule that Fauci made up. People thought masks really worked.Tim Simmons said:
Well, now that we have the 20/20 hindsight, what should we have done better to prevent deaths and mitigate spreading the disease?teskeinc said:
He did many things well. Plenty of Democratic politicians (Newsom) in particular thanked Trump for bypassing red tape and getting their states what they needed quickly. You all hate Trump, you spend many hours of your lives each day justifying the hate to everyone here, I get it. There were many mistakes made by Trump and then Biden. Following Faucis science was now a fraud. No one knew what to do, even the so called experts.Tim Simmons said:Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.Only the KN95s did anything. People still wearing masks now 🤦♂️.
Majority of people that died had underlying factors. Friends of mine that died were overweight, diabetic etc. Maybe a more focused approach on them in hindsight. Forcing vaccines and mask mandates, lockdowns were wrong.I don’t blame Trump or Biden on anything they mishandled. What does that solve? It’s something that is a once in a lifetime (hopefully) and I wouldn’t wish that on any President to have to deal with.0 -
More sea lioning. Yawn.0
-
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help