Politics

[Hunt anything]

Damn, I’m about to walk into my doctors office and my Blood pressure is going to be way up. Thanks @spike

 

[mdwest]

If I thought DeSatis or Haley would have a voice in a Trump administration, I might feel better. But they won’t and neither will anyone else he selects. He’s a one-man show and will not tolerate independent thinking. I may have to vote for him for the lack of decent options, but I can’t see how a running mate will be anything but window dressing.

He might surprise us... but.. I unfortunately agree.. I dont see either DeSantis or Haley accepting if he did offer to be honest.. Both have their eyes on a future POTUS run.. both know shy of Trump getting convicted, which would throw the entire country into absolute chaos.. they wont pick up the ticket in 2024... but I'm sure theyre already making plans and preparing for 2028.. being Trumps #2, even if he had a wildly successful second tour in office would do little to nothing to set them up for taking the reigns in 2028 (as Doug points out.. a Trump VP is going to be expected to be seen, and not heard.. and always 100% in lockstep with every decision/move)..

Im thinking he goes with Noem or Tim Scott.. or possibly Sarah Huckabee.. All three have been loyalists.. and while I am sure all three would love a shot at the POTUS chair themselves at some point.. I dont think they look at things through the same lens as DeSantis or Haley....

I feel pretty certain all three of them will be looking at cabinet positions at a minimum if Trump retakes the Whitehouse (whichever one doesnt get picked for VP).. Which honestly might be a better position if their longer term goal includes becoming POTUS in 2028 or later..

 

[BSO Dave]

My concern is that the "polls" have proven themselves wholly unreliable over the last 2 election cycles.. to include the "reputable" ones..

No argument here... I have no delusions in regard to poll numbers and how they can be off...

HOWEVER, my point in citing poll numbers in regard to Trump's support was to refute the assertion that Trump's support is solely a MAGA-based fringe minority of populists, and not indicative of the majority of republicans... 63% of voting republicans say they will vote for Trump with 4 other candidates still in the race. A 45-point margin exists between him and the next 2 republican candidates. If it was indeed a fringe minority, the numbers between Trump and the other 4 candidates would be much, much narrower... Those numbers are leagues beyond the margin of error for any poll and is absolutely not suggestive of a fringe minority of supporters in any universe.

As far as the rest of your analysis, I agree for the most part.... Biden is hemorrhaging voters by the truck load... Traditionally, when democrats are not enthusiastic about their candidate, they don't vote...That's why it's even more important for republicans to vote for the R nominee whoever it happens to be.

As far as republicans who will not vote for Trump should he become the nominee, that is where we disagree... I don't understand it. It makes no logical sense. Sometimes you have to make a decision beyond yourself and take one for the team, simply because the alternative is completely unthinkable. Like it or not, this looks as if this will be one of those times...

BTW, another poll just came out in regard to independent support for Trump surging ahead of Biden... Take it for what it's worth...

MSN

 

[John Wasmuth]

No argument here... I have no delusions in regard to poll numbers and how they can be off...

HOWEVER, my point in citing poll numbers in regard to Trump's support was to refute the assertion that Trump's support is solely a MAGA-based fringe minority of populists, and not indicative of the majority of republicans... 63% of voting republicans say they will vote for Trump with 4 other candidates still in the race. A 45-point margin exists between him and the next 2 republican candidates. If it was indeed a fringe minority, the numbers between Trump and the other 4 candidates would be much, much narrower... Those numbers are leagues beyond the margin of error for any poll and is absolutely not suggestive of a fringe minority of supporters in any universe.

As far as the rest of your analysis, I agree for the most part.... Biden is hemorrhaging voters by the truck load... Traditionally, when democrats are not enthusiastic about their candidate, they don't vote...That's why it's even more important for republicans to vote for the R nominee whoever it happens to be.

As far as republicans who will not vote for Trump should he become the nominee, that is where we disagree... I don't understand it. It makes no logical sense. Sometimes you have to make a decision beyond yourself and take one for the team, simply because the alternative is completely unthinkable. Like it or not, this looks as if this will be one of those times...

BTW, another poll just came out in regard to independent support for Trump surging ahead of Biden... Take it for what it's worth...

MSN

Some people would rather watch the U.S. slip int obscurity and feel good about it since after all, “ I can tell all my friends I didn’t vote for the R guy cuz he hurt my feelings, I sure showed him…..”…….. kind of pitiful really.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I am going to take exception with that.

Having personal integrity is not pitiful. Standing by one's convictions is not pitiful.

Trump did not hurt my feelings. Frankly no one in this world has that ability, to include my family and my friends. What he has done is to not comport himself in a way that I think is befitting of someone I want to represent my values - to represent me.

I'll come at it from the other direction: I have some degree of disdain for lemmings. It shows a lack of spine. That's what Trump wants: lemmings.

Bottom line: we all have to decide what's tolerable/desirable. For me, he is neither.

 

[BSO Dave]

But if our material support of Ukraine ends because of the likes of Donald Trump, the Freedom Caucus, and their slogan shouting followers, they will own for posterity the destruction of Ukraine. Even more dangerously, they will own decisively supporting Putin and Russia in the strategic goal to become the dominate power on the Eurasion land mass. They will own the murder and imprisonment, not of a bunch of allah akbar shouting mountain tribesmen, but of the pro-western intellectual and political class which the Russians will exterminate wholesale - an incredibly brave European people who have asked for nothing but the means to fight an invader. That I think is what Trump supporters are missing and it sickens me.

I am completely aware of your opinions in regard to U.S. support for Ukraine, so you do not need to reiterate your position and your reasons for me... However, what I don't understand is how the U.S. is 100% responsible for the eventual fate of Ukraine? Do the other dozen or so European countries that are providing aid to Ukraine have any of this responsibility for blood on their hands besides the U.S? How about Japan, Canada, and Australia, or any of the many countries supporting Ukraine that also view Russia as an existential threat? Do they have any responsibility?

Seems to me that those countries sharing a border or at least a short-range missile proximity to Russia would have a much more urgent "support Ukraine at all costs" mentality to address the threat of future Russian aggression. Yet, if Ukraine falls, it's all on us?

In regard to what Trump supporters are missing, I don't think the uncertainty about our support of Ukraine is exclusive to just Trump supporters. Americans are pretty evenly divided in regard to U.S. support for Ukraine and more specifically how that support has been provided... Additionally, I think the opposition is not so much against supporting Ukraine's fight against Russia per se, but more in the lack of a presentation of a clear mission, financial accountability, and any plan for the end game all of which has never been provided by this current Administration.

I believe that most Americans would be in favor of supporting Ukraine at least to some extent, but not blindly and unconditionally. I also believe that these concerns over this Administration's priorities are completely valid when we have multiple serious crises going here at home and many folks are living paycheck to paycheck... When you hear your POTUS pledging to give "whatever it takes for as long as it takes" with no definitive costs, timelines, or any specific strategy, to help fight a proxy war with Russia, it angers some people and scares the shit out of others.... And, rightly so in my opinion... For folks with two jobs who still can't pay their bills, watching billions in tax dollars going to a war on the other side of the world with no end in sight is hard to comprehend for many folks. Perhaps that is what you are missing in all this?

 

[Altitude sickness]

Trumps son and grandson recently in Tanzania

 

[wesheltonj]

As did Texas (12-1).

Florida State got screwed. I say that and I have NEVER been a Florida State fan. Are Texas and Alabama better teams now? Very probably. But what the crap was the purpose of the rest of the season if you're going to make them bend over and take it at the end. It won't happen but I hope both Texas and Alabama take it in the shorts by at least two touchdowns in their games.

You and I agree on one thing and that's that FSU got screwed. However, Texas should have been number four, and Alabama should not have been in. I hope that Texas kills Washington and when that happens I will be trying to convince my wife that the best seats are at home with a drink in our hands while we watch UT become National Champs and not paying "ticket resellers" to watch the name from the nose bleed section.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

@wesheltonj ... Of the two we agree: Texas should have been the one to go. Because I do not have the allegiances your household apparently does, I stand by what I said: I want the two the committee elevated over FSU to look bad.

I get that Florida State probably would have looked bad. But 1) their #2 QB would have been back, and had plenty of snaps with the first team and 2) they earned the right to prove it or not, IMHO.

 

[wesheltonj]

@wesheltonj ... Of the two we agree: Texas should have been the one to go. Because I do not have the allegiances your household apparently does, I stand by what I said: I want the two the committee elevated over FSU to look bad.

I get that Florida State probably would have looked bad. But 1) their #2 QB would have been back, and had plenty of snaps with the first team and 2) they earned the right to prove it or not, IMHO.

Except Texas beat Alabama at Alabama by 10 points. Alabama had no business in the play offs a three way tie. Even with that allegiance to UT, I still believe the UT should have been #4 and not #3. And our household also has allegiance to Texas A&M too, but under duress.

 

[geoff rath]

Could fix their declining population with the help of the US. Just funnel all the illegal border crossers to the coast, load them on boats and deliver them to China. Both problems solved.

The PRC could take the pro-hamas palestinians as well...

 

[ActionBob]

He might surprise us... but.. I unfortunately agree.. I dont see either DeSantis or Haley accepting if he did offer to be honest.. Both have their eyes on a future POTUS run.. both know shy of Trump getting convicted, which would throw the entire country into absolute chaos.. they wont pick up the ticket in 2024... but I'm sure theyre already making plans and preparing for 2028.. being Trumps #2, even if he had a wildly successful second tour in office would do little to nothing to set them up for taking the reigns in 2028 (as Doug points out.. a Trump VP is going to be expected to be seen, and not heard.. and always 100% in lockstep with every decision/move)..

Im thinking he goes with Noem or Tim Scott.. or possibly Sarah Huckabee.. All three have been loyalists.. and while I am sure all three would love a shot at the POTUS chair themselves at some point.. I dont think they look at things through the same lens as DeSantis or Haley....

I feel pretty certain all three of them will be looking at cabinet positions at a minimum if Trump retakes the Whitehouse (whichever one doesnt get picked for VP).. Which honestly might be a better position if their longer term goal includes becoming POTUS in 2028 or later..

What about Vivik Ramaswamy? I took him to really be sucking up to Trump in the first debate. He wants to drain the swamp. He has enough off the wall whacko thoughts on Foreign Policy to be a fit.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Except Texas beat Alabama at Alabama by 10 points. Alabama had no business in the play offs a three way tie. Even with that allegiance to UT, I still believe the UT should have been #4 and not #3. And our household also has allegiance to Texas A&M too, but under duress.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Under duress...

I totally agree: TX should have been the 4, and it should have been Alabama left out.

I really don't have a dog in the fight: my alma mater is a DII school. Go Tigers!!!!

 

[steve white]

If I thought DeSatis or Haley would have a voice in a Trump administration, I might feel better. But they won’t and neither will anyone else he selects. He’s a one-man show and will not tolerate independent thinking. I may have to vote for him for the lack of decent options, but I can’t see how a running mate will be anything but window dressing.

Well, someone would have to be a successor--why not someone you already want?

 

[mdwest]

What about Vivik Ramaswamy? I took him to really be sucking up to Trump in the first debate. He wants to drain the swamp. He has enough off the wall whacko thoughts on Foreign Policy to be a fit.

Im totally guessing.. but I'd put him in the maybe category..

I think he probably has too strong of a personality.. and as a successful CEO himself I dont see him back seating to Trump very well (and dont think Trump would like that much)..

 

[Boyd Brooks]

 

[Red Leg]

I am completely aware of your opinions in regard to U.S. support for Ukraine, so you do not need to reiterate your position and your reasons for me... However, what I don't understand is how the U.S. is 100% responsible for the eventual fate of Ukraine? Do the other dozen or so European countries that are providing aid to Ukraine have any of this responsibility for blood on their hands besides the U.S? How about Japan, Canada, and Australia, or any of the many countries supporting Ukraine that also view Russia as an existential threat? Do they have any responsibility?

Seems to me that those countries sharing a border or at least a short-range missile proximity to Russia would have a much more urgent "support Ukraine at all costs" mentality to address the threat of future Russian aggression. Yet, if Ukraine falls, it's all on us?

In regard to what Trump supporters are missing, I don't think the uncertainty about our support of Ukraine is exclusive to just Trump supporters. Americans are pretty evenly divided in regard to U.S. support for Ukraine and more specifically how that support has been provided... Additionally, I think the opposition is not so much against supporting Ukraine's fight against Russia per se, but more in the lack of a presentation of a clear mission, financial accountability, and any plan for the end game all of which has never been provided by this current Administration.

I believe that most Americans would be in favor of supporting Ukraine at least to some extent, but not blindly and unconditionally. I also believe that these concerns over this Administration's priorities are completely valid when we have multiple serious crises going here at home and many folks are living paycheck to paycheck... When you hear your POTUS pledging to give "whatever it takes for as long as it takes" with no definitive costs, timelines, or any specific strategy, to help fight a proxy war with Russia, it angers some people and scares the shit out of others.... And, rightly so in my opinion... For folks with two jobs who still can't pay their bills, watching billions in tax dollars going to a war on the other side of the world with no end in sight is hard to comprehend for many folks. Perhaps that is what you are missing in all this?

I get so tired of the argument that Europe isn't doing enough. It is one of the single most uninformed assertions made about the war in Ukraine. Let's explore the facts a bit.

I think even the average Trump supporter would understand that some economies, like some individual incomes, are larger than others. Those with greater resources have more resources to invest in any enterprise. For instance, if Elon Musk gives a million dollars to Tunnel to Towers that is good thing. Were a librarian to give a thousand dollars to the same charity that would be something far different. That is basic 10th grade economics.

Therefore, in the case of individuals, it is the proportion of income that is contributed that is meaningful. With respect to nation states, percentage of GDP is a common tool to measure the actual scale of a financial commitment to a particular international enterprise or investment. The table at the link below provides bilateral aid totals per country in terms of percentage of GDP from Jan 24, 22 to May 31, 23.

Take a moment, open it, and actually look at it.

Bilateral aid to Ukraine by country GDP 2024 | Statista

Estonia and Denmark had the highest ratio of bilateral support to Ukraine to donor GDP as of February2024. Poland ranked sixth by GDP share of aid to Ukraine.

www.statista.com

Not only is the United States the second to last in percentage of GDP - followed only by Sweden - a position rapidly changing with Sweden's joining NATO - but the Central European border states you highlighted are some of the largest contributors by percentage of GDP. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the three Baltic states most immediately threatened by Russian aggression are the most generous.

But we are by far the largest economy with by far the most powerful military. A resurgent Russia is a significant threat to this country - particularly allied to China. We should be doing more.

I would agree that this administration has not only done a terrible job explaining the importance of stopping Russia's strategic goals, I also think they have done a terrible job in implementing a strategy to achieve it. I find that not surprising considering the incompetence of our president and the inexperience of the nation's national security advisor. In short, we should have been doing far more far quicker. But none of that makes the effort any less important - simply harder to accomplish.

I ask again, in what world would supporting Russian strategic goals to militarily dominate the Eurasian land mass ever be in the interests of the United States.

 

[geoff rath]

View attachment 572955

They've already got Albanese and WONG, our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister...

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

I get so tired of the argument that Europe isn't doing enough. It is one of the single most uninformed assertions made about the war in Ukraine. Let's explore the facts a bit.

Bilateral aid to Ukraine by country GDP 2024 | Statista

Estonia and Denmark had the highest ratio of bilateral support to Ukraine to donor GDP as of February2024. Poland ranked sixth by GDP share of aid to Ukraine.

www.statista.com

I ask again, in what world would supporting Russian strategic goals to militarily dominate the Eurasian land mass ever be in the interests of the United States.

Thanks @Red Leg ! The chart clearly shows the financial contributions of different countries in defeating Putin's desire for Russia to dominate Eurasia.

I opened up the chart searching for Moldova's contributions and didn't find anything listed. I know it is not a rich country but I was thinking, where is Moldova? They are next on Putin's list. Then I read this in today's Wall Street Journal:

Opinion | Russia Has Designs on Moldova

The tiny state near Ukraine is next on the Kremlin menu.

www.wsj.com

Ukraine may be out of funding but it is losing a generation of young men. This is the least that we can do.

 

[ActionBob]

I get so tired of the argument that Europe isn't doing enough. It is one of the single most uninformed assertions made about the war in Ukraine. Let's explore the facts a bit.

I think even the average Trump supporter would understand that some economies, like some individual incomes, are larger than others. Those with greater resources have more resources to invest in any enterprise. For instance, if Elon Musk gives a million dollars to Tunnel to Towers that is good thing. Were a librarian to give a thousand dollars to the same charity that would be something far different. That is basic 10th grade economics.

Therefore, in the case of individuals, it is the proportion of income that is contributed that is meaningful. With respect to nation states, percentage of GDP is a common tool to measure the actual scale of a financial commitment to a particular international enterprise or investment. The table at the link below provides bilateral aid totals per country in terms of percentage of GDP from Jan 24, 22 to May 31, 23.

Take a moment, open it, and actually look at it.

Bilateral aid to Ukraine by country GDP 2024 | Statista

Estonia and Denmark had the highest ratio of bilateral support to Ukraine to donor GDP as of February2024. Poland ranked sixth by GDP share of aid to Ukraine.

www.statista.com

Not only is the United States the second to last in percentage of GDP - followed only by Sweden - a position rapidly changing with Sweden's joining NATO - but the Central European border states you highlighted are some of the largest contributors by percentage of GDP. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the three Baltic states most immediately threatened by Russian aggression are the most generous.

But we are by far the largest economy with by far the most powerful military. A resurgent Russia is a significant threat to this country - particularly allied to China. We should be doing more.

I would agree that this administration has not only done a terrible job explaining the importance of stopping Russia's strategic goals, I also think they have done a terrible job in implementing a strategy to achieve it. I find that not surprising considering the incompetence of our president and the inexperience of the nation's national security advisor. In short, we should have been doing far more far quicker. But none of that makes the effort any less important - simply harder to accomplish.

I ask again, in what world would supporting Russian strategic goals to militarily dominate the Eurasian land mass ever be in the interests of the United States.

Joe you have made the point many times and very clearly that in regards to the actual cost of the military items provided to Ukraine, it is much lower than actually budgeted or accounted for as a lot of the munitions and vehicles were scheduled to be decommissioned or scrapped anyway. Therefore I'm assuming our ranking on that chart in actual real dollars of net cost to taxpayers is probably off a bit.