Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[Michael in ABQ]

On the other hand, when's the last time someone in government bureaucracy was really held accountable? It's very rare for someone to get fired, especially if they're not at the very highest levels (secretary, undersecretary, etc.) and even if they do, they can just go to the private sector and double their income as a consultant/lobbyist. I could bring up numerous examples of malfeasance and incompetence among bureaucrats. But the number who have gone to jail, or lost their pensions, or security clearances, or any meaningful repercussions is almost zero. Even when they've lied to Congress, committed perjury, wasted millions, etc.

Pretty much since Reagan the dominant narrative in Republican politics has been "government bureaucracy is a bad thing, there should be as little of it as possible and it should cost as little as possible".  Keep saying that for 40 years and bad bureaucracy becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.   I'm not seeing many Republicans going to live in the sorts of places that don't have functioning government bureaucracies, though, which makes the whole damn lot of them hypocrites.

There's some many logical fallacies here I don't know where to start. Straw Man, False Dilemma, Appeal to Hypocrisy....



I spent a few years working for the DoD as a civilian. Outdated systems, ridiculously slow processes, little or no accountability for millions of dollars of waste, etc. Needing to get a dozen people in a meeting to make a decision - only to have them punt on the decision for fear of the minor consequences of making the wrong decision. Many things were outsourced to contractors and then you had to add a whole other layer of people to manage the contractors. Then when they failed, there was nothing to do because the contractor can afford to throw multiple people at appeals and claiming it's not their fault (because millions of dollars are on the line) and the government has little incentive to push back because it generates a lot more work to say someone is failing than to just give them a pass. Now "giving them a pass" is institutionalized and everyone is too much of a coward, or can't get the political support, to actually hold them accountable.

[former player]

On the other hand, when's the last time someone in government bureaucracy was really held accountable? It's very rare for someone to get fired, especially if they're not at the very highest levels (secretary, undersecretary, etc.) and even if they do, they can just go to the private sector and double their income as a consultant/lobbyist. I could bring up numerous examples of malfeasance and incompetence among bureaucrats. But the number who have gone to jail, or lost their pensions, or security clearances, or any meaningful repercussions is almost zero. Even when they've lied to Congress, committed perjury, wasted millions, etc.

Pretty much since Reagan the dominant narrative in Republican politics has been "government bureaucracy is a bad thing, there should be as little of it as possible and it should cost as little as possible".  Keep saying that for 40 years and bad bureaucracy becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.   I'm not seeing many Republicans going to live in the sorts of places that don't have functioning government bureaucracies, though, which makes the whole damn lot of them hypocrites.

There's some many logical fallacies here I don't know where to start. Straw Man, False Dilemma, Appeal to Hypocrisy....



I spent a few years working for the DoD as a civilian. Outdated systems, ridiculously slow processes, little or no accountability for millions of dollars of waste, etc. Needing to get a dozen people in a meeting to make a decision - only to have them punt on the decision for fear of the minor consequences of making the wrong decision. Many things were outsourced to contractors and then you had to add a whole other layer of people to manage the contractors. Then when they failed, there was nothing to do because the contractor can afford to throw multiple people at appeals and claiming it's not their fault (because millions of dollars are on the line) and the government has little incentive to push back because it generates a lot more work to say someone is failing than to just give them a pass. Now "giving them a pass" is institutionalized and everyone is too much of a coward, or can't get the political support, to actually hold them accountable.

I'm sure everything you said is true.  But what you don't seem to understand is that there is a large and active part of the Republican Party that doesn't want to fix any of it because they think the whole system is rotten and want rid of it.  They think it's in their interests for it to work as badly as possible, so that they can discredit democracy, get rid of it and move on to what they want, which appears to be an oligarchy of billionaires running their monopolies with no interference from an impotent government.

[Shane]

Shortly after Biden first announced that the federal government would be purchasing 500MM rapid covid tests to give out to Americans for free, a friend told me his kids' school sent home a note to let parents know that they would NOT be accepting at-home, rapid tests to allow children to test back into the classroom after being exposed to covid. Friend was like, "Well, what's the point then?" I'm guessing the point is that somebody's brother-in-law, cousin, or maybe son, stands to make a pile of money off of selling the US government 1/2 billion rapid covid tests. Whether they're accurate, or not, or if they're useful is only a secondary concern. Main thing, Biden wants it to look like he's doing something, anything.

[Travis]

Rapid in-home tests are less accurate, especially for asymptomatic people (false-negative rate of 30% vs <5%). It is well established that self-performed swabs compared to swabs performed by trained personnel have a much higher false negative rate, irrespective of the organism being tested for. Thus the emphasis was on expanding more accurate testing through labs. I personally think the push for in-home testing is a wasteful gamble due to their poor performance characteristics and false reassurance. Since most of these are Elisa antibody tests, there is a risk of a higher false negative rate with omicron. I would not switch tactics right now.


Regarding availability of testing - that has been the purview of the state health agencies for most of the pandemic. Pinning lack of available tests on Biden rather than the multiple factors that go into procuring and distributing tests is plain partisanship. The difference between Trump and Biden is that the latter doesn’t have his head in the sand and is providing guidance in line with health experts much as a figurehead should do. If states and people willfully ignore advice and go travel for the holidays during a surge, there’s not much either president can do about it. As free citizens, we are free to do dumb things.
I also don’t think we as taxpayers should have to pay for the tests at this point, as there is already a government-subsidized solution to this problem.

It is more likely that people are disillusioned now since Biden said "You can take off the masks" back in May but now things are worse than ever.

Seemingly worse than ever.

Anyone who is disillusioned by this info is paying no attention at all to why things are worse.

When does Biden get to take ownership of the crisis? Serious question. We are nearly a year in to his term.

I suppose it depends on what we're giving him credit/blaming him for doing. Presidents like to claim credit for things well outside their limits, and as a result we've come to expect too much from them.

He can't force everybody to be vaccinated, wear masks, or take whatever measures might help the community. He's up against half the politicians in the country actively trying to sabotage anything he does to include trying to take office in the first place.  Most of the folks who went against doing anything useful towards the crisis are still in office.  That's an uphill climb.  He can shape economic policies related to the pandemic. There's things on which he can spend money, and things that he shouldn't. The at-home tests were probably the latter. We've reached a point where getting people back to work and restoring the flow of goods and services is taking over in importance even if it means a few more people getting sick. It'll hurt in the short term, but he needs to be looking at the big picture too.

[sui generis]

Shortly after Biden first announced that the federal government would be purchasing 500MM rapid covid tests to give out to Americans for free, a friend told me his kids' school sent home a note to let parents know that they would NOT be accepting at-home, rapid tests to allow children to test back into the classroom after being exposed to covid. Friend was like, "Well, what's the point then?" I'm guessing the point is that somebody's brother-in-law, cousin, or maybe son, stands to make a pile of money off of selling the US government 1/2 billion rapid covid tests. Whether they're accurate, or not, or if they're useful is only a secondary concern. Main thing, Biden wants it to look like he's doing something, anything.

Actually, they can still be really useful for this.  I believe my BIL's day care and elementary school have been requiring PCR tests to test back in, but they use lots of rapid tests for their own information and to gauge whether or not they should go to the trouble/expense (if applicable) of a PCR test or, if they test positive, they know not to and can wait until there's a greater likelihood going to the trouble of getting the PCR test will be useful.

[Abe]

When does Biden get to take ownership of the crisis? Serious question. We are nearly a year in to his term.

I suppose it depends on what we're giving him credit/blaming him for doing. Presidents like to claim credit for things well outside their limits, and as a result we've come to expect too much from them.

He can't force everybody to be vaccinated, wear masks, or take whatever measures might help the community. He's up against half the politicians in the country actively trying to sabotage anything he does to include trying to take office in the first place.  Most of the folks who went against doing anything useful towards the crisis are still in office.  That's an uphill climb.  He can shape economic policies related to the pandemic. There's things on which he can spend money, and things that he shouldn't. The at-home tests were probably the latter. We've reached a point where getting people back to work and restoring the flow of goods and services is taking over in importance even if it means a few more people getting sick. It'll hurt in the short term, but he needs to be looking at the big picture too.

I guess he'll take ownership when it's his to own? What exactly do you want him to do? Like, actual policies that actual anti-mask, anti-vax people will listen to (since they are the one causing the crisis).

They won't get vaccinated
They won't stay home
They won't wear masks
They won't listen to scientists

His message has been pretty consistent - get vaccinated and life will get back to normal once the numbers drop sufficiently. Curveball was thrown, but the response is the same.

Seriously, people put way too much stock into what a president can do, especially since 9/11. Trump couldn't "own" this crisis because we live in a free country full of gullible fools. Same thing for Biden. They can give advice (inject bleach, wear masks) and everyone will or will not listen based on their own opinions. They aren't dictators and at any given time only half the country listens to them (on a good day).

Another serious question - is there a way to unfollow this thread?

[HPstache]

When does Biden get to take ownership of the crisis? Serious question. We are nearly a year in to his term.

I suppose it depends on what we're giving him credit/blaming him for doing. Presidents like to claim credit for things well outside their limits, and as a result we've come to expect too much from them.

He can't force everybody to be vaccinated, wear masks, or take whatever measures might help the community. He's up against half the politicians in the country actively trying to sabotage anything he does to include trying to take office in the first place.  Most of the folks who went against doing anything useful towards the crisis are still in office.  That's an uphill climb.  He can shape economic policies related to the pandemic. There's things on which he can spend money, and things that he shouldn't. The at-home tests were probably the latter. We've reached a point where getting people back to work and restoring the flow of goods and services is taking over in importance even if it means a few more people getting sick. It'll hurt in the short term, but he needs to be looking at the big picture too.

I guess he'll take ownership when it's his to own? What exactly do you want him to do? Like, actual policies that actual anti-mask, anti-vax people will listen to (since they are the one causing the crisis).

They won't get vaccinated
They won't stay home
They won't wear masks
They won't listen to scientists

His message has been pretty consistent - get vaccinated and life will get back to normal once the numbers drop sufficiently. Curveball was thrown, but the response is the same.

Seriously, people put way too much stock into what a president can do, especially since 9/11. Trump couldn't "own" this crisis because we live in a free country full of gullible fools. Same thing for Biden. They can give advice (inject bleach, wear masks) and everyone will or will not listen based on their own opinions. They aren't dictators and at any given time only half the country listens to them (on a good day).

Another serious question - is there a way to unfollow this thread?

I think you just hit unnotify at the bottom.  Between. "Reply" and "Unread"

[Gin1984]

Shortly after Biden first announced that the federal government would be purchasing 500MM rapid covid tests to give out to Americans for free, a friend told me his kids' school sent home a note to let parents know that they would NOT be accepting at-home, rapid tests to allow children to test back into the classroom after being exposed to covid. Friend was like, "Well, what's the point then?" I'm guessing the point is that somebody's brother-in-law, cousin, or maybe son, stands to make a pile of money off of selling the US government 1/2 billion rapid covid tests. Whether they're accurate, or not, or if they're useful is only a secondary concern. Main thing, Biden wants it to look like he's doing something, anything.

The point if for people to test at home so they don't go out while they are sick and get others sick. 

[gentmach]

When does Biden get to take ownership of the crisis? Serious question. We are nearly a year in to his term.

I suppose it depends on what we're giving him credit/blaming him for doing. Presidents like to claim credit for things well outside their limits, and as a result we've come to expect too much from them.

He can't force everybody to be vaccinated, wear masks, or take whatever measures might help the community. He's up against half the politicians in the country actively trying to sabotage anything he does to include trying to take office in the first place.  Most of the folks who went against doing anything useful towards the crisis are still in office.  That's an uphill climb.  He can shape economic policies related to the pandemic. There's things on which he can spend money, and things that he shouldn't. The at-home tests were probably the latter. We've reached a point where getting people back to work and restoring the flow of goods and services is taking over in importance even if it means a few more people getting sick. It'll hurt in the short term, but he needs to be looking at the big picture too.

I guess he'll take ownership when it's his to own? What exactly do you want him to do? Like, actual policies that actual anti-mask, anti-vax people will listen to (since they are the one causing the crisis).

They won't get vaccinated
They won't stay home
They won't wear masks
They won't listen to scientists

His message has been pretty consistent - get vaccinated and life will get back to normal once the numbers drop sufficiently. Curveball was thrown, but the response is the same.

Seriously, people put way too much stock into what a president can do, especially since 9/11. Trump couldn't "own" this crisis because we live in a free country full of gullible fools. Same thing for Biden. They can give advice (inject bleach, wear masks) and everyone will or will not listen based on their own opinions. They aren't dictators and at any given time only half the country listens to them (on a good day).

Another serious question - is there a way to unfollow this thread?

Apparently we need another way to look at the pandemic because cases were becoming an unreliable way to measure it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/

His experts should probably find a more reliable way to measure success or failure.

Shortly after Biden first announced that the federal government would be purchasing 500MM rapid covid tests to give out to Americans for free, a friend told me his kids' school sent home a note to let parents know that they would NOT be accepting at-home, rapid tests to allow children to test back into the classroom after being exposed to covid. Friend was like, "Well, what's the point then?" I'm guessing the point is that somebody's brother-in-law, cousin, or maybe son, stands to make a pile of money off of selling the US government 1/2 billion rapid covid tests. Whether they're accurate, or not, or if they're useful is only a secondary concern. Main thing, Biden wants it to look like he's doing something, anything.

The point if for people to test at home so they don't go out while they are sick and get others sick. 

If those tests give out false positives then people will not trust the test.

[Kris]

When does Biden get to take ownership of the crisis? Serious question. We are nearly a year in to his term.

I suppose it depends on what we're giving him credit/blaming him for doing. Presidents like to claim credit for things well outside their limits, and as a result we've come to expect too much from them.

He can't force everybody to be vaccinated, wear masks, or take whatever measures might help the community. He's up against half the politicians in the country actively trying to sabotage anything he does to include trying to take office in the first place.  Most of the folks who went against doing anything useful towards the crisis are still in office.  That's an uphill climb.  He can shape economic policies related to the pandemic. There's things on which he can spend money, and things that he shouldn't. The at-home tests were probably the latter. We've reached a point where getting people back to work and restoring the flow of goods and services is taking over in importance even if it means a few more people getting sick. It'll hurt in the short term, but he needs to be looking at the big picture too.

I guess he'll take ownership when it's his to own? What exactly do you want him to do? Like, actual policies that actual anti-mask, anti-vax people will listen to (since they are the one causing the crisis).

They won't get vaccinated
They won't stay home
They won't wear masks
They won't listen to scientists

His message has been pretty consistent - get vaccinated and life will get back to normal once the numbers drop sufficiently. Curveball was thrown, but the response is the same.

Seriously, people put way too much stock into what a president can do, especially since 9/11. Trump couldn't "own" this crisis because we live in a free country full of gullible fools. Same thing for Biden. They can give advice (inject bleach, wear masks) and everyone will or will not listen based on their own opinions. They aren't dictators and at any given time only half the country listens to them (on a good day).

Another serious question - is there a way to unfollow this thread?

The difference being, some of the gullible fools would have listened to Trump if he had chosen to lead on this. And those same people will determinedly do the exact opposite of anything Biden says.

[PDXTabs]

Baltic NATO allies Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are looking to transfer American-made lethal weapons such as anti-armor and ground-to-air missiles to Ukraine, according to officials from those countries and people familiar with the discussions. But U.S. export control regulations require these countries to obtain approval from the State Department before passing along the weapons. - Allies wait on U.S. approval to arm Ukraine as invasion worries mount

[pecunia]

Baltic NATO allies Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are looking to transfer American-made lethal weapons such as anti-armor and ground-to-air missiles to Ukraine, according to officials from those countries and people familiar with the discussions. But U.S. export control regulations require these countries to obtain approval from the State Department before passing along the weapons. - Allies wait on U.S. approval to arm Ukraine as invasion worries mount

Those countries have been in the same "shoes" as Ukraine.  They've got Russia at their doorstep. If Russia marches into Ukraine, I guess they figure it could be them next.

[Travis]

Baltic NATO allies Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are looking to transfer American-made lethal weapons such as anti-armor and ground-to-air missiles to Ukraine, according to officials from those countries and people familiar with the discussions. But U.S. export control regulations require these countries to obtain approval from the State Department before passing along the weapons. - Allies wait on U.S. approval to arm Ukraine as invasion worries mount

Those countries have been in the same "shoes" as Ukraine.  They've got Russia at their doorstep. If Russia marches into Ukraine, I guess they figure it could be them next.

They've been living in fear of being next since Georgia in 2007. Russia is constantly finding ways to screw with them, usually using cyber attacks. Being NATO members is the only thing saving them from anything more overt.

[pecunia]

Baltic NATO allies Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are looking to transfer American-made lethal weapons such as anti-armor and ground-to-air missiles to Ukraine, according to officials from those countries and people familiar with the discussions. But U.S. export control regulations require these countries to obtain approval from the State Department before passing along the weapons. - Allies wait on U.S. approval to arm Ukraine as invasion worries mount

Those countries have been in the same "shoes" as Ukraine.  They've got Russia at their doorstep. If Russia marches into Ukraine, I guess they figure it could be them next.

They've been living in fear of being next since Georgia in 2007. Russia is constantly finding ways to screw with them, usually using cyber attacks. Being NATO members is the only thing saving them from anything more overt.

I've wondered about something and never really found anything written.  Of course I haven't looked very hard.  The Baltic countries have some Russians living there from when the Soviet collapse came.  I wonder how they feel about being a part of Putin's land.  I'll bet they like it better the way it is now.

[PDXTabs]

President Biden caused controversy in his news conference Wednesday night by stating the obvious: that the many European allies of the United States are not all in agreement at this point about what to do should Russia choose any number of aggressive options toward Ukraine. - NYT: On Ukraine, Biden Flusters European Allies by Stating the Obvious.

I actually really like stating the obvious out loud, it can lead to better problem solving. But I guess that our allies don't like it when you do it at a press conference, I can see that.

[FIPurpose]

President Biden caused controversy in his news conference Wednesday night by stating the obvious: that the many European allies of the United States are not all in agreement at this point about what to do should Russia choose any number of aggressive options toward Ukraine. - NYT: On Ukraine, Biden Flusters European Allies by Stating the Obvious.

I actually really like stating the obvious out loud, it can lead to better problem solving. But I guess that our allies don't like it when you do it at a press conference, I can see that.

I'm not sure if I care if they don't like it. At this point, Russia isn't going to step down until the West starts openly talking about the possibility of war should Russia do something. Speak softly and carry a big stick doesn't seem to frighten them anymore. So we need to start speaking loudly.

[JGS1980]

President Biden caused controversy in his news conference Wednesday night by stating the obvious: that the many European allies of the United States are not all in agreement at this point about what to do should Russia choose any number of aggressive options toward Ukraine. - NYT: On Ukraine, Biden Flusters European Allies by Stating the Obvious.

I actually really like stating the obvious out loud, it can lead to better problem solving. But I guess that our allies don't like it when you do it at a press conference, I can see that.

I'm not sure if I care if they don't like it. At this point, Russia isn't going to step down until the West starts openly talking about the possibility of war should Russia do something. Speak softly and carry a big stick doesn't seem to frighten them anymore. So we need to start speaking loudly.

Do you want to fight a ground war in Asia?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

President Biden caused controversy in his news conference Wednesday night by stating the obvious: that the many European allies of the United States are not all in agreement at this point about what to do should Russia choose any number of aggressive options toward Ukraine. - NYT: On Ukraine, Biden Flusters European Allies by Stating the Obvious.

I actually really like stating the obvious out loud, it can lead to better problem solving. But I guess that our allies don't like it when you do it at a press conference, I can see that.

I'm not sure if I care if they don't like it. At this point, Russia isn't going to step down until the West starts openly talking about the possibility of war should Russia do something. Speak softly and carry a big stick doesn't seem to frighten them anymore. So we need to start speaking loudly.

Would we be willing to do boots on the ground war,  though,  or would it be a bluff?

[GuitarStv]

I don't believe the US has much stomach for a war with a country that could fight back.  That's why there were no repercussions when Russia ate Crimea.

[PDXTabs]

President Biden caused controversy in his news conference Wednesday night by stating the obvious: that the many European allies of the United States are not all in agreement at this point about what to do should Russia choose any number of aggressive options toward Ukraine. - NYT: On Ukraine, Biden Flusters European Allies by Stating the Obvious.

I actually really like stating the obvious out loud, it can lead to better problem solving. But I guess that our allies don't like it when you do it at a press conference, I can see that.

I'm not sure if I care if they don't like it. At this point, Russia isn't going to step down until the West starts openly talking about the possibility of war should Russia do something. Speak softly and carry a big stick doesn't seem to frighten them anymore. So we need to start speaking loudly.

Are we carrying a big stick? Do we have 100k US troops in Ukraine with armor, air support, etc? I don't think that we need to speak loudly, I think that we need to carry a big stick. Also, I don't think that we actually need to go to war. If we matched Russia troop for troop in Ukraine then Russia would never roll tanks, IMHO.

EDITed to add that I am highly biased on this issue because of my familial heritage.

[Just Joe]

Just put troops and equipment on the ground in Ukraine and promise Russia that nothing was going to happen. That they were just there to help the Ukrainians do a little gardening or civic renovation...

Of course the Russians would tell their citizens that NATO was provoking a war. And then some stray shot would start a war. Another "Gulf of Tonkin" or "Remember the Maine" type incident.

[PDXTabs]

Just put troops and equipment on the ground in Ukraine and promise Russia that nothing was going to happen. That they were just there to help the Ukrainians do a little gardening or civic renovation...

Ukraine actually has a plan to get all of their officers passable in English for NATO coordination. Just explain that we are over there for an intensive language and cultural exchange.

Of course the Russians would tell their citizens that NATO was provoking a war. And then some stray shot would start a war. Another "Gulf of Tonkin" or "Remember the Maine" type incident.

Sometime you should spend an evening on YouTube watching videos on the Ukrainian front line. They tell the reporters things like "don't hold your camera up there, you could lose a hand." The Russian side is absolutely not adhering to the cease-fire and it hasn't started a war yet. But yes, you might want to keep any US troops back from the front line.

[talltexan]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it was odd that Russia invaded Ukraine, and then there was a dramatic drop in energy prices at the end of 2014 (which was economically crippling for Russia; too bad it was also economically crippling for Ukraine).

[Abe]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

[pecunia]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

Da!  Mr. Putin wholeheartedly agrees.  In fact, that is why his troops are there now.  Easy Peasey!

[LennStar]

The problem is that you all think about a logic reaction.

It might well be that Putin has lost his logic in the last years.

I once had a high opinion about his abilities. But not anymore. He might be suffering from the "isolation" of the man on the top that caused so many to go bonkers after a while.
That of course is bad. Putin used to be an autocrat you could talk with. Now he looks half like a lunatic dictator. And those aren't rational at all. He might think nobody would help if he attacks or that he could easily win. That might even be true, but that is not the point. The point is that he might be unpredictable.

[JoePublic3.14]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

[pecunia]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

I always find it kind of odd that nobody ever seems to want to give the Ukrainians a vote as t whether they wish to rejoin Mother Russia.  I guess the world doesn't work that way.  Given that so many of these countries chose to leave the old Soviet Union, I can guess the possible outcome. 

It just seems like people in history have not been overjoyed to be conquered.  Funny about that, eh?

[JGS1980]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

It just seems like people in history have not been overjoyed to be conquered.  Funny about that, eh?

Just look at the the remnants of the US Confederacy, who were conquered 150 years ago. STILL in a tizzy about it all.

[FIPurpose]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

I always find it kind of odd that nobody ever seems to want to give the Ukrainians a vote as t whether they wish to rejoin Mother Russia.  I guess the world doesn't work that way.  Given that so many of these countries chose to leave the old Soviet Union, I can guess the possible outcome. 

It just seems like people in history have not been overjoyed to be conquered.  Funny about that, eh?

At least on this poll: https://www.iri.org/resource/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support-eunato-membership-concerns-over-economy-and-vaccines-covid

Looks like Ukraine favors the EU 60% and Russia 20%.

The Secretary of State mentioned something that Russia's actions simply don't make sense. It wasn't until Crimea that people started taking Ukraine joining NATO, so Russia's actions aren't making sense if they're goal is economic power. They would've done better to go for soft power and create an eastern economic bloc to counter the EU. But perhaps Putin doesn't have the years left to see that through. It's hard to guess what they're doing.

[talltexan]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

It just seems like people in history have not been overjoyed to be conquered.  Funny about that, eh?

Just look at the the remnants of the US Confederacy, who were conquered 150 years ago. STILL in a tizzy about it all.

I think it's pretty clear that the Union may have won that war, but the Confederate States won the peace.

[Michael in ABQ]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

I always find it kind of odd that nobody ever seems to want to give the Ukrainians a vote as t whether they wish to rejoin Mother Russia.  I guess the world doesn't work that way.  Given that so many of these countries chose to leave the old Soviet Union, I can guess the possible outcome. 

It just seems like people in history have not been overjoyed to be conquered.  Funny about that, eh?

At least on this poll: https://www.iri.org/resource/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support-eunato-membership-concerns-over-economy-and-vaccines-covid

Looks like Ukraine favors the EU 60% and Russia 20%.

The Secretary of State mentioned something that Russia's actions simply don't make sense. It wasn't until Crimea that people started taking Ukraine joining NATO, so Russia's actions aren't making sense if they're goal is economic power. They would've done better to go for soft power and create an eastern economic bloc to counter the EU. But perhaps Putin doesn't have the years left to see that through. It's hard to guess what they're doing.

Russia created the Eurasian Economic Unition (EAEU) as such an eastern bloc to counter the EU. It started in 2014 with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Since then, they've added Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Given the choice between having a single market with most of Europe, or a handful of the old Soviet Bloc it seems pretty clear which way Ukraine is leaning.

Imagine the south had seceded during the civil war and then you had Russia come along and try to ally with it or station troops there. It would feel like an existential threat. From the Ukrainian/Russian border to Moscow is about 300 miles. Russia feels like Ukraine moving out of their sphere of influence/control is a direct threat that will put them at risk of being invaded from the west - something that's happened multiple times in their history.

[FIPurpose]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

I always find it kind of odd that nobody ever seems to want to give the Ukrainians a vote as t whether they wish to rejoin Mother Russia.  I guess the world doesn't work that way.  Given that so many of these countries chose to leave the old Soviet Union, I can guess the possible outcome. 

It just seems like people in history have not been overjoyed to be conquered.  Funny about that, eh?

At least on this poll: https://www.iri.org/resource/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support-eunato-membership-concerns-over-economy-and-vaccines-covid

Looks like Ukraine favors the EU 60% and Russia 20%.

The Secretary of State mentioned something that Russia's actions simply don't make sense. It wasn't until Crimea that people started taking Ukraine joining NATO, so Russia's actions aren't making sense if they're goal is economic power. They would've done better to go for soft power and create an eastern economic bloc to counter the EU. But perhaps Putin doesn't have the years left to see that through. It's hard to guess what they're doing.

Russia created the Eurasian Economic Unition (EAEU) as such an eastern bloc to counter the EU. It started in 2014 with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Since then, they've added Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Given the choice between having a single market with most of Europe, or a handful of the old Soviet Bloc it seems pretty clear which way Ukraine is leaning.

Imagine the south had seceded during the civil war and then you had Russia come along and try to ally with it or station troops there. It would feel like an existential threat. From the Ukrainian/Russian border to Moscow is about 300 miles. Russia feels like Ukraine moving out of their sphere of influence/control is a direct threat that will put them at risk of being invaded from the west - something that's happened multiple times in their history.

Invading the west is a strange way to say that they have a fear of being invaded by the west. That would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The EU is saying everything possible to stay out of it, and have absolutely no desire to get into a land war.

If the EU does get dragged into a land war with Russia, I could see them handing over Kaliningrad to Poland. If Russia continues being aggressive, they'll want them as far away as possible.

[PKFFW]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

Another way to put it would be there is not enough corporate profit to be had for those that have bought and paid for their chosen representative in power, so why bother.

[pecunia]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

Another way to put it would be there is not enough corporate profit to be had for those that have bought and paid for their chosen representative in power, so why bother.

I gaze out and see the snow fall and it brings to my mind this Russian thing.  I still wonder why they want more land.  They already have the biggest country in the world.  They will make a buttload of money selling gas to the Europeans and Chinese.  One poster said it is because that is where Russia got it's start.  It got it's start from a group of Viking invaders into Ukraine over a thousand years ago.  So, I guess they got this crazy empire thing in their psyches.  It still seems crazy to me but then I think of Czar Putin.  He is an old KGB guy.  Back in those days, they drove out religion.  Their religion was the state.  His religion was the state.  The crusades were fought for religion.  They fight to get the motherland back, I suppose.  I guess them parking at Ukraine's doorstep to reclaim the "glorious" empire makes sense,........sort of.

Someday, I will just accept that the world is crazy.

[GuitarStv]

We can support Ukraine but should not send US troops in. They have been through enough.

I don’t think we should send troops either, but it ain’t because “they have been through enough.” That’s their job. They volunteered for it. I am paying for that service from them.

I don’t think we should send troops for a long list of reasons, mostly split between 'it costs too much' and 'we would get our butts kicked in a ground war' and mostly  'I don’t see it as an important place for us to mess with (I readily admit to being very ignorant of things there…)'

Another way to put it would be there is not enough corporate profit to be had for those that have bought and paid for their chosen representative in power, so why bother.

I gaze out and see the snow fall and it brings to my mind this Russian thing.  I still wonder why they want more land.  They already have the biggest country in the world.  They will make a buttload of money selling gas to the Europeans and Chinese.  One poster said it is because that is where Russia got it's start.  It got it's start from a group of Viking invaders into Ukraine over a thousand years ago.  So, I guess they got this crazy empire thing in their psyches.  It still seems crazy to me but then I think of Czar Putin.  He is an old KGB guy.  Back in those days, they drove out religion.  Their religion was the state.  His religion was the state.  The crusades were fought for religion.  They fight to get the motherland back, I suppose.  I guess them parking at Ukraine's doorstep to reclaim the "glorious" empire makes sense,........sort of.

Someday, I will just accept that the world is crazy.

The Ukraine has some of the best soil for growing crops in the world, and they have tremendously productive farming because of it.

The whole country of Russia produced 125 million tons of grain in 2021 (https://www.world-grain.com/articles/14975-focus-on-russia).  The Ukraine is expected to produce 80 million tons of grain this year (https://www.world-grain.com/articles/16046-ukraine-grain-output-exports-off-to-strong-start-in-2021-22).

[PDXTabs]

The Ukraine

FYI, "The Ukraine" is no longer accurate and is considered offensive to modern Ukrainians:
FP: The Geopolitics of Ukraine’s ‘The’
Time: Ukraine, Not the Ukraine: The Significance of Three Little Letters
WP: It’s Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine. And Ukrainians want you to get it right.

[JoePublic3.14]

The Ukraine

FYI, "The Ukraine" is no longer accurate and is considered offensive to modern Ukrainians:
FP: The Geopolitics of Ukraine’s ‘The’
Time: Ukraine, Not the Ukraine: The Significance of Three Little Letters
WP: It’s Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine. And Ukrainians want you to get it right.

I’ll make a note to call the area Russia and the people Russians if things go bad and they lose.

[GuitarStv]

The Ukraine

FYI, "The Ukraine" is no longer accurate and is considered offensive to modern Ukrainians:
FP: The Geopolitics of Ukraine’s ‘The’
Time: Ukraine, Not the Ukraine: The Significance of Three Little Letters
WP: It’s Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine. And Ukrainians want you to get it right.

Thanks!  Wasn't trying to cause offense or even aware that 'The' Ukraine was the wrong term . . . it's how I've always heard the country referred to.

[PDXTabs]

The Ukraine

FYI, "The Ukraine" is no longer accurate and is considered offensive to modern Ukrainians:
FP: The Geopolitics of Ukraine’s ‘The’
Time: Ukraine, Not the Ukraine: The Significance of Three Little Letters
WP: It’s Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine. And Ukrainians want you to get it right.

Thanks!  Wasn't trying to cause offense or even aware that 'The' Ukraine was the wrong term . . . it's how I've always heard the country referred to.

I figured that it was unintentional. I don't speak for Ukrainians but I believe that it only became offensive until after independence in 1991. But language evolves slowly and English likes to put "the" in front of place-names. Also, the average north american knows very little of Ukrainian history so I usually assume that it is not intentional. You know, until it's Russian diplomats doing it.

[JoePublic3.14]

Stupid son of a bitch

Hot mics, not just for our Zoom/Teams meetings. It’s normally interesting to get that quick peek inside someone's mind.

[ncornilsen]

Stupid son of a bitch

Hot mics, not just for our Zoom/Teams meetings. It’s normally interesting to get that quick peek inside someone's mind.

For as big of a deal as people made about how Trump handled the media... is it my turn to start shreiking about how "THIS IS NOT NORGMALLLL!~!!11!!!"?

For the peek in Biden's mind... does he really think the reporter was stupid for asking the question which has an obvious answer, or was Biden just mad that he didn't get another curated softball question from a media ally, and this almost forced him to discuss his ineffective handling of inflation?

[FIPurpose]

Stupid son of a bitch

Hot mics, not just for our Zoom/Teams meetings. It’s normally interesting to get that quick peek inside someone's mind.

For as big of a deal as people made about how Trump handled the media... is it my turn to start shreiking about how "THIS IS NOT NORGMALLLL!~!!11!!!"?

For the peek in Biden's mind... does he really think the reporter was stupid for asking the question which has an obvious answer, or was Biden just mad that he didn't get another curated softball question from a media ally, and this almost forced him to discuss his ineffective handling of inflation?

The question was "Do you think inflation is a political liability in the midterms?” Not exactly a hard-hitting question.

[GuitarStv]

Stupid son of a bitch

Hot mics, not just for our Zoom/Teams meetings. It’s normally interesting to get that quick peek inside someone's mind.

For as big of a deal as people made about how Trump handled the media... is it my turn to start shreiking about how "THIS IS NOT NORGMALLLL!~!!11!!!"?

For the peek in Biden's mind... does he really think the reporter was stupid for asking the question which has an obvious answer, or was Biden just mad that he didn't get another curated softball question from a media ally, and this almost forced him to discuss his ineffective handling of inflation?

The question was "Do you think inflation is a political liability in the midterms?” Not exactly a hard-hitting question.

Have you stopped beating your wife Mr. President?  Just a yes or no response please.

[Kris]

And Biden called him personally to apologize.

Sorry, hard to be all that shocked by this.

[PDXTabs]

And Biden called him personally to apologize.

Sorry, hard to be all that shocked by this.

Biden when he thinks that no one is listening: What a stupid son of a bitch.
Biden when he calls to apologize to you: It’s nothing personal, pal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/25/hot-mic-moment-biden-swears-at-fox-news-reporter

Put me in the camp of "this isn't normal." Hostility towards the media seems to be a trait shared by both Trump and Biden. I do not remember the same hostility from Obama.

[Kris]

And Biden called him personally to apologize.

Sorry, hard to be all that shocked by this.

Biden when he thinks that no one is listening: What a stupid son of a bitch.
Biden when he calls to apologize to you: It’s nothing personal, pal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/25/hot-mic-moment-biden-swears-at-fox-news-reporter

Put me in the camp of "this isn't normal." Hostility towards the media seems to be a trait shared by both Trump and Biden. I do not remember the same hostility from Obama.

I ain't saying it was nice. Normal? I wonder if anyone here has ever been stressed and let their temper get away from them. Personally, I'm guessing the stress on the POTUS right now is fairly significant. So, it might be pretty normal.

But I'm not going to compare Trump and Biden. That's a false equivalence waaaaayyyyyy too far.

[EvenSteven]

And Biden called him personally to apologize.

Sorry, hard to be all that shocked by this.

Biden when he thinks that no one is listening: What a stupid son of a bitch.
Biden when he calls to apologize to you: It’s nothing personal, pal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/25/hot-mic-moment-biden-swears-at-fox-news-reporter

Put me in the camp of "this isn't normal." Hostility towards the media seems to be a trait shared by both Trump and Biden. I do not remember the same hostility from Obama.

I ain't saying it was nice. Normal? I wonder if anyone here has ever been stressed and let their temper get away from them. Personally, I'm guessing the stress on the POTUS right now is fairly significant. So, it might be pretty normal.

But I'm not going to compare Trump and Biden. That's a false equivalence waaaaayyyyyy too far.

I've called someone a stupid son of a bitch with my temper fully under control. Everyone go find their fainting couches now.

[PDXTabs]

And Biden called him personally to apologize.

Sorry, hard to be all that shocked by this.

Biden when he thinks that no one is listening: What a stupid son of a bitch.
Biden when he calls to apologize to you: It’s nothing personal, pal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/25/hot-mic-moment-biden-swears-at-fox-news-reporter

Put me in the camp of "this isn't normal." Hostility towards the media seems to be a trait shared by both Trump and Biden. I do not remember the same hostility from Obama.

I ain't saying it was nice. Normal? I wonder if anyone here has ever been stressed and let their temper get away from them. Personally, I'm guessing the stress on the POTUS right now is fairly significant. So, it might be pretty normal.

But I'm not going to compare Trump and Biden. That's a false equivalence waaaaayyyyyy too far.

I've called someone a stupid son of a bitch with my temper fully under control. Everyone go find their fainting couches now.

For asking a completely reasonable question while doing their job? Perhaps you should be fired. We don't allow such behavior where I work.

[GuitarStv]

And Biden called him personally to apologize.

Sorry, hard to be all that shocked by this.

Biden when he thinks that no one is listening: What a stupid son of a bitch.
Biden when he calls to apologize to you: It’s nothing personal, pal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/25/hot-mic-moment-biden-swears-at-fox-news-reporter

Put me in the camp of "this isn't normal." Hostility towards the media seems to be a trait shared by both Trump and Biden. I do not remember the same hostility from Obama.

I ain't saying it was nice. Normal? I wonder if anyone here has ever been stressed and let their temper get away from them. Personally, I'm guessing the stress on the POTUS right now is fairly significant. So, it might be pretty normal.

But I'm not going to compare Trump and Biden. That's a false equivalence waaaaayyyyyy too far.

I've called someone a stupid son of a bitch with my temper fully under control. Everyone go find their fainting couches now.

For asking a completely reasonable question while doing their job? Perhaps you should be fired. We don't allow such behavior where I work.

This has been pointed out a couple times now, but you know that that wasn't a reasonable question, right?  It was very clearly a calculated, leading question.

Don't get me wrong - Biden's behaviour in response was completely inappropriate.  But the question's sole purpose was to generate a talking point for Fox, it wasn't a real inquiry by any stretch of the imagination.