US Poll....who are you voting for?

[dang1]

vending machines are convenient https://motto-jp.com/media/lifestyle/japanese-vending-machines-for-beginners/

[dividendman]

It looks like Biden has memory and other mental issues according to the special counsel report... this is just great.

[GuitarStv]

It looks like Biden has memory and other mental issues according to the special counsel report... this is just great.

Yeah, but none of this is news.  He's 81 years old.

40% of people start to experience some memory loss once they turn 65 (https://alzheimer.ca/en/about-dementia/do-i-have-dementia/differences-between-normal-aging-dementia).  5-8% of people over 60 have some form of dementia.  The odds are very high that anyone Biden's age has at least some memory issues.  A person in his 80s who has the same memory recall as just someone in their 70s or 60s is so unusual they're called a 'super-ager'.

This will only come as a surprise to those who have been lying to themselves about the effects of aging.


None of this should really impact the election - both presidential contenders are geriatric and show memory as well as mental issues.

[Kris]

It looks like Biden has memory and other mental issues according to the special counsel report... this is just great.

Yeah, but none of this is news.  He's 81 years old.

40% of people start to experience some memory loss once they turn 65 (https://alzheimer.ca/en/about-dementia/do-i-have-dementia/differences-between-normal-aging-dementia).  5-8% of people over 60 have some form of dementia.  The odds are very high that anyone Biden's age has at least some memory issues.  A person in his 80s who has the same memory recall as just someone in their 70s or 60s is so unusual they're called a 'super-ager'.

This will only come as a surprise to those who have been lying to themselves about the effects of aging.


None of this should really impact the election - both presidential contenders are geriatric and show memory as well as mental issues.

Yeah, it sucks. The difference being that Biden doesn’t also have underlying mental health issues, and that he knows how to put competent people into positions of power around him.

[the_gastropod]

Getting major 2016 Comey vibes from Hur. "No no. Biden didn't do anything illegal. But allow me to smear him in the remainder of this 300 page report in the midst of an election year". It's completely unprofessional behavior at best.

[dividendman]

Time for constitutional amendments on age of the presidency, and it should just be one term max.

[nereo]

It looks like Biden has memory and other mental issues according to the special counsel report... this is just great.

I’m having a really hard time understanding the emphasis this is getting. For starters, Biden’s memory has been fodder since before he was Obamas VP. More broadly “having a bad memory” seems pretty darn common at all levels. I can’t tell you how many meetings I’ve had with company execs that start out with some version of “I’m sorry, I have a terrible memory and can’t remember what we discussed a few months ago, can you summarize where we are on this project?” 
At times not being able to remember people’s names or important dates (anniversaries, birthdays) seems like a cliché.

[PeteD01]

It looks like Biden has memory and other mental issues according to the special counsel report... this is just great.

I’m having a really hard time understanding the emphasis this is getting. For starters, Biden’s memory has been fodder since before he was Obamas VP. More broadly “having a bad memory” seems pretty darn common at all levels. I can’t tell you how many meetings I’ve had with company execs that start out with some version of “I’m sorry, I have a terrible memory and can’t remember what we discussed a few months ago, can you summarize where we are on this project?” 
At times not being able to remember people’s names or important dates (anniversaries, birthdays) seems like a cliché.

Company execs are not in their positions because of having good memory but because they are perceived to have good judgment.

The relationship between memory/knowledge and good judgment has been dealt with at great length by Michel de Montaigne - let's just say that it is not straightforward and worsening memory with age is not necessarily indicative of worsening judgment.

The special counsel really has no business in suggesting that there are neuropsychiatric issues with Biden beyond normal aging.

Arguably, a presidential candidate with good judgment and mediocre memory is preferable to a candidate with mediocre judgment and excellent memory.

An example of good judgment would be:

...

The difference being that Biden doesn’t also have underlying mental health issues, and that he knows how to out competent people into positions of power around him.

Michel de Montaigne
First published Wed Aug 18, 2004; substantive revision Wed Nov 20, 2019
The question is not who will hit the ring, but who will make the best runs at it.

His decision to use only his own judgment in dealing with all sorts of matters, his resolutely distant attitude towards memory and knowledge, his warning that we should not mix God or transcendent principles with the human world, are some of the key elements that characterize Montaigne’s position.

https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/montaigne/#:~:text=His%20decision%20to%20use%20only,elements%20that%20characterize%20Montaigne's%20position.

[Kris]

It looks like Biden has memory and other mental issues according to the special counsel report... this is just great.

I’m having a really hard time understanding the emphasis this is getting. For starters, Biden’s memory has been fodder since before he was Obamas VP. More broadly “having a bad memory” seems pretty darn common at all levels. I can’t tell you how many meetings I’ve had with company execs that start out with some version of “I’m sorry, I have a terrible memory and can’t remember what we discussed a few months ago, can you summarize where we are on this project?” 
At times not being able to remember people’s names or important dates (anniversaries, birthdays) seems like a cliché.

Ain't that the truth. My stepdaughter and her husband have a female dog and a 14-month-old baby. At least once every time we visit, I call the baby by the dog's name.

Also, my husband and I have been together for 17 years, and he still has to think for a bit when he has to remember my birthday. He's never 100% sure he is right. And he can't remember my phone number either.

[Morning Glory]

It looks like Biden has memory and other mental issues according to the special counsel report... this is just great.

I’m having a really hard time understanding the emphasis this is getting. For starters, Biden’s memory has been fodder since before he was Obamas VP. More broadly “having a bad memory” seems pretty darn common at all levels. I can’t tell you how many meetings I’ve had with company execs that start out with some version of “I’m sorry, I have a terrible memory and can’t remember what we discussed a few months ago, can you summarize where we are on this project?” 
At times not being able to remember people’s names or important dates (anniversaries, birthdays) seems like a cliché.

Ain't that the truth. My stepdaughter and her husband have a female dog and a 14-month-old baby. At least once every time we visit, I call the baby by the dog's name.

Also, my husband and I have been together for 17 years, and he still has to think for a bit when he has to remember my birthday. He's never 100% sure he is right. And he can't remember my phone number either.

I call my kids each other's names when I'm frustrated.  I've only met two people who were really good with names, enough that I was impressed anyway. The ability may be more common among politicians though.

[Just Joe]

It looks like Biden has memory and other mental issues according to the special counsel report... this is just great.

I’m having a really hard time understanding the emphasis this is getting. For starters, Biden’s memory has been fodder since before he was Obamas VP. More broadly “having a bad memory” seems pretty darn common at all levels. I can’t tell you how many meetings I’ve had with company execs that start out with some version of “I’m sorry, I have a terrible memory and can’t remember what we discussed a few months ago, can you summarize where we are on this project?” 
At times not being able to remember people’s names or important dates (anniversaries, birthdays) seems like a cliché.

Ain't that the truth. My stepdaughter and her husband have a female dog and a 14-month-old baby. At least once every time we visit, I call the baby by the dog's name.

Also, my husband and I have been together for 17 years, and he still has to think for a bit when he has to remember my birthday. He's never 100% sure he is right. And he can't remember my phone number either.

I call my kids each other's names when I'm frustrated.  I've only met two people who were really good with names, enough that I was impressed anyway. The ability may be more common among politicians though.

That might be a family trait for some of us. My grandmother called me every name in the family tree before she got it right. Was not dementia. I'm not much better some days.

Not worried about Biden b/c he has a good team around him. I'm not just voting for Biden, I'm voting for his whole team. Contrast that to other presidents. Whew!

[NorCal]

It looks like Biden has memory and other mental issues according to the special counsel report... this is just great.

I’m having a really hard time understanding the emphasis this is getting. For starters, Biden’s memory has been fodder since before he was Obamas VP. More broadly “having a bad memory” seems pretty darn common at all levels. I can’t tell you how many meetings I’ve had with company execs that start out with some version of “I’m sorry, I have a terrible memory and can’t remember what we discussed a few months ago, can you summarize where we are on this project?” 
At times not being able to remember people’s names or important dates (anniversaries, birthdays) seems like a cliché.

Ain't that the truth. My stepdaughter and her husband have a female dog and a 14-month-old baby. At least once every time we visit, I call the baby by the dog's name.

Also, my husband and I have been together for 17 years, and he still has to think for a bit when he has to remember my birthday. He's never 100% sure he is right. And he can't remember my phone number either.

I call my kids each other's names when I'm frustrated.  I've only met two people who were really good with names, enough that I was impressed anyway. The ability may be more common among politicians though.

That might be a family trait for some of us. My grandmother called me every name in the family tree before she got it right. Was not dementia. I'm not much better some days.

Not worried about Biden b/c he has a good team around him. I'm not just voting for Biden, I'm voting for his whole team. Contrast that to other presidents. Whew!

Yep, in a compare and contrast scenario, it has to be Biden.  Competent judgement is the key issue here, and there's really no comparison.

Trump's history shows a history of horrendous judgement across topics.  The few competent people he's allowed near him have mostly spoken out about what a horrendous leader and person he is.  The "Project 2025" policy initiatives are designed to spread Trump's chaos through all levels the government.  I recommend reading through the proposals if you think this is left-wing hyperbole.  It is not.  It is truly scary stuff, and is indicative of  the types of political decision making that will be going on with Trump, and his appointees.  The policy platform is quite literally designed to remove competent judgement from governmental decision making.

I do disagree with a lot of the policy coming from the left (although Republican's haven't given viable alternatives), but the Biden white house has been competently run.  Agencies are run by competent individuals, and the decision making process seems well balanced. 

In an ideal (probably naive) world, maybe the age thing gets made into enough of an election issue that we generate bipartisan support for mandatory retirement ages for politicians.

Edited for grammar.

[bacchi]

This is a "Hillary and those emails" attack but it was too soon. It'll feed into the general narrative of Biden's faculties but it's not going to convince any never-Trumper to switch their vote.

"Wow, Biden has a poor memory, per this investigation. I'm now going to vote for the other old guy, who also has a poor memory*, and who tried to overthrow the 2020 election!"

Stalwart Trumpers will be bringing this up in their echo chambers until November and beyond (Fox News: Unemployment numbers are still low...but Biden may not know that!). It's not going to noticeably move the needle.




* Trump has stated that he ran against Obama over 6 times. He confused his ex-wife with E. Jean Carroll. And, of course, he insisted that Nikki Haley was Nancy Pelosi.

[NorCal]

This is a "Hillary and those emails" attack but it was too soon. It'll feed into the general narrative of Biden's faculties but it's not going to convince any never-Trumper to switch their vote.

"Wow, Biden has a poor memory, per this investigation. I'm now going to vote for the other old guy, who also has a poor memory, and who tried to overthrow the 2020 election!"

Stalwart Trumpers will be bringing this up in their echo chambers until November and beyond (Fox News: Unemployment numbers are still low...but Biden may not know that!). It's not going to noticeably move the needle.

Very true.  None of this day-to-day political gotcha is going to move the needle for either candidate.

It's easy to forget that there's a sizeable divide between the people who are really into politics and those that aren't.  People who follow politics closely already have their minds made up.

A sizeable portion of the population goes on with their daily lives without caring much.  They go to work, take care of their families, and avoid the daily political outrage.  They don't know or care about whatever Trump or Biden said last week, and don't know/care about what's going on in Trump's trials.

This will probably change a bit as we get closer to the elections.  People that normally don't pay much attention might watch a debate or try to get a sense of how the candidates are handling an issue they care about.  This is when persuadable people will make up their minds.  Not just of who to vote for, but whether to vote.  Elections aren't decided by how many people support one candidate or another.  They're decided by who shows up on election day.

Absent major changes, Biden has an advantage here.  Sure, he's not an inspiring figure that's going to get people excited.  But he has the advantages of incumbency, and he's broadly acceptable to voters from the left and moderates. 

Almost the entirety of Trump's next year is going to be spent in a courtroom.  He's being tried for 91 felony counts in multiple trials and districts.  Criminal trials aren't like the civil trials he's been in so far.  His butt is going to be in a seat in the courtroom.  Not campaigning.  Not giving speeches.  Maybe he'll be able to show up to a debate specifically arranged around his court schedule.  Maybe not.  He'll probably manage to talk himself into contempt-of-court at least once.  I also believe that he is psychologically incapable of separating his campaign from his personal grievances.  It's not going to be a campaign dominated by "building a wall Mexico will pay for" or "lock her up".  It's going to be a campaign against various DA's prosecuting Trump.  I don't know how many people this will convince to show up for Trump, but I don't think it's a recipe for driving Republican turnout, or convincing moderates to show up for him.

[PeteD01]

More on memory and judgment; and not that this hasn't been common knowledge for a very long time - even the detailed philosophical analyses of Michel de Montaigne are well over 400 years old (for reference see Reply #213 in this thread):

As Biden’s memory issues draw attention, neurologists weigh in
Forgetting the names of acquaintances or having difficulty remembering dates from the past doesn’t affect decision-making or judgment, brain experts say.

It’s normal for older brains to have more difficulty retaining new information and then retrieving the information, but mental processes like decision-making and judgment can actually improve with age, said Dr. Thomas Wisniewski, director of NYU Langone Health’s Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and its Center for Cognitive Neurology.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/bidens-memory-issues-draw-attention-neurologists-weigh-rcna138135

[Cawl]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

[nereo]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

Probably because it's a logical fallacy.  The US has been a steadfast ally to Israel for seven decades and continues to remain so.  That doesn't mean this or any administration directly supports everything Israel does (far from it). Israel is a sovereign state that ultimately makes its own decisions, occasionally contrary to what the US would like them to do. To the issue at hand, Biden has been critical of Netanyahu's targeting of civilians and calls for escalating the ground war. You can justifiably criticize Biden for not being forceful enough, and even make a case that the US has been complicit - but that's a far throw from the charge of 'supporting genocide'.

[dividendman]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

Probably because it's a logical fallacy.  The US has been a steadfast ally to Israel for seven decades and continues to remain so.  That doesn't mean this or any administration directly supports everything Israel does (far from it). Israel is a sovereign state that ultimately makes its own decisions, occasionally contrary to what the US would like them to do. To the issue at hand, Biden has been critical of Netanyahu's targeting of civilians and calls for escalating the ground war. You can justifiably criticize Biden for not being forceful enough, and even make a case that the US has been complicit - but that's a far throw from the charge of 'supporting genocide'.

Not to mention that Trump is even more supportive of Israel in every way and would likely encouraging any Israeli tactics.

[GuitarStv]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

Probably because it's a logical fallacy.  The US has been a steadfast ally to Israel for seven decades and continues to remain so.  That doesn't mean this or any administration directly supports everything Israel does (far from it). Israel is a sovereign state that ultimately makes its own decisions, occasionally contrary to what the US would like them to do. To the issue at hand, Biden has been critical of Netanyahu's targeting of civilians and calls for escalating the ground war. You can justifiably criticize Biden for not being forceful enough, and even make a case that the US has been complicit - but that's a far throw from the charge of 'supporting genocide'.

Not to mention that Trump is even more supportive of Israel in every way and would likely encouraging any Israeli tactics.

Trump has to support Israel.  That support plays well with Christian fundamentalists who are expecting an imminent end of the world, and have decided that Trump is a gift from God.

It would be nice to see the US stop giving Israel aid (150 billion a year at last glance) to buy weapons to commit genocide against the Palestinian people though.  This is a simple action that would save Americans money, apply tremendous pressure to the Israeli government, and be very likely to get immediate results.  But those weapons are largely American made, so it's effectively a subsidy to US arms manufacturers . . . and Israel has a history of selling this sensitive US technology/weapons to China (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/13/usa.israel) which it would likely start up again in retaliation.  The FBI has reported that Israel has undergone large anti-American espionage programs monitoring communications in Washington, so they probably have a fair amount of dirt on US politicians (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351).  Steadfast ally?  Hmm.

Netanyahu knows that any American criticism can be ignored - he has literally bragged on camera about how easy it is to manipulate Americans (you can look up the video).  Until America stops directly providing military support of Israel's genocide, the charges of doing such are fair.

[bacchi]

Trump has to support Israel.  That support plays well with Christian fundamentalists who are expecting an imminent end of the world, and have decided that Trump is a gift from God.

As an aside, I met a CPAC attending, conservative think tank evangelical in a personal situation. Holy shit, even knowing that beforehand, it was still surprising how wrapped up she was with the "Holy Land." She talked a lot about her vacations there and about how we should visit, etc. It's a BIG deal for these people and they'll drag everyone else along with them.

[Just Joe]

I wonder if ending support for Israel might lead to more Iranian aggression that could lead to a war the US might be dragged into. So, assistance to the Israel might be money well spent - except the Palestinian question. I can no suggestions about how to manage that except that the problem needs to be solved. 

[dang1]

Genocide just ring hollow, when there’s a whole lot of Palestinians living in Israel, even serving in the Israeli military.

Intense fighting, and inevitable civilian casualties, stops when hum-ass surrenders

[Cawl]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

Probably because it's a logical fallacy.  The US has been a steadfast ally to Israel for seven decades and continues to remain so.  That doesn't mean this or any administration directly supports everything Israel does (far from it). Israel is a sovereign state that ultimately makes its own decisions, occasionally contrary to what the US would like them to do. To the issue at hand, Biden has been critical of Netanyahu's targeting of civilians and calls for escalating the ground war. You can justifiably criticize Biden for not being forceful enough, and even make a case that the US has been complicit - but that's a far throw from the charge of 'supporting genocide'.

The UN convention on Genocide would say the US is complicit for supporting Israel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

Biden does have a moral responsibility to prevent a genocide. The fact that he keeps finding Israel is pretty damning.

[bacchi]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

Probably because it's a logical fallacy.  The US has been a steadfast ally to Israel for seven decades and continues to remain so.  That doesn't mean this or any administration directly supports everything Israel does (far from it). Israel is a sovereign state that ultimately makes its own decisions, occasionally contrary to what the US would like them to do. To the issue at hand, Biden has been critical of Netanyahu's targeting of civilians and calls for escalating the ground war. You can justifiably criticize Biden for not being forceful enough, and even make a case that the US has been complicit - but that's a far throw from the charge of 'supporting genocide'.

The UN convention on Genocide would say the US is complicit for supporting Israel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

Biden does have a moral responsibility to prevent a genocide. The fact that he keeps finding Israel is pretty damning.

Going back to the title of this thread, though, voting for the other guy won't change things in that regard. As dividendman suggested, it would probably be worse. Trump was just encouraging Russia to attack Germany, after all.

[dang1]

"Mostly Peaceful Election Scenarios

If you are an insurance adjuster or police captain attempting to prepare for election aftermath, you probably shouldn’t be worried about a 2020 level event. Across all outcomes, the average damage, death, and anarchy should only be about 14.15% of what we saw in 2020, with most of the heavier outcomes concentrated in two possible eventualities. If we as a country can keep it under 700 demonstrations, 2.8 million protesters, 2,000 arrests, $283 million dollars in damages, and 3 deaths, we’ll have beaten the odds."
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/mostly-peaceful-election-scenarios

[Chris Pascale]

"Mostly Peaceful Election Scenarios

If you are an insurance adjuster or police captain attempting to prepare for election aftermath, you probably shouldn’t be worried about a 2020 level event. Across all outcomes, the average damage, death, and anarchy should only be about 14.15% of what we saw in 2020, with most of the heavier outcomes concentrated in two possible eventualities. If we as a country can keep it under 700 demonstrations, 2.8 million protesters, 2,000 arrests, $283 million dollars in damages, and 3 deaths, we’ll have beaten the odds."
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/mostly-peaceful-election-scenarios

Now those are some very specific numbers!

[innkeeper77]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

[simonsez]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

How do you define "more wrong"?  Do you think everyone thinks what the party thinks?

Personally, I don't think we should have much of anything to do with Ukraine or Israel outside of trade, tourism, moderate diplomatic relations, etc.  and certainly not be funding war resources to one side given the US's own imperialistic past (and present).  I might be in the minority on that in both theaters but I still don't think I could look at someone in the eye during a conversation and tell them they're outright wrong for their support of policies that funnel implements of war directly/indirectly to Ukraine or Israel.  They have their perspective, I have mine.  How can I label their perspective wrong from the jump?

[Arbitrage]

I disagree with a lot of what the Democratic party does, both as a whole and what individuals do and stand for. 

However, so much of what the Republican party does and supports have become so repugnant to me.  As a Christian, I also am aghast at what the most visible wing of Christianity represents politically (of the opinion that a lot of it Christ would either be ambivalent about or even diametrically opposed to), and it has driven me both from a lot of organized religion and "Republican Christianity." 

[GuitarStv]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

How do you define "more wrong"?  Do you think everyone thinks what the party thinks?

Personally, I don't think we should have much of anything to do with Ukraine or Israel outside of trade, tourism, moderate diplomatic relations, etc.  and certainly not be funding war resources to one side given the US's own imperialistic past (and present).  I might be in the minority on that in both theaters but I still don't think I could look at someone in the eye during a conversation and tell them they're outright wrong for their support of policies that funnel implements of war directly/indirectly to Ukraine or Israel.  They have their perspective, I have mine.  How can I label their perspective wrong from the jump?

The Israel/Palestine thing is a long and messy situation.  I get how people can reasonably come down on one side or the other there.  But it's pretty hard to look at Russia's perspective on the Ukraine war (they want a chunk of Ukraine ostensibly because of pretend Nazis and paranoia of NATO attempting to take over Russia) and argue that their actions are reasonable.  There's a more clear cut 'good' side in that conflict.

[Cawl]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

So no opinions on how it is costing Biden support with minority communities?

[innkeeper77]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

How do you define "more wrong"?  Do you think everyone thinks what the party thinks?

Personally, I don't think we should have much of anything to do with Ukraine or Israel outside of trade, tourism, moderate diplomatic relations, etc.  and certainly not be funding war resources to one side given the US's own imperialistic past (and present).  I might be in the minority on that in both theaters but I still don't think I could look at someone in the eye during a conversation and tell them they're outright wrong for their support of policies that funnel implements of war directly/indirectly to Ukraine or Israel.  They have their perspective, I have mine.  How can I label their perspective wrong from the jump?

I think we should hold ourselves to the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine gave up their Nukes with the assurance that they would be defended. They are also defending their country from an outright imperialist invasion- the US is barely sending any money, mostly just mothballed old equipment we already spent the money on years ago. We should send them arms and money, as we recognize them as a country, they are ASKING for aid,  and they were invaded by a much larger power. Obviously there are additional nuances to literally everything, but the Russia/Ukraine conflict is as close to a good guy bad guy situation or "just war" on one side as any conflict I have seen in my lifetime.

Israel isn't in the same situation, in fact, they are clearly the aggressor.

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

So no opinions on how it is costing Biden support with minority communities?

It's a mess and I am fully against Israel here, but the republicans are even more pro Israel so it doesn't seem to me to be the deciding factor given that voting for third party, at least on a presidential level, is just throwing your vote away. (And to say it would drive people to trump is laughable because, again, his base is super pro israel)

[dividendman]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

So no opinions on how it is costing Biden support with minority communities?

Is there data on that? I'm unsure how the Israel/Palestine conflict impacts "minorities" more than other folks... maybe the Palestinians that immigrated here.... but I think there are all sorts of sympathetic people. I don't think it's going to have a major impact on the election. I doubt someone is going to say "Biden's support for Israel is a deal breaker, so I'm voting for Trump".

[Log]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

So no opinions on how it is costing Biden support with minority communities?

The problem with the "Democrats need to move left to shore up minority support on Israel/Palestine" argument is that PoC Democrats are generally more moderate than white Democrats on just about every other issue.

The further left wing of the party loves to cherrypick arguments for how there's some moral social justice imperative to take their more extreme view points, while constantly talking over the black/latino/asian voters who are consistently calling for moderation. There might be some sect of PoC elites who are vocally in support of the same social justice politics as white elites, but lots of Black Democrats who didn't get elite liberal arts educations identify as conservative. And surprise surprise, moderation is also going to help win over undecided voters who are white, which is still the strategically critical demographic.

The "base mobilization" theory of elections has been tried and debunked repeatedly in the last few years. There's not some giant army of disaffected leftists who the proper candidate will bring flooding down the mountain to the polls. There are lots of middle and working class swing voters who don't follow politics closely at all, but feel alienated by elitism and "woke stuff," regardless of their race.

If we compare gaining a disaffected non-voter from the far left vs earning a vote from an undecided voter in the center:
1) there are MORE of the latter
2) their vote is worth twice as much since earning their vote is simultaneously taking it away from the other side
3) there are more of them in the critical swing states, rather than in places that are already firmly Blue anyway.

Are there a bunch of angry working class social justice leftists in California and New York and Oregon who really hate the "corporate shills" of the Democratic Party? You betcha. But maybe we should be thinking more about North Carolina and Arizona and Wisconsin.

[maizefolk]

Is there data on that? I'm unsure how the Israel/Palestine conflict impacts "minorities" more than other folks... maybe the Palestinians that immigrated here.... but I think there are all sorts of sympathetic people. I don't think it's going to have a major impact on the election. I doubt someone is going to say "Biden's support for Israel is a deal breaker, so I'm voting for Trump".

Here is one relevant article on how the support for Israel during the bombing and invasion is impacting support for Biden among the ~300,000 arabs and muslims (two different groups that partially overlap) in Michigan, a very organized and politically engaged population that helped give Biden his 150,000 vote win in that state back in 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/31/arab-muslim-voters-work-to-defeat-biden/

They are still debating whether to encourage voters to support a third-party candidate or to skip the presidential contest altogether while still voting for other offices. Either way, the organizers are telling Muslim and Arab voters that they should show up and vote, rather than stay home, so it is clear that Biden specifically has lost their vote.

[GuitarStv]

Is there data on that? I'm unsure how the Israel/Palestine conflict impacts "minorities" more than other folks... maybe the Palestinians that immigrated here.... but I think there are all sorts of sympathetic people. I don't think it's going to have a major impact on the election. I doubt someone is going to say "Biden's support for Israel is a deal breaker, so I'm voting for Trump".

Here is one relevant article on how the support for Israel during the bombing and invasion is impacting support for Biden among the ~300,000 arabs and muslims (two different groups that partially overlap) in Michigan, a very organized and politically engaged population that helped give Biden his 150,000 vote win in that state back in 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/31/arab-muslim-voters-work-to-defeat-biden/

They are still debating whether to encourage voters to support a third-party candidate or to skip the presidential contest altogether while still voting for other offices. Either way, the organizers are telling Muslim and Arab voters that they should show up and vote, rather than stay home, so it is clear that Biden specifically has lost their vote.

The US is a two party system.  The next president will be either a Democrat or Republican - of that there is no doubt.

So in the United States as a Muslim you have effectively three choices:

- Support Biden because the Democrats are slightly less supportive of Israel than the Republicans.
- Support Trump despite his being extremely pro-Israel (and pro right wing Israeli politicians - the people who have been advocating for genocide according to the UN)
- Support a third party candidate, knowing that this effectively helps Trump who is currently ahead on the polls.

Feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[simonsez]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

How do you define "more wrong"?  Do you think everyone thinks what the party thinks?

Personally, I don't think we should have much of anything to do with Ukraine or Israel outside of trade, tourism, moderate diplomatic relations, etc.  and certainly not be funding war resources to one side given the US's own imperialistic past (and present).  I might be in the minority on that in both theaters but I still don't think I could look at someone in the eye during a conversation and tell them they're outright wrong for their support of policies that funnel implements of war directly/indirectly to Ukraine or Israel.  They have their perspective, I have mine.  How can I label their perspective wrong from the jump?

The Israel/Palestine thing is a long and messy situation.  I get how people can reasonably come down on one side or the other there.  But it's pretty hard to look at Russia's perspective on the Ukraine war (they want a chunk of Ukraine ostensibly because of pretend Nazis and paranoia of NATO attempting to take over Russia) and argue that their actions are reasonable.  There's a more clear cut 'good' side in that conflict.

To you, perhaps.  I could point to various land grabs (both of existing sovereign nations and "unclaimed" territories) in the past that "worked" and still exist today, worked for a time that no longer exist today, and some that never worked from the start, all with varying levels of US involvement/acceptance and underlying context that is either the same, similar, or different - depending on who you ask and the story can change over time.  I don't know how to objectively look at all of these different situations throughout history, compare it to Russia/Ukraine, and decide who is right/wrong.  It is highly subjective on the framing.  If you're confident in your position, that's great.  I'm not confident at all and honestly don't know how to view this (Example: If Russia annexed the Ukrainian regions they wanted with minimum resistance, would the total number of dead be decreased?  Does someone else have a different metric other than human lives that they prefer?).  That's also why this particular topic doesn't determine who I vote for (regardless of a given political party's platform).  To me, there are just bigger fish to fry.  And that's no offense intended to the dead Ukrainians and Russians and those still actively dealing with the fallout, I just care more about other topics, mostly pertaining to rights, values, and legalities within the admittedly highly arbitrary border of the US.  I would never sit here and tell someone else that what's most important politically to them (in terms of prioritization) is wrong, nor that their position on any given topic is wrong.

And I'm sure that your position makes rational sense given your values, people you know, your own culture and family history, your country's history, the media you're exposed to, whatever else that shapes your perception.

Some stuff I have a position on and act accordingly, others I've drawn a line in the sand but it doesn't lead to any actionable outcomes, other I'm not sure and the reasons for making a choice or being neutral or not prioritizing can all vary as well.

[sixwings]

The ukraine aid thing annoys me, it's like people intentionally pretend they don't understand how the ukraine aid works and that the US is just passing money to Ukraine to do whatever they want with, which just isn't true but it's a key stupid right wing talking point. It's also like people intentionally pretend that the US government can't walk and chew gum at the same which just isn't true. Like if only congress could pass a bill that would provide Ukraine aid AND secure the border AT THE SAME TIME!!! Talk about innovation craziness!!!! Propaganda is nuts.

Very little money is actually given to Ukraine, most of it is equipment and then the US govt pays the US arms manufacturers to make new stuff for themselves. Most of the funding for the ukraine "aid" never leaves the US and it's mostly used for americans to manufacture weapons specifically for the US and for their shareholders to get richer. It's basically a jobs program at this point. It probably just needs to get rebranded into something like the Modernizing USA Military Equipment To Keep Our Soldiers Safe Act, which is a better description and avoids stupid right wing talking points.

On top of that, even if it was money going to Ukraine (it's not), the cost to destroy the biggest geopolitical foe since WW2 is really a bargain.

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/

[Psychstache]

Is there data on that? I'm unsure how the Israel/Palestine conflict impacts "minorities" more than other folks... maybe the Palestinians that immigrated here.... but I think there are all sorts of sympathetic people. I don't think it's going to have a major impact on the election. I doubt someone is going to say "Biden's support for Israel is a deal breaker, so I'm voting for Trump".

Here is one relevant article on how the support for Israel during the bombing and invasion is impacting support for Biden among the ~300,000 arabs and muslims (two different groups that partially overlap) in Michigan, a very organized and politically engaged population that helped give Biden his 150,000 vote win in that state back in 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/31/arab-muslim-voters-work-to-defeat-biden/

They are still debating whether to encourage voters to support a third-party candidate or to skip the presidential contest altogether while still voting for other offices. Either way, the organizers are telling Muslim and Arab voters that they should show up and vote, rather than stay home, so it is clear that Biden specifically has lost their vote.

The US is a two party system.  The next president will be either a Democrat or Republican - of that there is no doubt.

So in the United States as a Muslim you have effectively three choices:

- Support Biden because the Democrats are slightly less supportive of Israel than the Republicans.
- Support Trump despite his being extremely pro-Israel (and pro right wing Israeli politicians - the people who have been advocating for genocide according to the UN)
- Support a third party candidate, knowing that this effectively helps Trump who is currently ahead on the polls.

Feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't think most people are going to game theory out their voting strategy.

[Cawl]

Is there data on that? I'm unsure how the Israel/Palestine conflict impacts "minorities" more than other folks... maybe the Palestinians that immigrated here.... but I think there are all sorts of sympathetic people. I don't think it's going to have a major impact on the election. I doubt someone is going to say "Biden's support for Israel is a deal breaker, so I'm voting for Trump".

Here is one relevant article on how the support for Israel during the bombing and invasion is impacting support for Biden among the ~300,000 arabs and muslims (two different groups that partially overlap) in Michigan, a very organized and politically engaged population that helped give Biden his 150,000 vote win in that state back in 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/31/arab-muslim-voters-work-to-defeat-biden/

They are still debating whether to encourage voters to support a third-party candidate or to skip the presidential contest altogether while still voting for other offices. Either way, the organizers are telling Muslim and Arab voters that they should show up and vote, rather than stay home, so it is clear that Biden specifically has lost their vote.

The US is a two party system.  The next president will be either a Democrat or Republican - of that there is no doubt.

So in the United States as a Muslim you have effectively three choices:

- Support Biden because the Democrats are slightly less supportive of Israel than the Republicans.
- Support Trump despite his being extremely pro-Israel (and pro right wing Israeli politicians - the people who have been advocating for genocide according to the UN)
- Support a third party candidate, knowing that this effectively helps Trump who is currently ahead on the polls.

Feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

They already said they aren't voting for Trump and people should stop assuming that they would vote for Trump. They just won't vote.

[Cawl]

Five pages and no mention of Biden supporting Israel's Genocide against Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06

Yes.... and it's awful. However, to say one should vote republican because of this is laughable, as they are even more in support of it. At least the Democrats are slightly supportive of Ukraine. (And I think it is blindly obvious as to how someone can support Ukraine while also supporting Palestine. I'd rather not vote for the party that is more wrong on BOTH issues)

So no opinions on how it is costing Biden support with minority communities?

Is there data on that? I'm unsure how the Israel/Palestine conflict impacts "minorities" more than other folks... maybe the Palestinians that immigrated here.... but I think there are all sorts of sympathetic people. I don't think it's going to have a major impact on the election. I doubt someone is going to say "Biden's support for Israel is a deal breaker, so I'm voting for Trump".

Behold! Black churches will refuse to endorse Biden because of the conflict in Israel.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/us/politics/black-pastors-biden-gaza-israel.html

[Cawl]

The ukraine aid thing annoys me, it's like people intentionally pretend they don't understand how the ukraine aid works and that the US is just passing money to Ukraine to do whatever they want with, which just isn't true but it's a key stupid right wing talking point. It's also like people intentionally pretend that the US government can't walk and chew gum at the same which just isn't true. Like if only congress could pass a bill that would provide Ukraine aid AND secure the border AT THE SAME TIME!!! Talk about innovation craziness!!!! Propaganda is nuts.

Very little money is actually given to Ukraine, most of it is equipment and then the US govt pays the US arms manufacturers to make new stuff for themselves. Most of the funding for the ukraine "aid" never leaves the US and it's mostly used for americans to manufacture weapons specifically for the US and for their shareholders to get richer. It's basically a jobs program at this point. It probably just needs to get rebranded into something like the Modernizing USA Military Equipment To Keep Our Soldiers Safe Act, which is a better description and avoids stupid right wing talking points.

On top of that, even if it was money going to Ukraine (it's not), the cost to destroy the biggest geopolitical foe since WW2 is really a bargain.

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/

The US has pumped in 25 Billion into the Ukraine Economy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/following-american-money-in-ukraine-60-minutes/

And no, Ukraine has lost the war and is little more than a shambling corpse at this point. You're just ensuring that more people die pointlessly.

[maizefolk]

The US is a two party system.  The next president will be either a Democrat or Republican - of that there is no doubt.

So in the United States as a Muslim you have effectively three choices:

- Support Biden because the Democrats are slightly less supportive of Israel than the Republicans.
- Support Trump despite his being extremely pro-Israel (and pro right wing Israeli politicians - the people who have been advocating for genocide according to the UN)
- Support a third party candidate, knowing that this effectively helps Trump who is currently ahead on the polls.

Feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you were a far left voter in 2000 you had roughly the same three choices: 1) vote for the main party candidate you agree with more (Gore) 2) vote for the main party candidate you agree with less (Bush) or 3) support a 3rd party candidate (Nader) knowing it would help the candidate you agree with less.

Almost three million people chose option #3 and that's how we ended up with our first four years of George W Bush, an invasion of Iraq that otherwise would not have happened, more than 200,000 dead Iraqi civilians, more dead Americans than the number of us who died on September 11th, and the better part of a $1T of completely avoidable military spending.

So no, I wouldn't count on voters to rationally think through their options and fall in line with the less bad option.

[sixwings]

The ukraine aid thing annoys me, it's like people intentionally pretend they don't understand how the ukraine aid works and that the US is just passing money to Ukraine to do whatever they want with, which just isn't true but it's a key stupid right wing talking point. It's also like people intentionally pretend that the US government can't walk and chew gum at the same which just isn't true. Like if only congress could pass a bill that would provide Ukraine aid AND secure the border AT THE SAME TIME!!! Talk about innovation craziness!!!! Propaganda is nuts.

Very little money is actually given to Ukraine, most of it is equipment and then the US govt pays the US arms manufacturers to make new stuff for themselves. Most of the funding for the ukraine "aid" never leaves the US and it's mostly used for americans to manufacture weapons specifically for the US and for their shareholders to get richer. It's basically a jobs program at this point. It probably just needs to get rebranded into something like the Modernizing USA Military Equipment To Keep Our Soldiers Safe Act, which is a better description and avoids stupid right wing talking points.

On top of that, even if it was money going to Ukraine (it's not), the cost to destroy the biggest geopolitical foe since WW2 is really a bargain.

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/

The US has pumped in 25 Billion into the Ukraine Economy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/following-american-money-in-ukraine-60-minutes/

And no, Ukraine has lost the war and is little more than a shambling corpse at this point. You're just ensuring that more people die pointlessly.

It's a small portion of the defense budget and has other impacts that are necessary and is already a minor portion of the total aid being provided. For instance they are paying for Ukrainian farmers to be able to sow fields, Ukraine provides 10% of the worlds wheat, 15% of the worlds corn, and availability of bread/grain products is incredibly important for the stability of the USA and world. Hungry people revolt. Food security is VERY important to the security of the USA. Do you want Russia to own 10% of the worlds wheat production? The point still stands, the US is not just sending loads of cash over to Ukraine for no reason, there's a small amount of that sure, but most of it is for very direct, specific things that measurably improve american lives, such as manufacturing jobs for military equipment in the USA or ensuring the grain production in Ukraine continues to ensure that food security is maintained. If republicans had any good faith in them they'd look to limit some of the cash if that was actually their issue, but in reality they just want to lie and tell you that it's all money flowing to Ukraine, and too many people are falling for those lies.

And even barring all of that, this cost to weaken the greatest geopolitical foe of the USA over the last century is really pretty reasonable.

Did you really just say that people fighting for their own independence from a dictator, the people were treated terribly the last time Russia had control of Ukraine, is that they are dieing pointlessly? Too bad no one told George Washington that! The American Revolution was obviously just a bunch of pointless deaths. Give your head a shake.

[maizefolk]

For instance they are paying for Ukrainian farmers to be able to sow fields, Ukraine provides 10% of the worlds wheat, 15% of the worlds corn, and availability of bread/grain products is incredibly important for the stability of the USA and world. Hungry people revolt. Food security is VERY important to the security of the USA. Do you want Russia to own 10% of the worlds wheat production?

This didn't sound at all right to me. Ukraine produces about 30.5M tons of corn a year, which is a lot of corn, but amounts to only 2% of global production, not 15%. Source. <-- USDA's Foreign Ag Service, which I've always found quite reliable.

The wheat number sounded more plausible to me, but since I was at the FAS website anyway I looked that one up too and it is also false. Ukraine produces 3% of the global wheat crop at 23.4M tons. Not a small amount of wheat, but a lot less than you're claiming. And Russia produces more than 90M tons of wheat, which means they already do own 10% of the world's wheat. Source. <-- Also USDA FAS

[innkeeper77]

For instance they are paying for Ukrainian farmers to be able to sow fields, Ukraine provides 10% of the worlds wheat, 15% of the worlds corn, and availability of bread/grain products is incredibly important for the stability of the USA and world. Hungry people revolt. Food security is VERY important to the security of the USA. Do you want Russia to own 10% of the worlds wheat production?

This didn't sound at all right to me. Ukraine produces about 30.5M tons of corn a year, which is a lot of corn, but amounts to only 2% of global production, not 15%. Source. <-- USDA's Foreign Ag Service, which I've always found quite reliable.

The wheat number sounded more plausible to me, but since I was at the FAS website anyway I looked that one up too and it is also false. Ukraine produces 3% of the global wheat crop at 23.4M tons. Not a small amount of wheat, but a lot less than you're claiming. And Russia produces more than 90M tons of wheat, which means they already do own 10% of the world's wheat. Source. <-- Also USDA FAS

You are both kind of right- the original numbers (15% corn etc) aren’t in terms of total production, but in terms of the percent of the global trade market. Domestic use doesn’t count there, Ukrainian food exports being down is a MASSIVE impact even if they are a small percentage of the global production totals. (This is an impact of course because a decent number of counties are net food importers. The US is one of the largest exporters, which is why US aid including food is so darn important, but Ukraine was handling a significant portion of that need)

[innkeeper77]

The ukraine aid thing annoys me, it's like people intentionally pretend they don't understand how the ukraine aid works and that the US is just passing money to Ukraine to do whatever they want with, which just isn't true but it's a key stupid right wing talking point. It's also like people intentionally pretend that the US government can't walk and chew gum at the same which just isn't true. Like if only congress could pass a bill that would provide Ukraine aid AND secure the border AT THE SAME TIME!!! Talk about innovation craziness!!!! Propaganda is nuts.

Very little money is actually given to Ukraine, most of it is equipment and then the US govt pays the US arms manufacturers to make new stuff for themselves. Most of the funding for the ukraine "aid" never leaves the US and it's mostly used for americans to manufacture weapons specifically for the US and for their shareholders to get richer. It's basically a jobs program at this point. It probably just needs to get rebranded into something like the Modernizing USA Military Equipment To Keep Our Soldiers Safe Act, which is a better description and avoids stupid right wing talking points.

On top of that, even if it was money going to Ukraine (it's not), the cost to destroy the biggest geopolitical foe since WW2 is really a bargain.

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/

The US has pumped in 25 Billion into the Ukraine Economy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/following-american-money-in-ukraine-60-minutes/

And no, Ukraine has lost the war and is little more than a shambling corpse at this point. You're just ensuring that more people die pointlessly.

There is significant evidence that Russia is ALSO significantly strained by the war, look at their recruitment in urban areas instead of the traditional rural only recruitment. Russia has also had to expand massive amounts of material and human lives to capture a relatively small portion of Ukraine over the past year. It’s a war of attrition, but to say the US should give up on its commitments (remember we said we would protect them when they gave up their nukes) when they themselves are not done fighting seems gross to me.

[maizefolk]

For instance they are paying for Ukrainian farmers to be able to sow fields, Ukraine provides 10% of the worlds wheat, 15% of the worlds corn, and availability of bread/grain products is incredibly important for the stability of the USA and world. Hungry people revolt. Food security is VERY important to the security of the USA. Do you want Russia to own 10% of the worlds wheat production?

This didn't sound at all right to me. Ukraine produces about 30.5M tons of corn a year, which is a lot of corn, but amounts to only 2% of global production, not 15%. Source. <-- USDA's Foreign Ag Service, which I've always found quite reliable.

The wheat number sounded more plausible to me, but since I was at the FAS website anyway I looked that one up too and it is also false. Ukraine produces 3% of the global wheat crop at 23.4M tons. Not a small amount of wheat, but a lot less than you're claiming. And Russia produces more than 90M tons of wheat, which means they already do own 10% of the world's wheat. Source. <-- Also USDA FAS

You are both kind of right- the original numbers (15% corn etc) aren’t in terms of total production, but in terms of the percent of the global trade market. Domestic use doesn’t count there, Ukrainian food exports being down is a MASSIVE impact even if they are a small percentage of the global production totals. (This is an impact of course because a decent number of counties are net food importers. The US is one of the largest exporters, which is why US aid including food is so darn important, but Ukraine was handling a significant portion of that need)

When a poster writes "10% of the world's wheat" or whatever, I don't think believe people reading that post are going to assume there is an unwritten "except for the roughly 75% of wheat grown and consumed without crossing an international border" disclaimer. They're going to read it to mean 10% of all the world's wheat.

I'll also note there isn't some fixed pool of "export" corn or wheat which is separate from domestic consumption. US corn exports can easily swing up or down 25M metric tons (not too far off from Ukraine's entire corn production, domestic and export) depending on what prices look like internationally.

Now I sound like I'm trying to beat up on Ukraine and that's really not my goal. I just don't like people passing off false and misleading agricultural statistics to support their conclusions, even if I agree with those ultimate conclusions.

[sixwings]

Sure, here's what I pulled those stats from:
https://www.dw.com/en/five-facts-on-grain-and-the-war-in-ukraine/a-62601467#:~:text=According%20to%20statistics%20by%20the,the%20union's%20member%20states%20together.

It's also worth considering issues with food security and the need to ensure that a large food supplier needs to remain friendly as global growing seasons become more volatile. It will be important to have a large food exporter like Ukraine as an ally in years when the US crops struggle. Other large grain growers like India, China and Russia are not countries we should rely on for help if we face a dustbowl in North America.

Like Trump tweets about everything needing to be a loan, which conservatives eat up, and then they complain that Ukraine is getting free money and it should at least be a loan like this is a new and novel idea. Which it's not. A lot of the aid to Ukraine is already a loan under the Ukraine Defense Democracy Lend-Lease Act. It's absolutely infuriating.

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/

But nah Trump is just going to lie about what's actually happening with Ukraine and his supporters won't even spend 3 seconds thinking critically about it because of caravans, hunter bidens laptop and how Biden and Taylor Swift rigged the superbowl for reasons.

[Cawl]

The ukraine aid thing annoys me, it's like people intentionally pretend they don't understand how the ukraine aid works and that the US is just passing money to Ukraine to do whatever they want with, which just isn't true but it's a key stupid right wing talking point. It's also like people intentionally pretend that the US government can't walk and chew gum at the same which just isn't true. Like if only congress could pass a bill that would provide Ukraine aid AND secure the border AT THE SAME TIME!!! Talk about innovation craziness!!!! Propaganda is nuts.

Very little money is actually given to Ukraine, most of it is equipment and then the US govt pays the US arms manufacturers to make new stuff for themselves. Most of the funding for the ukraine "aid" never leaves the US and it's mostly used for americans to manufacture weapons specifically for the US and for their shareholders to get richer. It's basically a jobs program at this point. It probably just needs to get rebranded into something like the Modernizing USA Military Equipment To Keep Our Soldiers Safe Act, which is a better description and avoids stupid right wing talking points.

On top of that, even if it was money going to Ukraine (it's not), the cost to destroy the biggest geopolitical foe since WW2 is really a bargain.

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/

The US has pumped in 25 Billion into the Ukraine Economy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/following-american-money-in-ukraine-60-minutes/

And no, Ukraine has lost the war and is little more than a shambling corpse at this point. You're just ensuring that more people die pointlessly.

It's a small portion of the defense budget and has other impacts that are necessary and is already a minor portion of the total aid being provided. For instance they are paying for Ukrainian farmers to be able to sow fields, Ukraine provides 10% of the worlds wheat, 15% of the worlds corn, and availability of bread/grain products is incredibly important for the stability of the USA and world. Hungry people revolt. Food security is VERY important to the security of the USA. Do you want Russia to own 10% of the worlds wheat production? The point still stands, the US is not just sending loads of cash over to Ukraine for no reason, there's a small amount of that sure, but most of it is for very direct, specific things that measurably improve american lives, such as manufacturing jobs for military equipment in the USA or ensuring the grain production in Ukraine continues to ensure that food security is maintained. If republicans had any good faith in them they'd look to limit some of the cash if that was actually their issue, but in reality they just want to lie and tell you that it's all money flowing to Ukraine, and too many people are falling for those lies.

And even barring all of that, this cost to weaken the greatest geopolitical foe of the USA over the last century is really pretty reasonable.

Did you really just say that people fighting for their own independence from a dictator, the people were treated terribly the last time Russia had control of Ukraine, is that they are dieing pointlessly? Too bad no one told George Washington that! The American Revolution was obviously just a bunch of pointless deaths. Give your head a shake.

Ukraine is at Volkssturm levels of exhaustion. They are no longer scraping the bottom of the barrel. They broke the barrel apart and are squeezing the boards for dregs.