ewsieg

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think this is what they were thinking - some of the ballistics would get through and maybe Iran even thought the Israel would try to minimize that as it would be seen as Iron Dome failure.

But I disagree that the embassy actually crossed any practical line in the light of Oct 7. It was basically a similar scenario to that we went to all out war in Afghanistan over. Oct 7 couldn't have happened without Iran. So from Israel's standpoint, they are already as much at war with Iran as they they could get. And the fact is that in terms of proportionality in this series, Israel remains the more restrained party. The embassy attack killed two civilians, the rest were military officers in an armed service actively engaged against Israel. Oct 7 casualties were mass and civilian, and the missile attack casualties would have been mass. Again, no moral or diplomatic credit to Iran for failing.

I certainly don't want to get into moral high ground statements when we're talking Iran, but Israel bombed an embassy in an entirely different sovereign nation.  That just doesn't sit right with me, even if I'm not sad about the loss of life of the Iranian military members and acknowledge their sins.  

We could go for ever if we want to trade 'who started it' stories, but Israel hitting an embassy was grounds for war from Iran.  Israel crossed a line.  Iran, as stated, would prefer to let their proxies do the dirty work, but by launching everything at the same time, giving Israel and it's partners time to address each wave separately, that indicates to me Iran didn't want to create great damage.  Would they have preferred a few get through?  Probably, but I think they expected most to get knocked down.  On paper, they can still tout they fired so many to make it look impressive, but they wanted to no part in this, but felt they had to respond to a unprecedented attack on their embassy.

I agree with Biden's response to Israel, with multiple Muslim countries stepping up to defend Israel, Israel needs to accept it as a great win and see if it can't build from it with it's local partners.   

Another entry for 2024, solid name recognition as well.

3 minutes ago, oblong said:

Marijuana is also on the ballot in FL.

**** yeah!

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The 8 years since have certainly proven he is not and has never been interested in middle class economic development. So should that represent a slice of his 2020 electorate that he would have lost, or did that segment overlap too much with the MAGA culturalists for his failures on that score to matter?

I suspect the overlap was too much.

6 minutes ago, oblong said:

If these states didn't over play their hand with their very extreme bans and including IVF and birth control in general in their plans maybe it could have worked. 

As we see, there were so many state laws that essentially were forgotten about as RvW was law of the land.  Now that it's gone, States are dealing with those laws.  Even in blue states, i'm sure we'll continue to hear about courts rule in a "Pro-abortion" way as while they may not agree with it, it's a valid state law and they uphold it.  In Michigan, Whitmer and Dems were proactive to clean up some old abortion laws before it even got to that point.  

In short, I think this issue gets worse for the GOP without any outside interference.  Hopefully Dems stomp on it on top of that.  

Somewhat related, I just learned abortion is going to be on the ballot in Florida.  I wonder if that alone is enough to flip the state.  At minimum, I suspect Trump will have to spend a lot of money, which he doesn't have, to retain Florida.   Can we get legal weed on the ballot there too?

17 hours ago, mtutiger said:

What people missed too is that this move was a reactive move and one made from weakness, not strength. And to the extent there was a goal in mind, it was to short term play to stanch the bleeding on an issue that is really not good for him versus really flipping the script and triangulating

Today is a demonstration of just how short term the play was and how it completely disregarded how the messaging could get lost in new developments. 

Honestly I think Trump understands the political aspect of this issue better then most in the GOP.  It's the one issue that I think he would love to completely flip the script and be pro-abortion on.  In true populist form, he see's it as a losing issue and wants to be on the winning side of it.  It's not like he has any personal convictions over it.  

Regardless if he continues to try and soften his public stance on abortion, the counter should just to continue pointing at SCOTUS and remind everyone of his role there.

47 minutes ago, Dan Gilmore said:

Whether those people were “bad” is not very important to me. Rittenhouse pulled the trigger.

It is a major difference between the two scenarios though.  People that have a history of violence provoked the altercation and witness and video evidence backed it up.  Rittenhouse's first instinct was not to stand his ground or act like a tough guy with a gun that people needed to back down from, when the provocation started, he attempted to flee, both times.  

Make no mistake, I do not consider him a hero.  I don't think he legally should be held responsible for those deaths, but personally hopes he understands that he wouldn't have blood on his hands if he would have made better choices.  

And yes, he's chosen to go all in with those that support him, even though he's being used.  It won't end well for him.

11 hours ago, romad1 said:

So, when George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin I was thinking George Zimmerman was possibly in the right because I listened to those who framed it that way.   Then we found out that George Zimmerman was a smooth-brained, sloped-forheaded ass who cherished the Confederate flag and seemed to always be in violent confrontations.  

The Zimmerman case is fairly similar to Rittenhouse in that the initial story came out and over time, more to the story came out.  In Zimmerman's case, the right pushed his case as a man protecting his neighborhood and that narrative held.  For those that followed the story, you eventually learned Zimmerman was a piece of ****.  In Rittenhouse's case, the left pushed their narrative and that held until the trial, where those that paid attention learned that Rittenhouse, while naive and dumb that he could protect a city he worked in as a 17 year old, went with the intention of protecting the city and providing aid to anyone that got hurt. 

In hindsight, we know Martin did not engage Zimmerman and tried to continue to his...dad's?  Or mom's, can't remember.  Zimmerman, who later proved how unhinged he is, started the incident and that led to Martin's tragic death.

In hindsight, we know Rittenhouse did not engage Rosenbaum and that he attempted to flee.  Rosenbaum had already proved how unhinged he was as sexual and physical abuser.  Even the 2nd victim had a history of violence and was pursuing Rittenhouse as he was attempting to flee again.  If I remember correctly, only the 3rd victim didn't have a violent history, but on the witness stand he testified that did point his gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot.

All that said, I have no doubts that eventually you'll be proven right.  Rittenhouse was 17 when this all happened and obviously naive.  I do think he never wanted this to happen nor wanted to kill anyone.  The Trumpers embraced him and he went with it.  Anything he tries to do in life, the left will be there to make his life as hard as possible.  He's had trouble trying to pursue college, no idea if he actually tried to go in the armed services or not, but Snopes who says your info about him and the Marines is still in research, but says that the fact they claim he's permanently disqualified is false.  To make a living, he'll have no choice but to continue the path with right wing, ultra pro gun folks and he'll become a pawn for them.  

7 minutes ago, VegasTiger said:

Do you know why they were chasing him?

Yeah, a convicted sexual offender told Rittenhouse (and supported by witnesses) that if he saw Rittenhouse or another guy alone, he'd kill them.  Then later he engaged Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse attempted to flee, the guy caught up to him and per witnesses, lunged at the gun as he threw a bag with some personal belongings at him, at that point Rittenhouse shot him.  That stirred up the mob, and Rittenhouse again attempted to flee.   A Wisconsin court determined it was self defense.  As he fled the 2nd time, others determined that Rittenhouse must be to blame even though they were not eye witnesses to the shooting and decided they were authorized to use force to stop Rittenhouse from fleeing.  One used his skateboard to attack Rittenhouse, the other pointed a gun directly at Rittenhouse.  A Wisconsin court determined those were self defense as well.

58 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I mean if killing people is your bag. 

White people that were attacking him (ironically 3 random white guys that on paper, are all worse people than Rittenhouse).... but if you want to continue with baseless claims that he hates black people, you do you.

18 minutes ago, romad1 said:

This is a weird take.  

Unfortunately factually correct takes are generally considers weird now-a-days.

On 4/4/2024 at 10:14 AM, romad1 said:

If you answer multiple choice questions by scrawling "black people should be murdered"  in your own feces, they might. 

C'mon, I'll give you that the right has grabbed him and are grooming him into some hero that he's not, but he's also not the villian the left insists he must be either.  

16 hours ago, casimir said:

Along those lines, I noticed a neighbor that flew a Trump flag four years ago has put a Biden flag up this weekend.

It's not a real Biden flag unless he's shirtless with bulging muscles, a bandana, and he's holding an assault rifle.

On 4/5/2024 at 1:03 PM, chasfh said:

Yes, being so concerned with controlling the talking points is the Republicans' job, and they are doing a great job of it!

Point taken, I guess the better way to say it is Is prefer democrats focus their taking points on reproductive rights, democracy, and a party looking for solutions (right or wrong) as I believe those are better topics to control the talking points.  

If the economy stays there way it is, no independents will be seated to vote for Trump over an economy that is relatively working for them.

47 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I don't have a subscription to WSJ so I can't verify on my own:

TL/DR....   I have no idea the specifics of this article, but I'm confident that it confirms bias that I perceive is ongoing and i'm going to rant about it.

18 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Not saying there was an economic plan but some people forget that Obama's successor's staff basically tore up and trashed a plan to deal with a possible pandemic

Yup, Trump certainly shouldn't be able to run on the economy either.  Just saying a bad economy tends to favor the opponent.  I understand Democrats wanting to say the economy is great to fight against any GOP push to a different agenda.  My concern is Democrats being so concerned with controlling the talking points that it works against them, for instance those pointing out it was the democrats that pushed to keep the economy shuttered longer.  Additionally I don't think the younger folks 20-30 year olds, trying to rent or buy a house, will be particularly keen to Democrats boasting about the economy.

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

Because of Trump's mishandling of the virus. We agree, most of us are better off than 4 years ago. A simple question with a simple answer.

10 Bill Clintons paired up with 20 Alan Greenspans, coming off of 50 Bush Sr tax increases couldn't have handled Covid without some legitimate economic pain.

I'm not saying Trump handled it well, but democrats need to be careful how they play this argument.  With kids, folks are realizing how much shutting everything down affected them and their learning.  It wasn't the GOP that wanted them couped up alone for a couple of years.  The economy, assuming no major changes in the next 6 months, should be pretty much a non-factor, which generally supports the incumbent.  

2 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Why does Biden not pressure Egypt to do anything? I get everyone wants Israel to chage its tactics but Egypt could really bring some humanitarian relief.

Whoa now, Egypt is one of the more friendlier Muslim countries to the United States and are still dealing with a rather new democracy (of sorts?  Not going to lie, not entirely sure how free/fair their elections are, but it's a start).  

If Biden wanted to lend a hand and fortify that border with US troops and Egypt was up for it, fine, but Egypt wants to avoid any conflict with Israel or Hamas.  Please expect US Soldier deaths under friendly fire as a result and understand that you just have to accept it and move on.  Additionally any time Egypt brought up helping anyway they can, Israel tries to get them to agree to take Palestinian refugees which we all know Netanyahu will never allow them back if they leave, so now Egypt has to deal with a group of people that still wants to back Hamas and overthrow Israel, but from within their borders, i'm sure Egypt will love to sign right up for that.

Faith over fear.

6 hours ago, romad1 said:

Seen: Billboard in Grand Rapids from RVAT featuring Mike Pence “why i won’t endorse Trump”

I did a fist pump.  Great place for that. 

Instead of a normal democratic convention, The last night should be two hours hosted by Chris Christie where he brings up Pence, Pompeo, Kelly, Romney, Cheney, Kinzinger, Mattis, and others to explain why Trump 2.0 would not be anything like Trump 1.0 and why it has to be avoided, then invite Biden on stage to accept the democratic nomination.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/29/nessel-dte-rate-increase-request/73147027007/

Nessel with some old school democratic thinking here.  Her preferred governor pushes for more green energy, her preferred president pushes for more electric cars.  I hate DTE, but it's going to cost money to transform the grid.  Policies have costs.

Also note, it's just a show.  She gets to look like a fighter, but ultimately they'll get most if not all of their proposed adjustment.

On 3/25/2024 at 10:42 AM, romad1 said:

Patriot system gets a couple reassuring kills 

Bodes well for Taiwan.

I always assumed if Russia walked through Ukraine, China was absolutely going to follow suit.  I have to believe that early on when they saw Russian losses, they back stepped any ideas they had.  

I would be interested in what our intelligence thinks in terms of differences between the two as well.  Russia absolutely is willing to raze the country for the territory.  China wants Taiwan for it's economy though.  Wonder if we believe that will change how they choose to engage Taiwan, if they do at all.

23 hours ago, romad1 said:

are they just getting around to this?

Looks like mgoblog is just getting around to tweeting it.  Looks like they did this in 22.