ewsieg

I've argued for being pro-cautious in regards to this war and our involvement in it. But to complain about Ukraine hitting, by all reported accounts, government targets in Russia, it's just laughable. The book meme is somewhat funny to me as that's one of my complaints, anyone that questions this war must be a bot. That said, while I worry about escalation, I don't understand how anyone can look at these two countries, both with flaws, look at what has occurred in the last 10 years, and not unconditionally root for Ukraine.

Just learned Brian Woodward died hours before this Court decision was handed out. Despite a crash that left him paralyzed, he continued to be active and owned a business. After he couldn't afford to pay for his own care, he lost his house, business, and now his life. This law passed easily with bi-partisan support and hailed by Whitmer as a major win. Most legislators claimed they were surprised that this new law would affect those already in the system, yet no one with the power to do something about it, did anything. Shameful.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2023/07/31/michigan-supreme-court-no-fault-case/70496575007/ Great news out of the Michigan Supreme Court. Just horrible that it took them and not the legislature to realize what they screwed up initially and fix it.

Yup, definitely was a problem before....different letter next to their names, but same issues still. Note, my comment on Nessel was referencing when she was asked about taking money from DTE and she said she had to, because if she didn't, her opponent would. Unfortunately it's true in today's state of politics, but horrible at the same time.

My neighborhood has underground lines, but we've had our share of outages in the last few years and several didn't even have storms associated with them. Additionally you can blame harsher weather, but it's not unlike our roads, we fair worse than those around us that have similar weather. Nessel took money from DTE to ensure they didn't give that money to someone else that wouldn't fight for us though, so we're all good.

Legit points that I didn't take into account at that moment, but those points only matter if you don't extend the game.

And the downside is..........?

I apologize that you don't understand context.

You posted a screenshot. The screen shot you posted gives the name of the podcast. I have a hunch, if you look up that podcast and see when she was a guest, it would give you the release date of the podcast. Additionally, 'articles abound' point out that Mulvaney posted to her Instragram about Bud Light. In today's world, I just feel like there might be a way to identify a date with each of those.

Legit points, but still, I wouldn't think that would keep the average guy that wants to share some stupid bud light meme on Twitter from sharing something equally stupid on Target. I've spent years trying to get a diverse group of folks on my twitter account and add in the fact that per all of you, the second Musk took over it became inundated with racists, homophobic tropes, I feel like I would have still seen outrage at Target, even if their sales weren't affected due to the points you made.

This is why I know you're nothing but a troll.

Target didn't cater, in some stores they apparently moved some stuff. They came out quick to point out they support pride month and noted it's a lie they carry binding swimsuits. My Chesterfield Target never moved theirs.

If they didn't send the beer to Mulvaney, 100-200 people that are interested in a podcast about work/home balance hear your interview. I'm not arguing that no backlash existed. I'm not arguing that the initial backlash was not stupid. I do still feel that clips from that interview, combined with how Bud Light handled the response, helped drive us to the point where we're nearly 4 months in and they are still dealing with large fallout.

You get proven wrong and come at me like i'm the problem. It's not black and white, as the articles that you noted, most people heard the clips of the interview after and thought it was a response to the initial Mulvaney post/backlash. Did some people need those clips to continue their outrage...nope, but IMO, as a whole, it fueled it more. That's my opinion, you don't have to agree. Target got lumped into this and their response was different. Maybe they are still dealing with it, but unlike Bud Light sales, i'm not hearing anything about it. Something appears to be different.

cnn.com Make Yourself At Home - Podcast - March 23, 2023.

The interview happened before the backlash started, it went viral after. I'm not going to argue exact timelines as it's not black and white. Some backlash had started, IMO though, when her interview comes out (virally) and it takes Bud light another few weeks to just come out with a generic "we didn't mean to be part of the divide", it helped ensure the backlash persisted and intensified.

I didn't really see the major backlash until that interview started to go viral. IDK, maybe i'm just a ****ty human being myself. I do laugh at Dave Chappelle, so obviously i'm as transphobic as they come so I probably should have added that for full disclosure. I'm not a marketing major, but i'd think if you've created the best selling beer in America with stupid but fun humor and even as craft beer took down your share, you still outperformed all other beers, maybe you don't say you need to change your ways as that marketing doesn't allow you to be inclusive. Maybe something like, we want to remain true to our core, while inviting others in to enjoy our style of humor as well. Doesn't seem so hard, but who knows.

The marketing VP was interviewed before it completely blew up and she talked about how the brand is dying and she used every left wing buzzword to talk about how they needed to be inclusive to expand the businesses. She mentioned Bud Light was 'fratty' and had out of touch humor and they needed to get beyond that. When that interview went viral, instead of trying to clarify or anything, they just buried their head in the sand hoping everything would pass, it allowed that message to be amplified. It's one thing to hold your own customers in contempt and think they are ****ty people, probably not a good idea to openly speak about it though. For full disclosuer, while I don't like Bud Light beer, I am one of those ****ty people that usually got a chuckle out of Bud Light commercials.

I'm so conservative I'm still in the days of separation of church and state, that religious right segment has certainly enjoyed to 'cancel' things.

I'm so conservative that I'm still stuck in conservative views from years past where 'cancel culture' sucks. That said, I do feel like this bud light one is a bit different. It's one thing not to like a direction a company takes, but when the only communication you get out of the company is that it's core consumer is ****ty, I don't understand how they are surprised about losing so many. To take this on a product point and not a political point, I'll point to GM. They are planning on moving forward without ApplePlay and the Android equivalent. They are gambling their replacement will win over consumers. At least GM didn't claim their replacement will be so much better because Apple and Android users are sheep that are content with whatever crap is shoveled to them.

I remember grandiose thoughts during the Arab Spring as well.

The end was a little surprising, and awesome!

I'm certainly hoping we never find out, my point stands though, he was much more hawkish towards Russia than his rhetoric indicated. While I certainly won't argue your wrong, as I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, I also wouldn't be surprised if the rhetoric he provided differed from the administration that is doing what they think is best without him knowing/caring enough to change it.

This can help you lead up from Obama into the first year of Trump's presidency: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/dont-rehabilitate-obama-on-russia/ This outlines all of his actions against Russia, but not his talk: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/ He loves Putin as a man, he loves all dictators as that's what he wants to be. Still, end of the day, for a host of possible ****ty reasons (my #1 guess being that he just doesn't want to put the work into becoming a dictator) he allowed his folks to act hawkish towards Russia, despite what he said.

I heard an interview from Trump where he was forced to give specifics on just how he would end the war in 1 day. In a somewhat surprising (but maybe not so) twist, he says he'd call on Russia to take major concessions and if they refused, he would simply give Ukraine everything they wanted. I know everyone talked about him as Putin's puppet, but the administration was actually hawkish against Russia under him. I wonder if that kind of talk would have any effect on Russian decision makers.