ewsieg

For San Francisco, I didn't think it was the violent crime that was the complaint, but rather theft/larceny and other smaller crimes that were surging.

He was trying to 'both sides' it. I quit caring what the point he was making once I realized what he was trying to do.

There is some truth that some liberal policies in some big cities is causing some legitimate crime issues. It's not a false flag as Pfife says. That said, you need to be truthful on why it's happening in most of these places too. Take out Portland, San Fran, and a few other outlier cities and now look at Detroit. Detroit is the same big city that largely pushed back on 'defund the police', yet folks are getting let out on bail for violent offenses. Kill a Detroit cop and they'll throw a tether on you and send you on your way. There is hardly any money in the budget for jails/sheriff department. There has been such a push to cut taxes and just keep trimming away at budgets that the current Wayne County jail fights just to keep the lights on. This same issue is going on nationwide. I'll be willing to point to some corruption and other reasons for this as well, but not until you can admit that the 'starve the beast' policy from the right plays a big role in this too.

If you're argument here is that the DCCC was pumping money into this campaign to actually boost Meijer and it was simply their incompetency in running an effective ad campaign which led to Meijer still losing, you might have me agreeing with you. If it's one thing i've seen with the Democrats is they are largely incompetent.

I guess it comes down to are you voting, even across party lines, to try and put the best candidates in place, or are you doing it knowing you're playing with fire in order to increase the chances of your preferred outcome. I guess i'll put it like this. As a citizen, would you prefer to have a choice between two people that believe in the rule of law and will follow the constitution, even at the risk that you won't agree with the policies of one of them, or is it better to make the choice between someone that will follow the constitution, and another that will follow the constitution when it suits them.

I hate the idea of one party putting up their best and that same party helping ensure the other party puts up their worst. Right now, this looks good for Dems, looks like they will switch a seat. That said, if we head further into a recession that 'Lean D' can turn back to toss up again. On twitter the left wing response I saw that liked this move pointed out that in the end, regardless of Gibbs or Meijer, they both will vote for McCarthy, they both will caucus with republicans. The problem is, only one has proved he would stand up to illegal activity by the president. If dems really feel 1/6 was a constitutional crisis, they aren't acting like they really care by supporting and increasing the chances of being elected those that would side with Trump.

Per Twitter looks like he lost. DNCC put in a lot of money for his challenger. They better make sure they win that seat if they risk adding more nut jobs.

Ukraine has started a war now.

I'm confused as to why what I said what not true. I didn't ignore anything. You added more context in which i'm not disagreeing with. In regards to what I said, I still hold firm to that though. More wall is needed, that's been the case all along, Biden has now confirmed that. End of Story.

I'm voting, not because I am thrilled to though. The person running against my US house rep is hoping to form her own right wing squad with Boebart and Greene, so I have to vote against her, even though i'm not happy with my current US house rep. And than for Michigan House, one is Trump backed, so i'm voting against her too. Still not sure what i'm going with the GOP governor. I kind of want to write in James Craig, but will probably end up voting for Rinke. There is a part of me that thinks Rinke has the best shot to defeat Whitmer, which makes me not want to vote for him, but I would prefer him over any other GOP person (that is on the ballot) exponentially.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-maga-supporters-michigan-tudor-dixon-primary-1729374 Tudor gets her endorsement. Do I vote for Rinke just to go against the endorsement, even though he would have gladly accepted it as well? No idea, glad to see the potential civil war within the Michigan GOP they mention in the article.

Stewart is playing this the right way and not just sitting on left wing media that would agree with him anyway. You may very well be right though.

He already used that playbook with inflation.

My argument with Biden and his administration in regards to 'defining a recession' has more to do with the politics involved in it. With more education/training, a more nuanced definition to anything is found. In basic terms, two quarters of negative gdp has always been the standard. I gave another definition I found earlier in this thread and we're in a recession based on that too. I'm in a decent position where I have a decent job and my wife works too. Still, our plan this year was to get a new car and when my car had some major issues, I ended up choosing to fix it. Many families are just worried about that growing grocery and gas bill. Right now the dems are pointing to low unemployment as proof as no recession, where under Trump low unemployment, with no inflation and a booming stock market apparently wasn't even proof of a good economy, but rather one only good for the upper class. The economy is not in the dumps, but up until this week, the only plan was to let the Fed push us into a recession to slow inflation. Not a great plan. This week proved Biden is willing to make attempts to address it. The president can only do so much, glad to see him trying now though.

This likely was Biden's greatest week of his presidency despite his own administration bungling recession talk. - CHIPS bill - Very popular bill gets passed, long term great play for our own national security. - Inflation Reduction Act - I'd be interested in the back story on this and how much Biden and Schumer had a role in this. Manchin seemed to 'get it' in terms of money being thrown into the economy and he took the brunt of the left's disdain, but regardless, if passed, Biden will get the credit. So far everything i'm seeing with this bill is exactly what the majority of folks ask for, not a bunch of junk, just x, y, and z. - This Biden oil plan, initially I figured it was along the lines of what we've seen in the past with just selling some strategic reserves. Since then i've heard and read a few things. In short, i'm not sure how this will stimulate additional production, but at least he's trying something. It definitely won't hurt. - Jon Stewart takes his legitimate complaints on the burn bill to the right, even Newsmax. That bill will be passed next week due to pressure, guarantee it. You could argue the Inflation Reduction Act forced an error by the republicans on this one. The Cruz fist bump will be part of every ad attack campaign for every election he's ever in again.

Trump's idea for a wall across the entire border was stupid, but more wall needs to be built. Barriers absolutely deter folks. They aren't foolproof, but they help redirect to areas that agents can concentrate on. The agents themselves were begging for more wall. But in an all or nothing world, everyone had to tote the party line and ignore the facts.

It was stupid of the Biden Administration to pick a fight on this. Especially when it spent so long arguing that Inflation was going to be short lived. Another definition: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/26/heres-how-to-know-if-were-in-a-recession-and-its-not-what-you-think.html#:~:text=Officially%2C the NBER defines recession,activity%2C as a primary barometer. By this one as well, we're in a recession. Absolutely the least impacting recession of my lifetime, but a recession nonetheless. Guess we'll see how the next year or two plays out.

The lack of a response from the west is what didn't deter him from invading the rest of the country. We still had Nukes close to him and like you said, he made sure not to hit a NATO country. In likely as quick as a year take Sweden and Finland off of the list of countries he could attack. Georgia is probably the only other vulnerable country right now. Russia, at least with the losses we are attributing to them, could not do a full scale invasion of Georgia while fighting in Ukraine right now. Sure, if he walked through Ukraine, Moldova was probably next and then maybe Georgia after that, but he's running out of targets due to the expansion from the west. Now he actually pushed that expansion further with this mistake. Him being humiliated, along with significant losses to his military has also limited his options and probably has put him on shakier ground in terms of remaining in power too. So, about his only play now is to stay in eastern Ukraine and hold the line at all costs.

For the record, the idea that Putin would withdraw from Ukraine in exchange for any Nukes taken out of Eastern Europe is about as likely as the Tigers getting Soto for Baddoo and a couple of prospects not named Torkelson and Riley. I never said that offer was believable, but I was shocked that everyone on this board thought it would be good for Putin. But if Putin does negotiate that, and pulls his troops out, like I said, increase the risk for him should he go against his word and heads back into Ukraine again. Just an FYI, if the US launches a Nuke from Poland or from Nebraska, rest assured we're all screwed anyway. But yes, Russia would get about an extra 20-30 minutes to say their goodbyes, just like us, instead of only getting 5-10 minutes that many of them would get as of today. The much bigger deterrence is having them, not where they are located.

It's crap, that's what it is. Which is why if there is an opportunity to negotiate an end to this war, especially where it returns Ukraine controlled land back to 2021 borders, it would be a huge win. Once that is in place, send in the Calvary, the MIG's, F-16's, A-10's, etc. I'm not saying once Zelinsky signs a negotiation to ignore Ukraine, instead, make it an extremely strong Ally that can detour Russia later, even without Nukes sitting on their border. But nope, let's just carry on a proxy war, for however long it takes, apparently that's the only option.

So, a Russian withdraw from Eastern Ukraine in exchange for an extra 5 minutes for our Nukes to hit Russia which also could potential save millions of lives across the globe is rewarding Putin and the only solution is simply for Russia to stop the invasion. But giving Putin an arms trafficker back in exchange for a person that did break their laws (as small as it may be) and another person is not a reward? Obviously we should keep this trafficker in jail, the simple solution is simply for Russia to release Greiner and Whelan.

Fixed that for you.

I got a mailer yesterday that said whoever wins the GOP primary for my state house seat will win the general election. It then asked democrats to vote in the GOP primary for a non-extremist candidate. While I appreciate that move, not sure if there is a non-extremist candidate.

I don't disagree with any points you have made except for this snippet above. This is absolutely a war of our choice. If we sat back and just used sanctions, if Zelinksky is still alive he's trying to piecemill a resistance from somewhere near the border of Poland.

I'm a little confused by this response. Is the argument that the US should support Ukraine at all costs and all deaths due to a prolonged recession and the starvation of millions is acceptable because Putin is that great of a threat? As such, Ukraine must win this war and we should support them.....but, if Ukraine wins the war so much that they are able to try and take back Crimea, we will be in a situation where Nukes are being used.