ewsieg

Remember, Chris Ilitch has no say in what happens, he just hires the GM.

My co-workers friend just lost her election for Mayor of Knoxville to Kane of WWE fame. Apparently it was a +25 Trump town when he ran in 2016. Kane was an incumbent in an off year election where Dems control the White House and congress. She lost by 10. I know history points to a red wave, but right now I just don't see it right now.

Thank god she's calling for a special prosecutor so there is no chance she screws up another investigation/trial.

Be careful what you wish for. It's one thing if you have strong men on your side, like Ted Cruz, who puts on a breastplate daily, grabs a battle axe and fights the barbarians daily.

I heard some discussion that the carried interest was thrown in specifically because 1) it didn't account for much revenue and 2) allowed for Sinema to step in and nix it, with still having the bulk of the bill to pass.

I just pointed out that the lone store in SF that accounted for the the entire increase SF saw for that time period. It does probably make sense that if a single store reporting larcenies accounted for so many reports maybe 1) the store decided it would report everything it saw versus just dealing with it like others in the area and 2) after Target corporate got heat for changing their hours in SF and citing that it was specifically because of crime in SF, maybe when they decided this headache of a store wasn't worth it, they decided not to blame it on crime for PR purposes. I have no right wing talking points, just pointing out valid issues happening in SF which you can't handle and instead want to turn the discussion to Tulsa to prove your left wing talking points. If you go back and read my first response to Archie, you'll see I pointed out SF to try and specifically get him past the right wing talking point I would expect from him and therefore try and get him to understand that many factors, including some by folks he supports (R's) can force people to make decisions they wouldn't prefer to make due to financial constraints.

Wrong! America has a drug problem that is seen as a homeless problem! Seriously though, there is an argument that it may be a drug issue, but the above comment was satiric towards the fact that instead of listening, there is a need to point out a different and possibly valid issue, as the sole cause that you should be concerned about instead. I can't imagine I'll ever be homeless. If it does happen, I promise you I will do whatever I can to ensure that if I remain homeless, I am homeless in a warmer region (California maybe???) and one that I would suspect is more friendly to the homeless. I listen to a podcast that has done some work for an Oakland county homeless shelter and in listening to those guys that specialize in homelessness and trying to help out the best they can, it makes government as a whole, regardless of who is running it, look criminally incompetent. It's one of the few issues I see where I think the amount of money dealing with the issue isn't part of the issue.

Obviously that deli is smarter than Target and saw there were no deli's in SF and started one. Once another 1, or even 2 deli's open up in SF and obviously some will have to close due to having so many in a small area. It's not democrats fault deli's don't know how capitalism works.

I feel like your 'both sides' attempt to push against me even mentioning San Francisco and therefore pointing at Tulsa, despite the fact I was actually pushing against Archie, is now gone to the point of you just throwing anything at the wall. Without looking it up at all, my guess is the population in SF is much more condensed than in Dallas. But honestly, who cares. The part that cracks me up the most about this is you have always been one of the biggest dissenters on any crime statistics out of Detroit. Now when crime statistics can be used for your narrative though, you're going to post them all day long?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-rate-17065509.php I believe that's the Target that closed down. Add in the Walgreen's that have shut down and pretty soon there may be no larceny at all, nor any stores in which you could possibly commit larceny from. No stores, no larceny.... no larceny and that'll prove the dems are best at crime prevention. Now I understand.

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.