The people I know along that line generally don't vote Democratic ... but they don't vote Republican either. They just don't vote, considering it a waste of time to invest in a corrupt system.

I'm familiar with the links you posted, but neither of them says anything on-point to what I was asking about; the % of independents who always vote Republican.

Ah yes, the old 'if you don't think what I do, you're not being serious/not arguing in good faith/etc. ' argument. I can't prove how many of them there are - I don't know - but as I mentioned in the previous post, there are a not-small number of people I know personally who would be lumped into that hard-core right-wing crowd by this approach but are actually aggressively apolitical.

As ever, there are more realities in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your expressed philosophy,

You literally agreed with or made excuses for every part of the bill. You just said you want to bring back these "confused" people who (80% of republicans) who think our election system is fraudulent, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The only way they fix the election is to make it hard for people who do not vote for them to vote. Multiple people in GA have said that the only reason they are passing the laws is that they can't win on voting as is.

You say it is easy for everyone to get an ID, I do not agree. Look at Alabama where they closed like 75% of the DMVs in the predominantly black communities. They have made it clear what they want to do and you think it is ok.

This one is probably the one that bugs me the most out of this entire bit of legislation, and I think your example here is perfect.

I'd like to see at least an amendment that says something like, "Hey, but if you do challenge, you're on the financial hook for the man-hours it costs to do the audit for everyone who you incorrectly challenged."

I mean, I'm sure some rich dudes would bankroll it anyway...but dang it, there should be some penalty for wasting people's time. Call it a Karen Tax.

[quote=miami_fan;3331470]
This is somewhat related but is not this item in the proposed GA law that I quote below? What is the issue of requesting an ID (assume photo) when requesting an absentee ballot?

Quote:

Quote: The law also adds an ID requirement to the process for requesting an absentee ballot, after previously only requiring voters to sign an application. It also narrows the time window during which ballots can be requested.

I looked up what I was referring to. Handing out food/snacks within 150ft/25ft is arguably 2nd bullet and possible 1st bullet. Setup a water/snack stand 150ft away, let folks grab them on their way to the line.


Er, I don't know about you. But at my Toyota and Acura dealerships, and my friendly neighborhood mechanic, the drop boxes are secured inside a building. Don't know about the mechanic but pretty sure Toyota and Acura have camera monitors everywhere also.


It is very important to gain back the trust of some of the 40%, so the first part is a yes. There will be some that will never be convinced but yeah, create a "change/communications program" and provide consistent messaging over the next 4 years on "this is how you know your vote was counted, this is how your vote was secured".

To your second part regarding suppression. You see it as suppression, and I can concede some of the GA proposed laws are suppression. But I don't see that all of it is suppression.

How is requiring an ID to get an absentee ballot is suppression?

How is not allowing a (presumably) partisan person from giving drinks/snacks a suppression?

How is asking that drop boxes be secured be suppression?

Please just ignore me like your other radical bros.

There's a reading comprehension problem here when you say "literally agreed with or made excuses for every part of the bill". Just go away and play in the other toxic thread.

I agree there should be some penalty here for frivolously challenging.

Just to clarify. I understand what the CNN article said. What I consider nebulous is I don't understand how that would work and want details. Can someone challenge another 2 weeks before and what is the mechanism to resolve it. Can someone do a challenge the day of or 2 days after and hold up the certification process? I have not seen the details on how this would work.


I don't know if "as many times as they like for any reason" is part of the proposed bill. Or there isn't any recourse to this.

Someone says I'm a minority, don't speak English well and challenges my eligibility. I show my passport, present SSN to proper authorities, naturalization form, or whatever and I'm deemed eligible. It doesn't make sense that someone else can do the same challenge again in the same election period.

If the law says this is possible, essentially never ending challenges on the same thing, I agree its a pretty stupid law.

It's not stupid, it's a part of the plan. Before the runoff a GOP group tried to challenge almost 400k voters as ineligible, but a judge said no. This will make it possible to do things like that.

I'd go one step beyond this and make it something like you can only be challenged once in your voting lifetime in your state. I mean, once the state has proven to its satisfaction that you're a legal voter, then it's just wasted effort to look at you again.

Also, I'd be a big fan of the idea that every voter you challenge should get notification of your name and legal address. Anonymous challenges are for pussies.

I think I have addressed each one of those questions.

I can't engage any more. I am a hard no on any suppression of registered
voters especially when it is not done due to any evidence of fraud but to calm the hurt feelings of fellow citizens who IMO don't see them as worthy of the right to vote.

Okay. Thanks for the civil discussion.

The obvious goal is to gum up the works with a few hundred thousand challenges, and when that takes too long to resolve , the state legislature chooses the electors. This was literally what they just tried in 2020. Did you miss the news?

I'll try to explain on these (I agree they are suppression, though not always intentionally). Others have said it pretty clearly earlier in the thread, including a post by ISiddiqui.

Some precincts have longer lines and/or other conditions which make it more difficult overall for people to get an ID. DMV office availability/convenience, fewer polling places per capita, etc. By not allowing people to be given food while in line, you increase the chances they won't wait. By requiring ID, you increase the number of people who will not comply/be able to comply. These precincts skew towards demographics more favorable to Democrat candidates, therefore it's pretty clear what the end result is if this occurs.

As always, good to have different points of view and perspective. Thanks for the civil discussion.

I've read infrastructure plan is up next. Arguably Healthcare is more important but understand him wanting to do a more bi-partisan (hopefully) change like infrastructure first. Not a lot of details, but some highlights of the read.

Biden Infrastructure Plan To Test His Bipartisan Promises : NPR

I like this presumption.


If outcompeting China is a main driver, I'm all for it !! TBH, I thought it was primarily for roads and bridges, and those industries.


Looks like there is interest in bi-partianship. Understandable that the coronavirus stimulus was not. Really hope infrastructure gets more GOP support and breaks from the past.


If this gives us everything (or near) like roads, bridges and the technology slant above, I'm all for spending $3T. I'd want it offset by revenue (as much as possible). Feel free to increase my taxes some because the pros definitely outweigh the con to my personal financials.

I'd toss in digital currency somewhere, and somehow supporting key allies to lessen their reliance on China.

They've made it even easier than that. They gum up the works, say it's an emergency, take over the county election boards, and declare thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, whatever they need, votes ineligible.

No one should should ever have their vote challenged by the way they look, or how they speak. That is racial profiling pure and simple. Voting is a human right, and the most important right as an American. It should be hard to disenfranchise someone. The burden of proof must be on the person who is challenging the vote. Instead of having someone make a baseless claim to challenge a voter, and the force the voter to prove he can vote, it has to be the opposite. The person challenging should have to have hard evidence that the voter is not qualified. Anything less is needless voter suppression.


Ok, so let's put it clear. 33% of a fraction of people believe this, then maybe a smaller fraction of that 33% is maybe not just a hardcore right-winger. What is the point then? We should radically restructure our elections in ways to make it hard for the poor and for POC to make this very very tiny fraction of people happy, even though there is zero evidence of wide-spread fraud?


Has this ever happen? Can you give me one example? There is no "harm" in securing drop box. They are already secured. They are locked, they are put in well lit areas, most places required cameras with 24-hour observation. That is secure. Having them in buildings that are only open a small window of the day defeat the reason to have a drop boxes, convenience. What is the harm in having secure boxes available around the clock as they are now?



In the end, that it what this is all about. Watching online, all the Republicans are trying to make the focus of the arguments on voter ID, or about water bottle. Those are problematic, but are really more distractions to the core evil of what they got in this bill.

I think you know that was an example to illustrate the ridiculousness of being challenged "as many times as they like". This I certainly think is stupid and because I've not read any details to this (other than CNN article) said it was nebulous. This is the last of the CNN paragraphs I quoted. I want to better understand how this works.

As far as challenging my eligibility. My example is a bad example, it should not happen. However, I believe it is absolutely okay to ask for federal/state sanctioned photo ids to vote *and* when requesting an absentee ballot of everyone (this is the first CNN paragraphs was referring to).


Nope, it hasn't happened that I know of. As far as rationale for securing drop boxes, I gave it above when discussing risk & mitigation in another response above.

Regarding the drop boxes are secured. My supposition in original statement was:

Quote:

Same as #4, if the drop box places have the same "security/rigor", I'm good with it. If its more like a UPS drop box, it's gotta go.

I haven't used a drop box so cannot speak from personal experience. In googling, here are some pics. They look like UPS standalone drop offs and wouldn't fit my definition of secure. e.g. is the first one even secured to the ground like a mail box?

To be absolutely clear, no problem with drop boxes, just secure them inside a locked building with cameras everywhere. It's not a big deal to park the car, get out of a car, walk to the drop off slot (in the locked building), put it in, and walk back to the car ... just like a Redbox rental.

Hey, and guess who fell for it (willingly or not - I don't know)

SI

Do you know whether there are cameras watching those boxes? How do you know the level of security there?

And the problem with being in a locked building have already pointed out. The point of the boxes are convenience. Locking them in a building with no access besides work hours is not convenient. If the building is open 24 hours, then fine.

I don't know (and have said previously no personal experience). Just looking at the pics (and there is plenty of them).


Sorry if I wasn't clear. That is a key assumption that it is accessible 24x7. I can see why you and I were having a disagreement if you thought otherwise.

In a prior post, I was thinking about a drop box like dropping off my keys at Acura and Toyota car shops. They are accessible though a slot inside a building. Pretty sure they have video cameras on all the time.

There's no evidence of meaningful voter fraud. There's no reason to make changes that will suppress the vote in any way.

No, I don't think we should do that. I've been explicitly clear about that I think, both in this recent discussion and in others in the past. I don't think anyone in this thread frankly has been talking about radically restructuring elections either, as far as that goes.

I'm saying when it comes to confidence in the system, the problem is larger than the hard-core right-wingers. This has been a recurring issue at least since Trump was elected in '16 - the tendency to just dismiss his support as being people who are unhuman/racist/etc. and stop there without looking at the fact that if that's all it was, he never would have been elected or gotten more votes the next time around in losing than he did the first time. Looking at it as purely a 'right wing's gone off the deep end' (they have) without looking at how people who are not right-wingers - there's nowhere approaching the number of supporters Republicans have that are really that and much of what Trump did wasn't right-wing anyway - is sort of a handwavium dismissal of what is a much deeper issue than that. The fact that a lot people who didn't like Trump voted for him twice because the Hillary/Biden alternative was even worse, the deep disaffection with the system in general among the electorate, these are the issues that I'm driving at as opposed to blaming all these woes on the other side which is oversimplifying the problem.

Then what does any of what you are talking about have with what we are currently discussing? We are discussing the current Georgia law that has a clear purpose to suppress and disenfranchise people. You?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

That's not what I've been primarily talking about during any of this. I responded to a post by Lathum, had a back-and-forth with HerRealName that was about a topic at most tangentially-related to the Georgia law; it's the same thing you and I were initially discussing at least. The question of who the people are who don't have confidence in the electoral process. It's certainly understandable that some wires will be crossed when multiple subjects are being discussed in the same thread, but I haven't said anything in this thread endorsing the Georgia law.

Remember they literally said through their dumbass mouthpiece that no reasonable person should've believed them when they claimed voter fraud. They literally are telling them to stop believing but 'don't' BUT the story gets buried because it isn't sexy.

That should've been the end of it and all the Q's should've been like "fuck, we've been larped." but they aren't because they've moved to OAN and deeper into the Waco house.

The part of this that really damages democracy is that, historically, one one party goes too far from the ideological mainstream, they end up losing and then tacking back towards the middle. Over the last 20 years or so, the Republicans have doubled down in getting further from the mainstream and then made it harder for the people who disagree with them to vote. The Democrats have their own large share of elected officials are far left from the mainstream, but will come back towards the middle with candidates. Even though they all get labeled as socialists anyway.

Just a bit of fun. 20 questions. Can you tell how a particular area voted in the last presidential election based on how the area looks? I got 15 out of 20.

If we dropped you into a random U.S. neighborhood, could you guess how people there voted in 2020 just by looking around? Take our quiz. https://t.co/aHcK2wH73k

— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 29, 2021

I'm having a hard time with Trumpers arguing that Trump saved the USA by developing the vaccine while simultaneously arguing that people shouldn't take the vaccine because it's too dangerous.

Or unnecessary.

I got the first 3 wrong so said frak it.

What's the secret?

This should be better received than the mileage tax

Democrats look to impose capital gains tax at death

More details of Biden's Infrastructure/Jobs plan.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/polit...ner/index.html

See next post on more details on how to pay for this plan.


Sounds good to me. Actually seems kinda low to me.


The infrastructure plan has been renamed to the Jobs Plan. I would prefer putting this in a separate bill. I can see something like this killing bi-partisanship support. This is 2/3 of #1 which seems "off balance in scale" to me (but don't know all the details).


I'm assuming some of this will bring back higher tech jobs and less reliance on other countries.


Sounds good to me.


In a prior article, it talked about 5G so assume this is the bucket. All for it.


Sounds good to me.


Sounds good to me. Hopefully some of this will go to teachers' salary.


All for this. We are behind other countries in broadband access.


Would prefer if they went in a separate bill. I definitely like the apprenticeship programs.


Sounds good to me.

How Biden plans to pay for this.


28% seems reasonable as compared to other western countries but who knows when actually diving in the details of deductions etc.



I like the idea of reducing tax shelters.


No idea if this is equitable, but sounds good to me.


I like this. Assume this also includes US companies doing a lot of business in the US but incorporating in other countries to reduce taxes

Overall, there is more pros than cons in his $2T Jobs plan.

I sense there is some pork in there and much that does not relate to the original vision of an "Infrastructure Plan" (hence the rename to Jobs plan). I would prefer if he proposed the non-infrastructure stuff in another plan because I can see no/little bi-partisanship support. I do hope Biden can be negotiated "down" some to win some GOP votes which would help set the foundation for future bi-partisanship.

Also ...

Reading article below. It'll be $2T + another $2T coming up.

This may be a trap for conservatives to fight against. "Conservatives hate old people." I think considering the age group that the GOP receives it's largest support, an all out attack on the provision to help seniors would be close to suicide.

The bill essentially eliminates offshore tax havens. If they get that passed, Biden is on his way to being an influential President. Way better than Obama.

I had to check to see if this was an actual story. And it was....then I laughed a bit. Then I read the comments..........

Who on the left is far left of the mainstream?

That’s my bad. I got distracted mid-post and edited it into something that didn’t make sense. I meant to put that Democrats have their own share of the electorate that have far left views, but that the candidates usually come back to the middle for elections.

I do think the Dems have politicians with far left views on specific issues (completely eliminating immigration enforcement, jumping from our current system to Medicare for All, UBI, free college are some that would meet criteria for me).

Medicare for All and free college (or affordable) are not far left views. They are moderate positions in the first world. We are the extremists when it comes to health care and education.

What would you consider leftist or liberal policy for healthcare and education?

I think it really all depends on your control group. I don't think viewing the 'first world' as the relevant entity makes sense since they are all politically subdivided at the present time. It's also interesting to me that people aren't particularly interested in comparing us to the rest of the first world when they want to talk about immigration etc.

People on the right in those countries support universal health care and cheap/free college. Like I said, our policy on those matters is extremist. We are a massive outlier from the rest if the world.

From John Boehner's new book:

I guess that's the book I keep seeing online ads for where he's sitting in a chair with a glass of wine looking like he's trying to seduce me.

I die a little every time I see him and realize that my state is responsible for inflicting him on the nation.

I'm still not entirely convinced there wasn't some kind of election screw up that got Cruz elected the first time to the Senate. In the first GOP Primary election, no one got >50% of the vote. David Dewhurst was the top vote getter, with 627,000 votes, and Ted was the runner up with 480,000 votes.

In the runoff a couple of months later, with no big news or bombshells for either candidate, Cruz got 631,000 votes and Dewhurst 480,000. Nearly an exact flip.

https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/st...05545718800388

Make sure to listen until the end

That was hilarious.

Are we sure that's not J.K. Simmons?

Something that I didn't notice originally - nothing on high-speed rail in Biden's Infrastructure/Jobs plan. Article says because of Biden/Amtrack's close relationship and can see airlines lobbying here also.

How high speed trains got railroaded in Biden's infrastructure plan - POLITICO

I think something like Atlanta to Miami with stops in Orlando. Atlanta going north to New York would be fantastic. DFW to Houston etc.

I'm assuming that Biden approved this but debatable they should have. I guess a pro is it shines Biden in a good, positive, fatherly light. But it brings the focus back on the black sheep Hunter. And don't think Hunter needs money so why publish a memoir.

Someone that cheats on his wife with dead brother's wife shows that he is scum. (Dead brother's wife also but can maybe excuse her for being taken advantaged of). Losing a laptop with sensitive materials ain't good.

So my best guess is Biden wants to get all the bad news out of the way right now which would be forgotten/overshadowed by 3 years of good, recovery news.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-...ention-memoir/

I’m sure all the tolerant evangelicals on the right will practice what they preach and totally forgive him for his sins.

Interesting editorial in the WaPost about how the plan's focus on increasing EV fast charging stations may be chasing an outdated technology.

Instead, it argues for focus on battery swapping. You just pull into the station, and they take out your drained battery and swap in a fully charged one.

I think that makes sense. Even an hour to charge on a long roadtrip can be a lot for people. Yeah, you can try and time it to match up with a lunch break, etc. but it adds a complexity that you don't have when you can fill up with gas in 5 minutes.

If, however, you could swap out the battery in 15 minutes, and that's reliable and ubiquitous, then you are really starting to make EVs attractive.

The preempted coup arrests in Jordan are wild. Apparently, the crown prince has been arrested and his mother is implicated as well. There are also reports of a Gulf nation being implicated, so UAE or the Saudis?

If I was driving a Tesla, I don't know if I want to trust someone to swap out a possibly non-Tesla-approved battery for me.

I'm good with plenty of charging stations everywhere, at every third exit or so. Get charging down to 20 min for 80+% and I'm all in.

Didn't expect sports, corporations, and the military to be too liberal.

Article that has polling on some of the GA legislation.

Americans Oppose Many Voting Restrictions — But Not Voter ID Laws | FiveThirtyEight


Guess I am in the minority on this one.


I'm part of the 44% (but drop off boxes in a secured location).


Yay, part of the mainstream.

The food and drink thing was so stupid, is so stupid. I think it literally exposed the true intent to all of it and I just don't understand why the GOP (who wants to feign that this really isn't jim crow) would put that in. It's just so evil IMO. Old women that would stand in line potentially for hours to vote in foreign countries we view as patriots for standing up to vote (especially if it's a fledgling democracy) but in Georgia they're like "good luck!" muwahahahaha "hope you don't need food or water!" muwahahahaha

assholes.

The worst parts of that law are the ones that give control of local elections processes to the legislature. Hardly anyone is talking about them.

The food and water thing is bad not simply because of what it does, but the fact that it even exists at all - it's a recognition that lines are going to be so long in certain places that people would actually need food or water. There's absolutely no explanation for it that could justify it from that perspective.

So can these laws be challenged to the Supreme Court, or no since states control their elections?

Either way, I think this backfires big on the GOP. It is the classic the tighter they squeeze the more things slip through their fingers.

I also look forward to the media coverage the first time someone is actuality arrested for providing water to thirsty people.

$ Trillion on public transport and none for high speed trains? Is that right?

Agreed. Edward's point is well-taken, but my (limited) understanding is that we aren't likely to get down to what most people would consider a reasonable recharge time anytime soon. I don't think it matters how good that option is if we can't get there - but I'm not certain that's the case.

Right now at least ...


Googling says there are 4 different types of electric car batteries. No idea how "compatible" the chargers are between those 4.

I do see the concern about investing in a nationwide network of chargers that are not compatible (good old early era with DOS and Windows 3.1) or have to "upgrade" every few years (e.g. early days of PCs & Laptops where it seems software forced a hardware upgrade every 2 years).

All in all, would prefer a 20 min charge time for 80% vs swappable batteries (Tesla batteries weigh 540kg or about 1,200lbs).

On one hand, I can see gas stations jumping on this because that is 20 min people have to spend into their stores (where they make the real money). On the other hand, I can see WalMart and other big box stores putting in charging stations to attract the same captive audience.

Yes, nobody is there with their VOTE OBAMA shirts passing out food and water, that is already illegal. Volunteer groups go to the poor neighborhoods where people wait in lime 4+ hours to vote and give them food and water. I've also seen port-a-pottys set up around those areas. People are not waiting 4 hours in Gilmer, or Bibb (or any of these other redneck counties). They are literally waiting in lines for hours in Fulton. They are closing DMVs in those counties as well, making it harder to get IDs. If they coupled this with a law allowing mobile DMVs to set up and give people free IDs in the poor neighborhoods (where people may take MARTA and not drive), then that is one thing. But they are quite literally targeting the areas they want to reduce voting, desite the fact that the only cases of voter fraud are some republican voters and the shady ones in FL where the GOP donors apparently funded the campaigns of challengers with the same name of democrat incumbents.

$1.7T is the number below but I thought the $ was more like $700-$800B. $1.7T is essentially the Jobs plan minus some pork. Compared to other priorities, I do hope Biden sticks to no or $10K and continue 0% interest for the foreseeable future.

I'm all for helping out but pure forgiveness doesn't sit well with me. Have these folks work off part of the student loans by doing weekend work on infrastructure projects.

Student loan forgiveness: What Biden is considering for student debt

I kinda view student debt forgiveness the way I view immigration - I'm fine, in theory, with helping those who are stuck in the moment, but without wholesale changes to the way things work going forward, it's nothing more than a temporary fix for what will continue to be an ongoing problem. So, if we're going to half-ass it, I think we'd be better off doing nothing, or providing partial assistance.

There are a lot of things about the 50's "American dream" path that need to be re-thought given where we are as a society. Should everyone really be pushing for a college degree and home ownership, for example? Should there be more focus on trades, and less stigma to skipping the college experience for direct work experience or targeted post-HS programs? I don't know what the answer is, but college is not worth what it costs in a lot of situations. It feels like a college degree is required for many jobs because that's just what everyone requires.

Does this include older people who got cheap college back in the day through taxpayer funds?

Going forward, I'd be fine telling colleges/universities "Hey, if you want your students to be eligible for federally subsidized loans and grants, then you cannot increase costs more than [some inflation metric] - 0.5% a year."

It would take a while, but it would make college more affordable over the long term.

The problem for public schools is that states cut budgets to such a degree that they could never meet that obligation without massive cut backs.

Feel free to provide your link(s) so we can all be better educated and make sure we are comparing apples-to-apples.

Previous generations paid significantly less for their college education. This was due to massive investment in education by our government (both state and federal).

So if your solution is that people should have to work off any help they received from the government to afford school, why wouldn't it apply to older generations that received far more help than anyone today is asking? Only seems fair.

Because as it stands, our situation is what it is because that older generation gutted higher education the minute they no longer needed it for themselves.

I'll wait for your link(s) with some facts, $ and context.

What facts are you looking for? That school is much more expensive today?

Average Cost of College Has Jumped an Incredible 3,009% in 50 Years

Yeah but that article isn't an actual receipt, RainMaker! You gotta bring first-person proof from someone who was in school in 1971!

(As well as paystubs for the bootstraps part of the equation.)

Nvm, I see you were trolling. Let's continue ignoring each other.

I think this is the same flawed approach to thinking about education that we often have in healthcare. The world simply isn't the same as it was. Using your 50-year timeline, we spend more as a % of GDP on education now than we did in 1970, at which time it was sharply on the rise from previous levels.

Specialization of labor, training, overdependence on college education as compared to vocational skills as I've talked about in the past, all of these have had an impact. It simply isn't true to frame it as 'too bad we won't invest like we did in the past'. To do free college for everyone or whatever you have to be willing to invest several orders of magnitude more than has been done before.

There's definitely an argument to be made for that, but this isn't it. Some aspects of life cost more now largely because of the advances we've made - there are possibilities available that simply weren't there a half-century ago at *any* price.

This. In the internet age, there's no reason for education to be gated behind a formal university in most fields. Education should be a lifetime process and valued based on the demonstrable skills, abilities, and knowledge that come from it. Diplomas are dinosaurs.

I know westerners will criticize this move but I lean to being okay with this. He remains pretty popular with Russians, is somewhat of a benevolent dictator (just don't threaten him personally or politically), and has stabilized Russia (or arguably brought Russian back) from the disastrous Yeltsin era.

I'm from the camp that western democracy/republic doesn't work for many countries.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vladimi...dential-terms/

I'm a hard no on that. It's wrong for a leader to change the law to keep themselves in power longer on a fundamental level. Doesn't matter how good or bad they are otherwhise. Putin is obviously trying to destabilize other countries, and is in general a hostile actor to US interests.

It's weird to me that someone concerned with the threat from China would want someone like Putin to stay in power.

He literally had the leader of the opposition poisoned, then when he survived sent him to a prison labor camp. Benevolent is not a word I would use to describe him.

Biden has come a long way since May 2019 with the below quote.


Really hope he's got his head on straight now. China is the #1 long term threat. I'm hoping he really believes this vs China being a convenient scapegoat to help sell his bill.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...20a0e308943ade

Agreed. At least China doesn't really give a shit to interfere in US elections. China plays by some rules, whereas Putin doesn't play by any.

You are speaking from a western centric POV. And your opposition is understandable. If I was a regular Russian, I would prefer Putin over Yeltsin and Gorby. There's a lot of good and bad from the regular Russian POV, but more good than bad I think.


Yes, Russia is still a threat. But a waning threat. Russia can be controlled and deflected much easier than China. China is a growing threat.

I qualified it with


Also, the opposition leader is an idiot. He was home free and purposely went back to the lion's den with a miscalculated sense of self-worth. You play in the big leagues, you make a poor bet, you pay for it.

Thats like saying John Wilkes Booth was a great guy and amazing actor, except for the whole Lincoln assassination thing.

You can't just dismiss it as some minor character flaw.

Have we proved E64 isn't a regular Russian?

(Just looking for facts, you know.)

I'm not arguing that Putin isn't a bad guy. I'm arguing that he has done more good than bad for the regular Russian, and he has done well for his country since the Yeltsin/Gorby days.

FWIW, some insights.

Putin’s Russia, 20 years on – POLITICO
The below quote is interesting. I don't know what trust rating means but his popularity rating has remained about 59%.

I am very not comfortable that people are fine with "political freedoms were being curtailed" as long as the trains are running on time. It sounds very familiar somehow.

Was he dressing provocatively too?

Sounds like propaganda trying to wear us down, to me.

Putin's great as long as you have no windows.

This was the exact thought I had, talk about victim blaming....

Except they're not. So long as employers require degrees and diplomas as a proxy for skill, they're going to be highly desired. That's not on the people wanting to get degrees - if you tell everyone that you need a degree to get even the most menial office job* then there will be a huge market for them. That's on the hiring companies requiring degrees for people to get a job. Why wouldn't people put a premium on getting that piece of paper if the piece of paper is required in so many fields where it shouldn't be?

SI

*Yes, you can get a well paying job as a plumber, contractor, etc - but, unless you own the business, there's a limit to how high you can go - whereas I think the path to advancement in the white collar world is more clear (even if some of it is a farce). And, in general, white collar work has better working conditions - no one's out in 100 degree sun or slogging through literal poop. And it's not as if these fields are devoid of their own low paid internship/apprenticeship phase. That said - this isn't about "blue collar" vs "white collar" so much as it's stupid how many jobs these days require college degrees and that's like 90% on the employers and 10% on the employees not the other way around.

It's weird to think of Putin to Mussolini as the latter is now like history's stooge second banana to history's greatest monster. But, hm...

SI

I agree with you that a lot of this is on those doing the hiring - that's the point, that society overvalues that piece of paper. As to the why, this is hardly the only aspect of life where we haven't progressed with changes in the world fast enough, wouldn't you say? People have a different list as far as that's concerned, but I would chalk most of it up to tradition/reflexive thinking. There are all sorts of examples of successful entreprenuers who were college dropouts. It is often a stand-in for a low-grade background check; i.e. if you have a degree we know you aren't a total screwup.