I guess I'm too much of an insider, but I feel the extended primary process has advantages in vetting over anything we could expect with, let's face it, what would be a television primary (all at once).

I think it's good that candidates scurry to fly into Detroit or Charleston or wherever to scramble for the next contest... and that they face the varied crap that inevitably comes with it. The ethanol questions in Iowa, the Car Company stuff in Michigan, the water crisis stuff in the western states... whatever. I fear we'd lose 100% of that if it were just a six week free for all nationwide. We'd get nothing but blowdried TV bits, etc.

I agree with QS. The extended process is necessary for vetting. Not to mention, it is the only chance for some smaller states to have some kind of voice in the choice.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

We manage to vet other candidates just fine without that. And what ends up happening is far worse - places like Iowa and New Hampshire have grossly disproportionate influence, while many states come too late in the process to ever have a meaningful say unless the earlier states basically couldn't decide.

Biden actually recommended South Carolina as the first. I hqve to think the Michigwn early leak was the party. Biden suggesting South Carolina early is the biggest sign he is running again.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

It seems like there is almost a full year between people declaring their intent to run and the primaries that it provides plenty of time for vetting.

It doesn't, and we have all seen it play out in real time. There can be 10-15 candidates. It takes time for people to even know who they are, and for them to be really put to the test. The winnowing opens the opportunity for relatively unknowns to become contenders. Having it all at the same time basically guarantees name recognition rules. We would likely never had a President Obama or Clinton by those rules.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Primaries last from Feb to Jul. Joe won by early Jun so let's say 4-6 months.

IMO, the duration is too long.

Last cycle was delayed because of Covid. Obama's nomination lasted to the final primaries in June, which is the normal time frame. I don't think they will go past June in this cycle either.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Good call Joe.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/01/sena...-to-biden.html

I really wish the press would define a 52-43 vote in a way that makes it clear it was filibustered.

Good call how?

Per the article

The WH dinner for Macron is one where I would drop by a McD or BK on my way home (okay, maybe even a nice steak house) to satisfy my hunger.

I look forward to Ye being on the Sunday morning shows to explain his positions.

Presumably that picture is only one of several courses.

Stronger than expected job and wage growth. Which, because a Democrat is President, is apparently a bad thing.

https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/stat...70960760078336

Also, the bs politics that let the dems split up the extra sick leave into a separate bill to campaign on it but not actually vote for it. Then again, in a just world, the GOP would be punished for voting almost universally against any sort of workers rights but, as above, nope, they're "just good at business" or some happy horse crap that people choose to believe.

Like the Dems don't get to do this performative bullcrap /and/ get punished for it if the GOP voters actually held their representatives accountable. So much of the "I'm so mad at the Dems for this so I'm going to vote GOP going forward", never mind that the GOP are the ones actively screwing people over whereas at least the Dems kindof try every once in a while to help.

SI

Saw Biden signing the bill on CNBC. His speech was good, nice and measured.

But he is looking pretty old.

There may have been starters & desert, but think that was the main course.

The classic American political tale.

Politicians make huge public spectacle and gets tons and tons of attention.

Then time passes, public attention moves on. An intervening election or two happens.

Then, quietly, the pro-corporate backroom deal is made that is nothing like the big blustery populist stance that the politicians originally took.

I'll take your lobster.

It is just really no surprise. I didn't think there was anyone that was actually going to take affect.

There will be people in the DeSantis 2024 campaign talking about how he stood up to Disney

SI

Something tells me one lobster tail won’t be enough for you (nor me).

And it’ll be poor taste to ask for seconds (or thirds)

Good riddance. Wonder if he worked enough quarters and if he forfeits his social security.

Arguably, it may have turned out better if he stayed and fought it out. But I do admire his conviction to leave the US and make a new life for himself. He's apparently married and has a kid.

https://apnews.com/article/putin-eur...9b5d04f57d553b

The below popped up and reminded me about the hell hole that is Haiti. No, doesn't look like US/UN has done much since early Oct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-63707429


Found the answer in the article.

Quote:

There's talk at the United Nations about the need for a non-UN armed force, but no-one seems in a hurry to lead it, or even to take part. Foreign interventions have a bad name, and a bad history here. The last UN mission is remembered for allegations of sexual abuse, and for bringing cholera to Haiti, via UN peacekeepers from Nepal. The epidemic killed around 10,000 people. There are mixed views here on the idea of foreign boots on the ground. There's support from some in business - who have used armed groups but now want them reined in - and from those trapped in gang-controlled areas. There's opposition from civil society leaders who say Haiti needs to go it alone.

No idea where it goes but REALID pushed back another 2 years, lol

We've had ours for a couple years but just saw a commercial for it about having to be ready next year. I guess that marketing campaign was worth the cost...

We're gonna have to renew our REAL IDs before we end up formally needing them.

Checked for the black/gold star and my license had it. Had to renew it in 2020 and guess it was just automatically done

Read it was because of delay in all States accepting it, pandemic, and concerns about impact to illegal aliens

REAL ID enforcement is delayed again to 2025 : NPR

Brittany Griner headed home in a prisoner exchange. Huge win for the Biden admin. Those on the right will obviously be critical of it but this is a nice win for him with the progressive side.

They’ll feel that way Because Russia > USA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A basketball player for an arms dealer, I guess they have equal value in American society.

fixed that for you

Were other American citizens also released from Russian custoday in exchange for Russian Arms Dealers? While not publicized, I'm sure Griner isn't the only American being held in Russian jail.

No mention of others. Paul Whelan has been imprisoned for 3+ years. He's accused of espionage which is more serious vs recreational drugs.

It comes down to how much damage the Russian guy can do now. He's been out of the game for a while, will he resume his activities which (presumably) hurt US interests?

Biden is in a tough spot. Bringing Gringer out without bringing out Whelan (or others) doesn't sit well with me e.g. the LIFO model. But she did get disproportionate sentencing because of Biden's support of Ukraine so there's some justice there.

I've struggled with the Griner situation, too. Glad to see others have mixed feelings about it.

On the one hand, it is horrible that she was detained, it was a questionable violation (vape cartridges with cannabis) and it was probably largely due to her celebrity. On the other hand, it is an exceptionally entitled and dumb move to think you can go through airports or customs with anything cannabis related. And it absolutely seems terrible that her celebrity/wealth put her in the front of the line, when there are other folks being detained.

I'm pro-Biden, but I don't feel like making this trade is a win for his administration - I think there is a lot of messiness to the situation and I don't feel great the person exchanged has caused harm to others and will now be free. It will probably get him some positive PR, but some deserved criticism, too. I do think the optics will play out to be beneficial to him, though.

I think that it is telling that nothing happened until the mid-terms were fully over (and then as long as possible before 2024).

The admin clearly sees some political liability with this move.

My guess is that they thought it was the right--but unpopular--thing to do.

But seriously though, after this we're all clear on DON'T FUCKING GO TO RUSSIA, right?

Isn't it just as likely that Putin did not want to give Biden a win?

I really don't know how it would have played out if this happened before the mid-terms though.

Some postings in the Ukrainian reddit board is generally negative as they believe Bout could resume his arms dealer activities and ultimately hurt Ukrainians. I can see this happening.

Article didn't go into how the pensions got into trouble. I'd like a bailout of my 401k & IRA right now.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/08/pres...n-workers.html

Pension underfunding is a big problem.

The law allows companies to use *way* too rosy growth projections when setting minimum funding amounts.

If I were the CIA, I'd put a GPS transmitter in a known arms dealer and be perfectly happy with this swap happening.

SI

The gist I'm getting from below article is that it was primarily mismanagement by the pension fund (and not the individual companies) over a long period of time (talked about bad bets going into the 2007-2008 GR).

Understanding The Central States Pension Plan's Tale Of Woe

It's nice of Joe to be buying votes when Social Security is going to be insolvent for the rest of us in a mere decade or so.

I'm sure it did buy him votes. And if the Teamster's support did win him the Presidency, the $36B is a small price to pay (but he should probably give more to SC as that state really revived his campaign)

And unlike the $400-$500B bailout of student loans, the union members weren't at fault themselves and assume the benefits will be applied fairly/spread out across their membership vs just a select minority.

... I'll also bet the politicians will do something to save SS as we get closer to the insolvency date.

Congrats Chuck. I think you did a solid job supporting Biden and keeping the majority.

Here's hoping your Senate get a shot at replacing a SCOTUS.

It's not an unsolvable problem. People are living longer and having fewer kids.

The smart thing to do would be to raise the earning limit (caps around $140K and then no further earnings are withheld to go into the program) now, but it would be unpopular and whoever passes it will get (rightfully) accused of raising taxes. Bumping it up significantly (not going to affect people making less than ~$140K) to something like $250K and continuing to raise the age over time would set the date of insolvency back.

It would be nice to do it now, rather than later, but the old and wealthy largely do the voting, make the laws, already receive the current benefits and won't be around to see the benefit if they do it now, so it will probably be an issue up until things get tighter. The people in charge now are certainly not "the Greatest Generation."

I think the options now for an (approx) 2035'ish insolvency are:

1. Remove the cap
2. Increase the tax rate
3. Reduce benefits
4. Increase retirement age

For longer term, I'd toss in

1. Have more population

With Biden's promise of not raising taxes, I'm thinking it'll get punted to the next admin.

Arms dealer? No Cocaine Dealer? Yes

Trevor Reed, Marine veteran, released from Russia in U.S. prisoner exchange : NPR

This is a masterful political move by Putin. He may be a better politician in the US than he is in Russia.

People are out there on social media, mostly right wing ghouls, are acting like Biden was offered Whelan and was like, nah, you keep him!

The constant level of outrage these people have to generate must be exhausting.

SS is fine. All of the deadlines are just the date that payments exceed dedicated taxes. At that point either payments will be reduced to match taxes(lol) or money will start being pulled from the general fund (this is what will happen). Even if the "worst" case scenario happens it will just mean that eventually SS payments will drop by a quarter or so. There is no scenario where Social Security goes bankrupt.

Pretty sure we have different definitions of "fine".

You are right, SS won't go bankrupt. But we were talking specifically about insolvency.

Social Security and Medicare Are Approaching Insolvency | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Inslovency just means the payments exceed the taxes, but when that happens no politician is going to let SS payments be cut by 20%, so they'll just start pulling money from the rest of the budget. They may even, God forbid, raise taxes to cover the gap.

We're not going to see SS suddenly drop by 20%.

I do agree politicians won't let it drop by 20%. But it's not fine, there has to be a "fix" (and for Medicare also).

SS payments are not guaranteed by law, so the whole idea of a "trust fund" is silly.

All it does is let politicians who want to cut it point to the fact that it is running out of money. Even though the entire US economy runs on deficit spending.

Congress should eliminate payroll taxes and increase income taxes to make up for it. And then just put all the money into the same pot.

Yay (even though it was more than what Biden had asked for)

Uh oh.

The Covid risk has certainly lessened and has impacted younger generation much less. And we aren't in a shooting war (but lots of low intensity stuff) I think.

I think a happy compromise is to require vaccinations for anyone service member that will be overseas. But don't think the GOP will go for that. Tough decision for Biden but looks like he will concede to the GOP demands.

FWIW

If there's one thing that's usually bi-partisan it's that can spend more money on the military.

Did we really need a $81,000,000,000 increase over last year's number?

Can we just get one major political party that is fiscally responsible?

Nope. Fiscally responsible doesn't win elections. Spending the people's money, and the money of their children and grandchildren, is what they are elected to do.

$75 billion for a bomber that will use weapons that haven't been invented yet.

I like feeling safe, so don't mind staying out in front with military spending, but if the last year has taught me anything, seeing our 2nd or 3rd biggest rival (China seems pretty clearly #2 after seeing how this Russian-Ukrainian war has gone) in the world struggle with Ukraine makes me believe that sacrificing some small percentage of that safety in order to provide some additional services or comforts on the domestic front would be good thing.

We spend more on defense than the next 9 countries combined. You think maybe we can that down to the next three countries at least?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Lost in the argument is the fact that Bout was scheduled to be released in a little over 6 years. So it's not like he was looking at life or even long term incarceration here.

It would have been nice to get Whelan out, but we don't know the full picture here so it's hard (for me, obviously not for others) to be outraged by anything.

EDIT:

Reading up on this, Russia early on offered a 2 for 2 swap that would have included Whelan but backed out and their final offer was the Bout for Griner swap or nothing. My guess is they didn't want to give the Biden administration a "win" at home because of the support we've given Ukraine. Considering Bout was scheduled for release in August of 2029 I'm kind of ok with this if it was the only option on the table. If we kept him incarcerated here any longer Russia would have probably been ok with just waiting his sentence out. At least with this we brought a wrongfully imprisoned American home.

Here's the swap. It started off like in a spy movie and then ... not

https://youtu.be/rIkzBcGUs4w

"Wrongfully?" No.

She did commit a crime in the country she was in. Might be a rather excessive punishment by our standards, and I have no doubt there were political motivations behind the sentence, but she was not innocent.

And we traded a guy responsible for god knows how much death, who will almost certainly go right back to his old trade. Madness.

I know in raw $, the US does spend much more than any other country.

I do wonder what the nos are when "normalized" for "cost of living". And it's not just expensive military equipment, it's also expensive labor cost, training etc. See below article when compared to China.

How does China's defense spending really stack up against the US? - Sandboxx

I know cost of living is not a near accurate way to do the comparative analysis but is somewhat indicative. So just for kicks the $778B x (1 - .64) = $280B in yuan when using COL


Ultimately, I'm sure the US still outspends China by a considerable margin. But it sure was nice to have all those spare toys to give to Ukraine on a moments notice (relatively speaking).

If we are going to trust the Russian legal system in one case, shouldn't we trust the Russian legal system in all cases?


Now I am extremely biased. I have zero trust in the Russian legal system when it comes to American citizens. I don't trust the authenticity of the video the Russians released as evidence against BG in the same way I do not trust that the evidence that Paul Whelan knowingly received a flash drive containing the names of Russian border guards. I don't think either one of them committed a crime under Russian law. Both are wrongfully detained IMO.

If the preference is for BG to remain in a Russian prison for the next nine years so Viktor Bout can remain in a US jail for the next seven years, well okay I guess. Even if that has remained the case, I don't that has any bearing on Whelan. I think it is pretty clear that Whelan is not on the trading block for anything less than a top level Russian spy at the very least.

Ummmm no, that's terrible logic.

Do you trust them?

Are you saying you do not believe that she has cannabis on her person/luggage and that it was planted/made up?

I think there is enough evidence to show she did have the cannabis. And if so, that did break Russian laws.

But there is no doubt in my mind that she got a stiffer sentence because of the geopolitics.

I don't trust them on their own citizens, let alone those from other countries. I think it's better for Griner to not be in prison than in a Russian prison.

Is it remotely worth setting someone like this free prematurely? No. It's incredible to me that it's even a matter for discussion. I think it's obvious what the reaction would be if Trump did this. The reaction should be the same for Biden doing it.

It goes beyond just Bout of course. The precedent that you get a prisoner of that stature for incarcerating a well-known American is 100% intolerable IMO.

The US has lots of guilt in many areas. This isn't a nationalistic/patriotic approach in my mindset. It's a 'you just don't do this kind of thing. Ever. You don't think about it.' Any reaction other than laughing loudly and slamming the proverbial phone down as hard as you can is unacceptable.

I hope Bout doesn't resume something similar to his former activities, and is content to grow old gracefully or whatever. And even if he does, yes there are many other arms dealers out there and one more or less isn't going to make an appreciable difference. To my mind that's completely beside the point. There has to be some semblance of equality in these kinds of trades, and even then they are highly questionable.


I really, really don't get this. Griner wasn't looking at life either. They had similar lengths yet to serve - more for Griner, but similar.

What I am saying is that I do not trust any evidence presented against American citizens in Vladimir Putin's Russia especially this version of Putin. I do not trust the Russian legal system to treat American citizens fairly in Vladamir Putin's Russia especially this version of Putin. No, I do not believe BG intentionally brought the cannabis oil into the country as the Russian prosecutors argued. I do not believe Paul Whelan knowingly received a flash drive containing the names of Russian border guards as a spy for the United States as the Russian prosecutors argued in his case.

I believe in both cases Russian authorities used its legal system as a pretext for holding Americans as leverage. Am I biased? Absolutely! But that is what I truly believe.

It's not to compare those two. It's to point out that this wasn't a guy that was going to rot away in an american jail. He was going to be released in 6.5 years. Some of the outrage as if we had this guy locked up for the rest of his life.

Trump's admin negotiated the release of 5,000 taliban prisoners and I don't remember this amount of bitching from the left. We definitely didn't hear a peep from the right about it.

Okay, I can see an argument where she did not "intentionally" plan to bring the cannabis. Personally, I think she knew she was bringing it in. She just thought it was okay because she had a prescription or that she's done it before and it wasn't an issue before.

But no argument that she was used as leverage and disproportionately sentenced.

FWIW, watching the YT Canada border security, I know that it's illegal to bring any cannabis (regardless of a valid prescription, regardless of quantity) into Canada.

I think people overhype Bout's impact. He was a frontman for and a face to put to something happening, but ex-Soviet weapons were probably still flowing out of the country at the same rate after he was out of the game. If you look at his actual arrest it was borderline entrapment to get him to come out of semi-retirement and help broker a deal. Even the judge who convicted him came out and said she didn't think his sentence should be that law but it was a mandatory minimum.

I think below article shows he was a very dangerous person when he was captured. I do hope he is happy with retirement and doesn't get back into the business (I can rationalize the trade then). But then, it bears asking why does Putin want him back if not for his connections and negotiation skills.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/w...o%2025%20years.

You don't have to guess what the reaction would be if Trump did this because he did. He traded 3 commanders in the Haqqani terrorist organization for an American professor. He traded a man who laundered a billion dollars for Hezbollah. I'd say you can look up the immense backlash for those decisions, but you won't find much because there wasn't.

And lets not forget that Trump signed an agreement to release 5000 Taliban prisoners, including 400 who had committed violent acts including the murder of Americans. This was in return for a promise that the Taliban wouldn't allow Al-Qaeda back into the country, which they almost immediately reneged on.

You'd think with all that spending, our military could actually win a war.

The additional spending has little to nothing to do with fighting China or Russia. It's to enrich defense contractors.

If this were Tom Brady they were freeing, do you think there would be the same outrage?


Exactly. We could reduce spending by a large percentage if we cleaned up the waste in the system. Never going to happened.

Personally, I would still ask the question on what Bout will be doing after being freed. If the assessment is he will be returning to Nic Cage, then I would still be against it.

For example, Bergdahl was a deserter and was exchanged for 5 Taliban. I couldn't find any articles that said the 5 caused allied deaths after the exchange. But based on their current status, I'd say it was highly likely they caused additional deaths. Was Bergdahl worth it? No, not then but do continue negotiations for a better deal

Quote:

Four of the five Taliban members released from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration in 2014 in exchange for admitted US Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl are part of the Islamic fundamentalist group’s new hardline government in Afghanistan, according to local media reports. The four members of the so-called “Taliban Five” who have joined the new government are Acting Director of Intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq, Acting Minister of Borders and Tribal Affairs Norullah Noori, Deputy Defense Minister Mohammad Fazl, and Acting Minister of Information and Culture Khairullah Khairkhah. The fifth member of the Taliban Five, Mohammad Nabi Omari, was appointed governor of eastern Khost province last month.

I agree with this. But I'd apply the "clean up the waste" to any other large government programs

Well, she can no longer be considered a DiNO

Democratic Sen. Sinema has registered as an independent

Wow, does that just fuck the Dems now for committee's and such? What a bitch power play.

I don't see any change to what she has always been and she will still caucus with Dems. This is likely something she has had planned for a long time, but could not have gotten elected as a independent. Now, she uses this to run like Bernie Sanders does, knowing she can count on the independent and some centrist GOP voters, while giving Dems no choice but to support her because the progressive wing in AZ is not strong enough to primary her.

It is still very self serving, but at least the cat is out of the bag now.

I'm a dumbass but wouldn't she face a Dem and a Rep in an election? I was thinking this move was only to prevent facing a primary challenge.

Not if the Dems are concerned that splitting the vote would elect a Republican. I see this playing out the way the Lee-UT race worked, with McMullin running as an independent and the Dems agreeing not to run a candidate against him to try to beat Lee. Except here, she's an incumbent senator as opposed to a challenger to an incumbent.

She will still run on a Dem ticket by touting how she caucuses with the Dems, because she knows running as a straight Ind would in fact get a republican elected. She also may elect not to run again, who knows with her.

The funny thing is during the 2020 election the GOP here ran attack ads talking about how she wanted to join Al Qaeda and was more "extreme" than AOC. Money well spent LOL

I think it is a pretty shrewd political move for her political survival. Given her low level of popularity and support among Dems, Rep. Ruben Gallego has been angling to primary her in 2024 and would have almost certainly defeated her. With this move, it seems like she is going to run as an independent and dare someone like Gallego to run as a Democrat, which will almost certainly lead to a Republican winning OR the Dems can clear the field in order to invite her to run on their ticket in order to give them a chance. And she will then have had a chance to fashion herself as above bipartisan politics and beholden to no party and probably be more attractive to the 'Mavericky' group of voters in Arizona.

Not the best thing for the party, but the best thing for Sinema and her survival.

I missed this last night. This is a worthy discussion to have. Going beyond Britney Griner, Paul Whelan and even Trevor Reed, should the US be exchanging famous or even non famous citizens who have been "unjustly detained" in hostile nations for foreign citizens we have in our jails that said those hostile nations like Russia, North Korea, China etc. want back home. For all the talk of whether it should have been Whelan or whether it should be Griner, it is clear that Bout is the one who was going to be exchanged. Would it have been better "trade value to exchange Bout for the director of global security and investigations for an international automotive parts manufacturer based in Michigan?

The thing with Sinema is that her approval ratings for any group you want to define are in the toilet. She's loathed by Dems, GOPers, independents, old people, young people, whites, blacks, and Hispanics.

She can't win, but she might keep another Dem from winning. As always, it's all about her ego.

It didn't occur to me that the Dems would cuck themselves over by supporting Sinema's run as an Independent. Sounds 100% plausible though.

It's just a move to try to blackmail the Democrats into not running another candidate against her and supporting her. She knows she is toast in a primary. It's a desperate move but really all she has at this point. I figured she would not run and just work for some lobbying group.

The Dems should absolutely ignore her and run a primary like normal. If she ends up being a spoiler, so be it. It's better than bowing to the least popular Senator in the country. And I do wonder if she'd actually run as an independent if the Democrats called her bluff.

And regardless, I don't think she ends up being much of a spoiler. She's loathed in Arizona by everyone. In fact, she's more popular with Republicans than Democrats. I'd seriously wonder if she'd be more of a threat to spoil some far-right candidate who the more moderate Republicans refuse to vote for.




He was out of the game for 6 years before the US targeted him. I don't know the legal definitions but it really was borderline entrapment.

I'll just say that this shows me once again I am assuming too much common ground in how we see the world. That's at least half my fault, probably more than that. I don't think this situation is analogous. Probably a bad decision to be sure, but it's not even remotely close to the Griner-Bout exchange.


Fair question. I think prisoner exchanges are sometimes a good idea. They just need to be remotely equal, and not in the sense of 'one or both countries brings absurd, trumped-up/inflated charges to make them equal'. All of that can be hard to sort out. Celebrity/notoriety, much as I detest it, certainly is a factor also. From what I understand Whelan was never on the table. In any case, my objection here is that it's just not in the area code of equal. None of the people who have been discussed; not Whelan, not Griner, unless one of them is doing a lot more than is known publicly, is worth giving up Bout for.

What evidence do you or anyone have honest question? I mean they say she had this but I wasn’t there next to her? Is the evidence that she is a black, tattooed, lesbian, basketball player so of course she had drugs? For the right that is obviously the take.

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

Well it’s often the case that half our country trusts Russian information and Russian intelligence FAR more than they do our own across the board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this captures why there is not the common ground you are looking for. First off, I think that most people will agree with the general sentiment here in a vacuum. This is a matter of policy regardless of the people involved. That does not mean exceptions can't and wont be made but I think everyone can at the very least agree to disagree with the sentiment.

However this has not played out in a vacuum and it has not been something that has been discussed as a matter of policy as you have here. It has been a personal discussion against Britney Griner IMO. It has been discussed as Griner somehow deserves her fate while Whelan, Reed and Marc Fogel do not because the Russians legal system was legit in her case and bogus in the others. It has been discussed that exchanging Bout for a WNBA player is ridiculous while at the same time arguing that the director of global security and investigations for an international automotive parts manufacturer based in Michigan who was in Russia for a wedding should have been the person exchanged for Bout. It has been discussed as while not an apples to apples comparison, we have allowed the "Merchant of Death" to go potentially get back to selling illegal guns that will kill Americans for just Britney Griner while not acknowledging that we also allowed 5,000 Taliban prisoners to go back to doing what they do that will kill Americans for well nothing. There is so much more but you get my gist.

If the argument is the Griner/Bout trade was a loser for the US according to the prisoner exchange version of the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart, I think there is a certain amount of common ground there and arguements can be made why it should or should not have been made. However, if we are arguing that this trade is lopsided and then arguing that the Reed trade was and potential Whelan(with the provision you stated above) or Fogel trades for Bout would have been winners or at the least fairer value for the US, then no there is no way to have common ground in that case.