Jump to content

US Politics: Biden Hood - Prince of Plebs


DMC

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

So yes, there really is something there in terms of age groups.  It is safe to say that the Republican brand is not doing well with basically all the voters born after 1980.  It is indeed safe to say that unless something changes and Republicans get a leader who can appeal to young voters (which is of course possible) then demographic changes do indeed portend increasingly challenging elections for Republicans as pre-1980 voters make up a smaller and smaller share of the electorate.  Millennials + Gen Z increased from 23% to 31% of the electorate between 2016-20.  I think this being a problem for Republicans at a national level will happen sooner than 2040, even by 2028 that group could be 45% voters. 

This feels true to me anecdotally even before seeing the numbers. Growing up in a rural area I was raised to be a conservative and so were all of my best friends. Today none of us are, or at least none of us are Republican voters. We are from the generation that witnessed 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq with many of our friends and peers serving there. Then Obama comes along and it’s not hard to see why a generation of people seeing the fruits of 8 years of Bush were willing to vote for Obama. 

After Obama’s two terms, the Republicans had an opening to maybe regain some of the people who were simultaneously raised more conservative, inspired by Obama, and disillusioned by W. 

Trump totally derailed that. He just is not a figure who is going to win over youngish once conservative people who moved to the cities/suburbs and voted for Obama twice. And then, the nation having gotten rid of Trump in the Oval Office, watching the GOP resolutely refuse to change course to the point that their entire platform still revolves around Trump and lies about how he was cheated. They have no ideas and I think that as long as democracy can hold it together in the near-term they will find themselves in a very difficult electoral position as the post 1980 crowd begins to dominate the electorate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, S John said:

They have no ideas and I think that as long as democracy can hold it together in the near-term they will find themselves in a very difficult electoral position as the post 1980 crowd begins to dominate the electorate. 

I really hope you're right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Maybe Trump is like the Mule in the Foundation series and messes up forecasts into the future.

"I do declare, Sir. I do tell you, quite truly. Yes, quite truly, sir. There is no defense against the touch of The Donald's percipience. I have no need to combat his design because I am now a part of it, as surely as if I had always been. For indeed the moment his strength touched my mind I could never have been otherwise, and the taking of every step brought me to this insight. This freedom. Come now and open yourself to The Donald's new reality, where existence is predication and all wisdom bows before the great god Simpatico. Join me in freedom, won't you?"- Lindsay Graham, The High Apologist. Taken from contemporaneous notes made by James Comey, whose writings will go on to survive the time fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

30-44 year olds in 2004 were born between 1960 and 1974, and they were actually better for Bush than 45-59 year olds.

It's always surprised me how right-leaning late boomers/Gen Xers actually are.  And this is something that dates back to when they started voting.  Too lazy to look it up now, but I recall seeing exit polling divided by age groups dating back to 1992, and how-right leaning 18-34 year olds were back then was shocking.  My best guess would be Reagan? but I'm reticent to give him that much credit for such an outlier.  

The unpopularity of the GOP among millennials/Gen Z is indeed unprecedented - I also am familiar with panel data dating back to the mid-70s that show early Boomers weren't nearly this left-leaning at a young age either.  It will take an equally unprecedented shift in attitudes as voters age for the GOP to make up for this discrepancy as the millennials/Gen Zers come to dominate the electorate.

As for the racial difference, I think it's important to emphasize that the loss in Hispanic support was shared even among Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans (albeit to a lesser extent).  So, while narratively tempting, I'm not sure the socialist fear mongering was that integral to the shift - as such appeals should not be as salient among such groups (at least intuitively).  One thing I think that should be noted, although Fez's link frustratingly doesn't give cross-tabs, is that the shift towards Trump among minorities is limited to the older generations.  Young BIPOC still hate the GOP as much (or, really, more) than anybody.

Finally, my favorite graph of that link was Figure 10 that shows the increase in margin of the black vote since 2016 was larger than Biden's margin of victory in both Georgia and Arizona.  Meanwhile, in the midwest three, the difference in margin from 2016 was basically negligible.  Pretty interesting - and counter-intuitive (well, not the Georgia part, but the rest).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

I am a bit confused about how those two articles go together, and how either thing is South Carolina's fault or at all related to Jim Crow.

Did you read the links?  These states who insist the only reason there's labor shortages in sectors demanding very hard work for many non-stop hours for pay $8 and below, without benefits or job security, are also the states passing laws to declare such work as ineligible for unemployment compensation to "force them back to work."  These are the same states who make unionizing illegal, and so pass 'right to work' laws, which means there cannot be unions in meat packing plants, restaurants, agriculture or any other low pay, long, hard hours, unprotected by safety regulations or any other sorts of work like this.  These are the same states that have passed voter restriction laws.  These are the same states who pass anti-mask mandate laws, etc. etc. etc.  These are the same states who howled for deportation of non-white people and anti-immigration of non-white people -- all those same people who kept those restaurants running for tiny, and sometimes, simply withheld wages all together.  And under rtump they got that in spades.  So why are they whining now?  That's what they said they wanted.  Instead they are now going after 'white' people to make sure they don't get minimum wage or benefits or unemployment either -- or vote, either as well, as next step.

It's all there. What's so hard to understand about the relationships among these attitudes and the people who hold them and institute them via laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

30-44 year olds in 2004 were born between 1960 and 1974, and they were actually better for Bush than 45-59 year olds.  The 30-44 group from 2004 are now all in the 45-65 group in 2020, and that group is (not surprisingly) the best group for Trump. 

 

 

49 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's always surprised me how right-leaning late boomers/Gen Xers actually are.  And this is something that dates back to when they started voting.  Too lazy to look it up now, but I recall seeing exit polling divided by age groups dating back to 1992, and how-right leaning 18-34 year olds were back then was shocking.  My best guess would be Reagan? but I'm reticent to give him that much credit for such an outlier.  

The unpopularity of the GOP among millennials/Gen Z is indeed unprecedented - I also am familiar with panel data dating back to the mid-70s that show early Boomers weren't nearly this left-leaning at a young age either.  It will take an equally unprecedented shift in attitudes as voters age for the GOP to make up for this discrepancy as the millennials/Gen Zers come to dominate the electorate.

As for the racial difference, I think it's important to emphasize that the loss in Hispanic support was shared even among Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans (albeit to a lesser extent).  So, while narratively tempting, I'm not sure the socialist fear mongering was that integral to the shift - as such appeals should not be as salient among such groups (at least intuitively).  One thing I think that should be noted, although Fez's link frustratingly doesn't give cross-tabs, is that the shift towards Trump among minorities is limited to the older generations.  Young BIPOC still hate the GOP as much (or, really, more) than anybody.

Finally, my favorite graph of that link was Figure 10 that shows the increase in margin of the black vote since 2016 was larger than Biden's margin of victory in both Georgia and Arizona.  Meanwhile, in the midwest three, the difference in margin from 2016 was basically negligible.  Pretty interesting - and counter-intuitive (well, not the Georgia part, but the rest).

Well, as referenced in my screen name, we see I fall into this category.  Anecdotally, I did vote against Kerry in 04. However, I hadn't yet started actually paying attention to politics in great deal yet then, and I was swayed, I do believe by the messaging on Kerry being dull, uninspiring, boring...I can't defend it, but it's how I looked at things like that.  I mean, I voted for Clinton in the 90s... most likely for the same reasons...how he came across and how they messaged his personality. 

I know many of my peers in this age group do skew conservative, many more and more as time goes on.  But in 2004, I was 30, newly married, didn't have kids or own my own home yet. I hadn't really started paying attention to anything yet. I was a later bloomer in that respect than my peers.  Perhaps that played into some of it?  Because I've certainly gotten more liberal as I've gotten older, despite my parents being Republican (apparently, I didn’t find out about their political leanings until I was 37...we didn't discuss politics in my home growing up...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

But in 2004, I was 30, newly married, didn't have kids or own my own home yet. I hadn't really started paying attention to anything yet. I was a later bloomer in that respect than my peers.  Perhaps that played into some of it?

I dunno.  I'd venture to say millennials are later bloomers than Gen Xers in the aggregate - for a number of reasons.  And I wouldn't even say Gen Zers have bloomed yet.  I think circumstances have a lot to do with it.  Millennials have experienced 12 years of absolutely horrid governing under Republican presidents with disastrous consequences, whereas the 12 years under GOP presidents late boomers/Gen Xers experienced weren't nearly as bad for the country at-large.  And Gen Z was politically socialized during the Trump era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

 

Well, as referenced in my screen name, we see I fall into this category.  Anecdotally, I did vote against Kerry in 04. However, I hadn't yet started actually paying attention to politics in great deal yet then, and I was swayed, I do believe by the messaging on Kerry being dull, uninspiring, boring...I can't defend it, but it's how I looked at things like that.  I mean, I voted for Clinton in the 90s... most likely for the same reasons...how he came across and how they messaged his personality. 

I know many of my peers in this age group do skew conservative, many more and more as time goes on.  But in 2004, I was 30, newly married, didn't have kids or own my own home yet. I hadn't really started paying attention to anything yet. I was a later bloomer in that respect than my peers.  Perhaps that played into some of it?  Because I've certainly gotten more liberal as I've gotten older, despite my parents being Republican (apparently, I didn’t find out about their political leanings until I was 37...we didn't discuss politics in my home growing up...)

Wow, that is so different than my upbringing. It’s weird to think how this is one of the more influential areas of parental engagement.

Fury Sr is a lifelong union cement mason. He was and is very politically active and vocal about his views. He has never missed any election or caucus and I have always known how he voted. I was convening our precinct caucus in my early twenties. I have never missed any type of vote. My siblings have never missed a vote. The family is not without political disagreements but they are in the primaries. However, those get very heated still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

I dunno.  I'd venture to say millennials are later bloomers than Gen Xers in the aggregate - for a number of reasons.  And I wouldn't even say Gen Zers have bloomed yet.  I think circumstances have a lot to do with it.  Millennials have experienced 12 years of absolutely horrid governing under Republican presidents with disastrous consequences, whereas the 12 years under GOP presidents late boomers/Gen Xers experienced weren't nearly as bad for the country at-large.  And Gen Z was politically socialized during the Trump era.

Sure. A lot of circumstances go into that. I mean, I'm obviously at the very tail end of the 1960-1974 range. 

Those of us born in those early 70s...I think we run the whole length of what we possible outcomes could have been.  Something like a third of the people I went to high school with got married out of high school, most without going to or finishing college, a third finished college, but within a year or two of finishing they were getting married and having children right away. Then the last third, like me, just never found the right situation, but also, I think, really took the attitude that it didn't have to be rushed.  Couple that with the advent of computers and the shrinking of the country as a whole because of what it allowed...I think its that period of 71-75 that really where the shift began.  Computers going from the desktop to the handheld phone just increased the speed...thus these younger generations leaning in so many directions...I mean, for those of us at a certain age, out politics were essentially formed through our family units (I know, odd for me to say after saying my family didn't talk politics really, but that informed my attitude toward voting in a way too, didn't it?) Kids these days have the world at their fingers to learn from. 

Ah...that's long winded and ruling to say I essentially agree with you.

 

In terms of thinking about it in generational terms, my favorite anecdote is: When I turned 45, my son turned 10. When my dad turned 45, I turned 21 and was on the verge of graduating college. When his mom turned 45, I was 2 months old...everyone is ultimately different, but there are patterns to life...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

I think its that period of 71-75 that really where the shift began. 

Yeah that makes sense IRT the rise of the internet.  Anyway, while I haven't seen any research updated in 5 or so years, I do still expect parents' party ID is the predominate indicator on a young voters' - even for Gen Z.  Could it be less strong with the younger generations?  Maybe, that makes sense, but I doubt by much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2021 at 12:01 PM, DanteGabriel said:

Yeah, I don't think Gates has had as much influence as the Kochs, Mercers, Waltons, Adelsons, etc and they are all demonstrably worse people than Gates.

The thing with Gates is the massive influence he has over people's health around the world, including the WHO. But I'll agree, the ones you listed, plus Musk and Bezos are all highly problematic. Some of them may think they're doing good--and let's say Gates is one of those (but with recent news, I can't say I am sure of that), their ability to make decisions for the rest of us is the problem. His singular view of a better world--if that's what he wants--isn't best for most of us. But he's better than Bezos who just bought a yacht that's so big it needs a support yacht.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, S John said:

This feels true to me anecdotally even before seeing the numbers. Growing up in a rural area I was raised to be a conservative and so were all of my best friends. Today none of us are, or at least none of us are Republican voters. We are from the generation that witnessed 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq with many of our friends and peers serving there. Then Obama comes along and it’s not hard to see why a generation of people seeing the fruits of 8 years of Bush were willing to vote for Obama. 

After Obama’s two terms, the Republicans had an opening to maybe regain some of the people who were simultaneously raised more conservative, inspired by Obama, and disillusioned by W. 

Trump totally derailed that. He just is not a figure who is going to win over youngish once conservative people who moved to the cities/suburbs and voted for Obama twice. And then, the nation having gotten rid of Trump in the Oval Office, watching the GOP resolutely refuse to change course to the point that their entire platform still revolves around Trump and lies about how he was cheated. They have no ideas and I think that as long as democracy can hold it together in the near-term they will find themselves in a very difficult electoral position as the post 1980 crowd begins to dominate the electorate. 

I worry this isn't what happened though. I feel like there are lots of double Obama voters who went to Trump. Plus, that 70+ million voted for Trump, I don't think the GOPs moves have disenfranchised them. About the best thing that can happen is that Manchin gets the fuck out of the way and lets Biden provide meaningful help for people. I was reading that the stimulus checks significantly reduced hunger throughout the country, and that this was one of the most significant increases in monthly income for Americans since the 70s. Biden should be able to do more of these things--and not for votes, but because people need it. That's how loyalty could be shifted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Oh please, that’s utter bullshit. Whitmer is as much an economic terrorist to Canada as the Russians who hacked the Colonial pipeline are to the US. Open your eyes.

Just wanted to respond less flippantly than I did before, about some of what's been posted re: the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline.  Enbridge had a pipeline spill in 2010 of over 1 million gallons that polluted the Kalamazoo River.  They had to shut down 35 miles of the river and the clean up took 4 years.  Enbridge knew in 2005 that the pipeline had problems and didn't repair it.  This probably would have been bigger news if not for the fact that the BP Deepwater Horizon spill ocurred only a couple months before it and overshadowed it.  

If you had asked Enbridge in 2009 if Line 6B was an environmental hazard they would have told you "no".  They would have said "It hasn't leaked in its 50+ year existence".  So I'm not really buying any of their oil industry talking points about the security of Line 5.  

5 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

Yeah, but like... create the alternatives first. Empirically making millions of people's lives much more difficult in the short, medium, and let's face it still long term by cutting them off from something that they have no good alternatives for is cruel. Like FB said, it's also not short- or medium- term helpful in the aspects you want it to be, coz having to truck in the oil is gonna be worse,

What Whitmer is forcing right now may be just that - a way to force Enbridge to take responsibility for this before it becomes a problem.  Unless they are threatened with a shut down of the line they'll just keep kicking this down the road.  Now with the threat of the line actually being shut down maybe they will commit to replacing it with some different.  They have known for 10 years that similar lines have failed.  Whitmer might be playhing hardball here but how else are you going to get a company as shitty as Enbridge to address an issue like this before it becomes a problem?  A few years ago they lifted sections of Line 5 up out of the sediment and there are now concerns that this may be exposing it to additonal stresses from currents and making it more vulnerable to anchor/debris damage.  Oil companies need to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing.  They aren't going to do it on their own.  

Again, these aging pipelines are a problem, and we've known about this for the last decade.  If the threat of higher energy prices is what gets them to actually do something about it, great.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

I am a bit confused about how those two articles go together, and how either thing is South Carolina's fault or at all related to Jim Crow.

Did you read the links?  These states who insist the only reason there's labor shortages in sectors demanding very hard work for many non-stop hours for pay $8 and below, without benefits or job security, are also the states passing laws to declare such work as ineligible for unemployment compensation to "force them back to work."  These are the same states who make unionizing illegal, and so pass 'right to work' laws, which means there cannot be unions in meat packing plants, restaurants, agriculture or any other low pay, long, hard hours, unprotected by safety regulations or any other sorts of work like this.  These are the same states that have passed voter restriction laws.  These are the same states who pass anti-mask mandate laws, etc. etc. etc.  These are the same states who howled for deportation of non-white people and anti-immigration of non-white people -- all those same people who kept those restaurants running for tiny, and sometimes, simply withheld wages all together.  And under rtump they got that in spades.  So why are they whining now?  That's what they said they wanted.  Instead they are now going after 'white' people to make sure they don't get minimum wage or benefits or unemployment either -- or vote, either as well, as next step.

It's all there. What's so hard to understand about the relationships among these attitudes and the people who hold them and institute them via laws?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/10/economy/labor-shortages-pay-gaps/index.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Just wanted to respond less flippantly than I did before, about some of what's been posted re: the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline.  Enbridge had a pipeline spill in 2010 of over 1 million gallons that polluted the Kalamazoo River.  They had to shut down 35 miles of the river and the clean up took 4 years.  Enbridge knew in 2005 that the pipeline had problems and didn't repair it.  This probably would have been bigger news if not for the fact that the BP Deepwater Horizon spill ocurred only a couple months before it and overshadowed it.  

If you had asked Enbridge in 2009 if Line 6B was an environmental hazard they would have told you "no".  They would have said "It hasn't leaked in its 50+ year existence".  So I'm not really buying any of their oil industry talking points about the security of Line 5.  

What Whitmer is forcing right now may be just that - a way to force Enbridge to take responsibility for this before it becomes a problem.  Unless they are threatened with a shut down of the line they'll just keep kicking this down the road.  Now with the threat of the line actually being shut down maybe they will commit to replacing it with some different.  They have known for 10 years that similar lines have failed.  Whitmer might be playhing hardball here but how else are you going to get a company as shitty as Enbridge to address an issue like this before it becomes a problem?  A few years ago they lifted sections of Line 5 up out of the sediment and there are now concerns that this may be exposing it to additonal stresses from currents and making it more vulnerable to anchor/debris damage.  Oil companies need to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing.  They aren't going to do it on their own.  

Again, these aging pipelines are a problem, and we've known about this for the last decade.  If the threat of higher energy prices is what gets them to actually do something about it, great.  

I'm not going to argue about the Kalamazoo spill because I was as angry and pissed off as everybody was about it.

But as for Whitmer playing hardball to make Enbridge "take responsibility" for the pipeline, just what the hell do you think she's blocking? Enbridge was about to start construction of a concrete tunnel under the Straits to replace what's there now, so if any leak occurred it would occur in the tunnel and not in the water. It would also protect the pipeline from idiots who drop anchors on it. I'm pretty sure the pipeline is marked on navigation charts and ships are not supposed to drop anchors on it. That's why they mark things on navigation charts.

As for Enbridge being a "shitty company", it actually has an excellent reputation as a pipeline company, and is ranked 4th out of 196 companies in the industry in ESG matters. It's also one of 9 Canadian companies ranked as the top 100 sustainable companies in the world (ranked 46th). Those rankings are based on more than a dozen factors, including relative water and energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, waste production, CEO-to-worker pay ratios and board and management diversity. So don't talk to me about how evil it is.

As for oil spills, we could fight over the details of oil spills American companies have managed to do over the decades and compare then to Enbridge's. I don't see Whitmer banning a long list of American companies from the state of Michigan, or any other US states banning US companies either. This is strictly political, an easy shot at a Canadian company.

I don't actually think Whitmer has the power to do what she wants to do, so it's not going to happen. But that doesn't change my mind about the fact it's outright economic terrorism. I was a supporter of Whitmer's ever since her election, but as far as I'm concerned now she's a a real snake in the grass. I hope she loses her next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I'm not going to argue about the Kalamazoo spill because I was as angry and pissed off as everybody was about it.

But as for Whitmer playing hardball to make Enbridge "take responsibility" for the pipeline, just what the hell do you think she's blocking? Enbridge was about to start construction of a concrete tunnel under the Straits to replace what's there now, so if any leak occurred it would occur in the tunnel and not in the water. It would also protect the pipeline from idiots who drop anchors on it. I'm pretty sure the pipeline is marked on navigation charts and ships are not supposed to drop anchors on it. That's why they mark things on navigation charts.

As for Enbridge being a "shitty company", it actually has an excellent reputation as a pipeline company, and is ranked 4th out of 196 companies in the industry in ESG matters. It's also one of 9 Canadian companies ranked as the top 100 sustainable companies in the world (ranked 46th). Those rankings are based on more than a dozen factors, including relative water and energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, waste production, CEO-to-worker pay ratios and board and management diversity. So don't talk to me about how evil it is.

As for oil spills, we could fight over the details of oil spills American companies have managed to do over the decades and compare then to Enbridge's. I don't see Whitmer banning a long list of American companies from the state of Michigan, or any other US states banning US companies either. This is strictly political, an easy shot at a Canadian company.

I don't actually think Whitmer has the power to do what she wants to do, so it's not going to happen. But that doesn't change my mind about the fact it's outright economic terrorism. I was a supporter of Whitmer's ever since her election, but as far as I'm concerned now she's a a real snake in the grass. I hope she loses her next election.

Haven't seen Bird's dander up like this in a while lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Economic terrorist" does seem a bit harsh, but maybe that's because her accent makes it sound like the harshest thing she could do is force her kids to eat their vegetables at dinner in a passive aggressive way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

"Economic terrorist" does seem a bit harsh, but maybe that's because her accent makes it sound like the harshest thing she could do is force her kids to eat their vegetables at dinner in a passive aggressive way.

 No. The pipeline brings the oil that is refined into 50% of the fuel used in Ontario and slightly less in Quebec. Ontario is Canada’s manufacturing heartland and it’s the primary driver of Canada’s economy. What exactly do you think is going to happen to 22 M people when they lose 50% of their fuel? What do you think is going to happen to manufacturing if a large percentage have to shut down? The refinery produces the aviation fuel used by the Pearson International, Toronto’s airport, the biggest in Canada. What are we going to do, fly in aviation fuel? And, funnily enough, the refinery supplies Detroit too. Have fun with that, you idiot, Whitmer. Not to mention your state’s propane supply.

Colonial provides 45% of the gasoline used on the East Coast of the US. They believe their pipeline will be running by the end of the week. Talk to me again if they don’t in fact manage to do it for two weeks or longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

"Economic terrorist" does seem a bit harsh, but maybe that's because her accent makes it sound like the harshest thing she could do is force her kids to eat their vegetables at dinner in a passive aggressive way.

Economic terrorist is the preferred term for a counterparty in a civil dispute like this. I think. Sounds familiar from "How to make friends and influence people".

Enbridge won't stop oil without a court order which is unlikely to be finalized, i.e. it'll be appealed and appealed even if it does go against them.

It takes some real chutzpah to begin to stand up against fossil fuels - this shows how it isn't going to be easy. We're so wedded to it. The scale of change required is massive.

That said, it does seem like brinkmanship at this cost at this moment may not be the ideal political calculus. We'll see.

 

Non-pipeline news:

 

Elise Stefanik has sold her soul, like Rubio and others, to the Cult of Trump. Meanwhile, Liz Cheney is on the outs for "not looking forward" because the GQP has to look forward to electoral wins on the basis of their losing record in the past. I really hope the Democrats don't fritter this away - it would be so unjust if these chucklefucks actually make their way back into elected office.

Eta-

Pipeline sandwich: 

So...huh. I read somewhere on Twitter that the software checks if the Is is running in Russian and several other eastern European languages to avoid infecting them. Aligns to Putin's quiet mandate to free rein for hackers as long as they don't mess with Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fragile Bird,

I am at the moment not able to speak on the specifics of each issue you raised, but at the same time I don't think Whitmer is trying to punish and/or hurt Canada or Canadian businesses. We're dealing with risking a lot of water here, and I don't think we should let businesses' interests supersede that of long term environmental concerns. I think @Week is correct in saying there's brinkmanship going on, but that doesn't mean we need to take this to the most extreme criticism. You also have to keep in mind that Whitmer, as Governor of Michigan, has to have Flint and their water issues on her mind. If she broke the other way and sided with what you'd like she'd get crushed by internal party politics. I need to read more about the specifics, but it sounds like she's in a lose-lose situation and is prioritizing good politics at home verses what's best for another country, a stance most politicians regardless of party would probably take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...