|
It sucks what the people in Afghanistan are going through. The problem is the US doesn't have infinite money to support a government forever if it can't stand up on its own feet eventually. We could've stayed another decade and then left and had the same thing happen. I don't think anybody had any great answers for this one. Ukraine is an interesting situation where the whole west was morally onboard with preventing another western democracy from being overthrown and turned into a puppet for an authoritarian petrostate, so here we are holding off the hordes in another place for an indefinite amount of time without a coherent endgame. Just kinda hoped Russia would give up, but Putin won't and everyone in any position of power is the same ideology as him. The war disrupted global trade and everyone felt the pinch--especially in Europe where far right parties are gaining ground.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
I hadn't thought about it that way, but it's a convincing argument that Biden was willing to take the inevitable political hit a withdrawal would bring. That's a fair point and I'm going to have to stew on that for a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:You've ignored what I was talking about completely in order to do a little laundry list of ways the Democrats are horrible failures. I posted evidence of there being a gulf between democractic voters and Dem politician opinions because you posted this? quote:Yes, but a corollary point is that one of the tools capital uses to sustain their interests is public opinion, and that without addressing that public opinion you can't hope to make much progress. So it's not surprising so many politicians fall back on capitalist dogma when it does well with a lot of voters. A centrist winning out over Bernie probably wasn't in the primary electorate's self-interest, but it was their genuine preference. Along with saying that capital paid attn to their policy positions? Is that not what you meant? quote:There are certainly areas in which the party's actions don't reflect public preference. But none of those links say what you say they do. How so? The Dem party opinion is firmly set against this for example quote:Among the overall public, a narrow majority (53%) support the idea of a Medicare-for-all plan that would cover all Americans through a single government plan. At the same time, two-thirds (65%) say they support a government-run health plan that would compete with private insurance, often called a public option. Large majorities of Democrats support both a public option (88%) and Medicare-for-all (77%). quote:And, like, you're also being really cagey about "inflation" - the Democratic establishment has a "position" that's different from the public's on it? So, like, what... they're pro-inflation? My point is that people are unhappy about inflation and the economy as a whole despite constant Democractic messaging saying inflation has been dealt with and the economy is great actually! A more obvious sign of this is this link https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/ECONOMY-POLL/akvezdbzrpr/, which has inflation being the most important concern for voters and almost half of respondents stating that they are worse financially than they were a year ago. Not to mention during the height of the covid response/expansion of social supports ranging from rent protections, to expanded UI, to the expansion of Child Tax credits. quote:Furthermore, I think this gets lost in a lot of discussions about inflation, and you're pushing the conceit to its absolute limits: the Democratic Party/Joe Biden's policies did not cause inflation - or at least were only a small contributor to a much larger, more structural wave. Are you arguing otherwise? I am not. The point of the argument was that there is a wide gulf between public preferences and Dem party elite opinions, which I attributed to the power and incentives created by business interests. We can have a discussion about the causes of inflation but I feel like that's a sidetrack. It's more about people wanting some sort of governmental response and help in the face of it, which doesn't see to be forthcoming at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:I hadn't thought about it that way, but it's a convincing argument that Biden was willing to take the inevitable political hit a withdrawal would bring. That's a fair point and I'm going to have to stew on that for a while. Its also because his son was in the military and possibly got his brain cancer from burn pit exposure. I think biden was willing to eat the political cost because right thing to do and because he was smart enough to realize there was no winnig stratigy in afganistan. the afganistan papers and those old vice documentarys kinda paint a very obvious picture afganistan was never gonna be won and the time that it could have been(sorta) was under W and he decided to go to iraq instead. the loving depressing thing is the fall/pull out could have gone way way worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
they're gonna have to withdraw as the united states was officially declared bankrupt on 9/30/23
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:Trump heavily campaigned on isolationism and did many isolationist acts that pissed off neocons. The whole NAFTA arguments, etc. His blurts of shows of strength were just his strongman tendencies not a policy. I’m not going to say Trump wasn’t a neocon in practice, he maintained the status quo like the others, he was just the least of the bunch. Remember when Donald the Dove killed more people in four years than the devil Barack managed in eight? Me neither dems bad. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:It sucks what the people in Afghanistan are going through. The problem is the US doesn't have infinite money to support a government forever if it can't stand up on its own feet eventually. We could've stayed another decade and then left and had the same thing happen. I don't think anybody had any great answers for this one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Current moderation policy is that we're obligated to entertain such users' arguments. Current moderation policy is that we shouldn't respond to the user without entertaining their argument. We are free not to respond to them at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:There's a coherent endgame for Ukraine - russia is defeated and expelled from occupied territory and things go back to normal. The only problem is that nobody (other than Ukraine obviously) is actually committed to makign that happen. Yeah, I think it's really important to distinguish between a war of defense and regime change. I'm sure there's someone out there that would claim that the current Ukrainian government isn't "legit", but it's a huge stretch compared to, say, any given US action in South America to prop up or depose someone. The reason there was never any hope of making progress in Afghanistan is because there isn't popular interest or institutional inertia to keep a government working without training wheels, and associating that project with American imperialism just pushes back the date to that popular support ever forming. Based on my limited understanding, it doesn't really even seem like Afghanistan's borders make any particular sense - the people living there would probably have a better time if regions split into their own countries, and even then the whole idea of "national government" seems kind of arbitrary to impose on people that don't necessarily have a shared national identity or all that much desire for one. The fact that so many different empires have tried and failed to impose one on them seems like a strong signal that everyone should just quit doing that and let the people living there make decisions about their own governance, even if that means doing so without some overarching national government for the UN or treaty signing or whatever. In contrast, Ukraine would have a functioning national government if Russia, the US, and the EU all got out and took their weapons with them - they had one before, the current one is probably still reasonably representative of the people, and it seems like enough people vote and/or are invested in a national project to defend it from internal or external foes
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
It's important to remember that Afghanistan wasn't always a lost cause: the Taliban were earnestly pursuing peace negotiations under Bush and had been virtually destroyed. But an absolutely ruinous occupation policy radicalized rural areas and rebuilt the Taliban's support, while the US-backed government was at best incompetent and at worst nakedly corrupt. Karzai had a bunch of UN election workers murdered early in the Obama presidency and presented him with a fait accompli where either you recognize fraudulent elections or toss the entire state-building project in the trash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:How so? The Dem party opinion is firmly set against [Medicare for all] for example (For that matter, public opinion on M4A as is not NEARLY as monolithic as you are claiming - it's been discussed before how phrasing affects the response to this question, how many respondents misunderstand the question, and how Republican talking points can quickly erode support. Just adding "...and eliminate private insurance people receive through jobs" makes support crumble.) Shageletic posted:My point is that people are unhappy about inflation and the economy as a whole despite constant Democractic messaging saying inflation has been dealt with and the economy is great actually! Shageletic posted:Not to mention during the height of the covid response/expansion of social supports ranging from rent protections, to expanded UI, to the expansion of Child Tax credits. Shageletic posted:We can have a discussion about the causes of inflation but I feel like that's a sidetrack. It's more about people wanting some sort of governmental response and help in the face of it, which doesn't see to be forthcoming at all. I wonder what percentage of the public is aware of the basic, indisputable fact that no, Joe Biden didn't cause inflation? Maybe they would be less upset with Biden if somebody told them? You shouldn't go up to their face and say, HEY, INFLATION WAS CAUSED BY GLOBAL CONDITIONS CAUSED BY THE PANDEMIC, DUMBASS! but there is a tactful way to make people slightly more informed about cause and effect than they would be otherwise. Obviously I do not know those ways, which is why I post in D&D and don't work in politics. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Nov 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Current moderation policy is that we shouldn't respond to the user without entertaining their argument. We are free not to respond to them at all. quote:Don't repeat a point that has been rebutted without acknowledging the rebuttal. This demonstrates a lack of willingness to discuss and is also very frustrating for posters arguing with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
You have proven me wrong and I acknowledge the victory of your rebuttal over my contention..
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:I hate to keep getting into specifics because they are distracting from the core discussion (to remind you: that Democrats who are BROADLY PERCEIVED, across a wide range of issues, as "moderate," were preferred by the party base in 2020), but if you're gonna just keep throwing out terrible examples... "Dem party opinion" is not firmly set against Medicare For All. A lot of Democrats support Medicare for All. We just had a primary where multiple candidates supported it. Unfortunately, they didn't win. It's also unfortunate that, if they had won, they would not have been able to implement Medicare or All due to political constraints. The constraints are real, and not made up excuses. Literally no politician in the world would have been able to overcome them. The DNC voted overwhelmingly against adopting Medicare for All in its platform. Joe Biden said he would veto a Medicare for All bill. The Senate version of the bill has 16 cosponsors. So about 30% of Democrats in the Senate support it, and 70% don't. The House version of the bill has 112 cosponsors. So about 51% of Democrats in the House support it, and 49% don't. The DNC is against it, the president is against it, Democrats in the Senate are overwhelmingly against it, and there's a very thin majority of Democrats in the House that support it. The Democratic Party at the national level is very much against Medicare for All.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:I hate to keep getting into specifics because they are distracting from the core discussion (to remind you: that Democrats who are BROADLY PERCEIVED, across a wide range of issues, as "moderate," were preferred by the party base in 2020) I believe the discussion first started when I asserted that corporate interests routinely fund and get elected candidates against popular policy positions. Shageletic posted:The point is that the interests of capital doesn't need an individual politician to lead anything. That these people, are interchangeable because business interests can easily replace them since there is so much money sloshing through our political system there will inevitably be an elected official foiling any real progress that threaten to even curtail business profit. To which you responded Misunderstood posted:Yes, but a corollary point is that one of the tools capital uses to sustain their interests is public opinion, and that without addressing that public opinion you can't hope to make much progress. So it's not surprising so many politicians fall back on capitalist dogma when it does well with a lot of voters. A centrist winning out over Bernie probably wasn't in the primary electorate's self-interest, but it was their genuine preference. So I'm quite happy to get into specifics of whether popular policies don't result in politicians willing to make them happen. quote:but if you're gonna just keep throwing out terrible examples... "Dem party opinion" is not firmly set against Medicare For All. A lot of Democrats support Medicare for All. We just had a primary where multiple candidates supported it. Unfortunately, they didn't win. It's also unfortunate that, if they had won, they would not have been able to implement Medicare or All due to political constraints. The constraints are real, and not made up excuses. Literally no politician in the world would have been able to overcome them. I'd love to see those studies. Because every study I've seen consistently shows a majority of Dem voters wanting M4All. And it makes sense. Private health insurance is routinely terrible for most people. Don't see how this example is terrible, or how you proved it as such. quote:Do you have examples of Democrats talking about bright spots in the economy in a way that doesn't acknowledge people struggling because of high prices? I haven't seen it. That's the platform Biden seems to be running on the economy? I mean here's a few examples: https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1724476423241359821 https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1721530474005197185 https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1679164979218464776 https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1720442338689024087 This ignores that while the rate of inflation might be slowing, things are still more expensive than they were last year! People are struggling more, and you can see that across the board, from vanishing savings, to food pantries getting a huge jump of people lined up for food. quote:I agree that those are all good programs - especially the CTC - but they are not political or policy solutions to the current problem of high prices. All those programs are perceived as having caused inflation and they are currently not popular with the public when they are polled (and would especially not be when subjected to right wing attacks). That's what makes inflation so difficult - it's very hard to give people aid to deal with it without spurring further inflation. Especially when consumer demand and consumer spending remains very, very high - consistent with what you would expect from an excellent economy. All the Dems can really do, having gotten the inflation rate under control, is hope that wage growth is strong over the next year while inflation stays down. (Things are going decently well on that front. With inflation declining since last October, we've finally reached a point where real wages have risen, on AVERAGE, over the Biden administration, despite a downturn in 2022.) This specifically is a hugely value-laden comment. Do public projects and aid increase inflation? You're gonna find a lot of of economists that disagree. Either way, do you have any evidence supporting that? I'd argue that having money in hand, or helping with rent, are things that could help people. At least it would be attuned to public polling. quote:I find the idea that anybody would consider the material effects of government policy to be a "sidetrack" from talking about public opinion polls 50 weeks before an election pretty disappointing. Like I mentioned above, its a big subject. But since you presented the assetion that public aid leads to inflation, it behooves you to provide some evidence of that. quote:I wonder what percentage of the public is aware of the basic, indisputable fact that no, Joe Biden didn't cause inflation? Maybe they would be less upset with Biden if somebody told them? You shouldn't go up to their face and say, HEY, INFLATION WAS CAUSED BY GLOBAL CONDITIONS CAUSED BY THE PANDEMIC, DUMBASS! but there is a tactful way to make people slightly more informed about cause and effect than they would be otherwise. Obviously I do not know those ways, which is why I post in D&D and don't work in politics. Don't see how hectoring anyone leads to electoral victories. Phrases like, "Are you better off than you were four years ago" or "it's the economy, stupid", do though..
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 23:11
|
|
). Their goal is to win reelection. Yes, almost all of them want to get rich but if they wanted to get rich, they would've gone into finance or stayed in law: they want people to like them, and to check a box saying they like them. If the average member of the electorate had the political views of D&D poster, a big bag with a dollar sign on it wouldn't be enough to make you fight a minimum wage hike! You'd lose way more votes than you can buy with that money.
|
Shageletic posted:
Any discussion of Biden campaigning on the economy has to be set alongside the counterpoint that Trump will ABSOLUTELY push that Biden is ruining it entirely after Trump made it the strongest ever or some other bullshit. Whatever nuance there may be on the topic is just going to end up as Republican talking points and not helpful discourse unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:Any discussion of Biden campaigning on the economy has to be set alongside the counterpoint that Trump will ABSOLUTELY push that Biden is ruining it entirely after Trump made it the strongest ever or some other bullshit. Whatever nuance there may be on the topic is just going to end up as Republican talking points and not helpful discourse unfortunately. Anyone willing to listen to literally anything Trump says is a lost cause. People that voted for Biden in 2020 might care about nuance and they're the ones that need to be convinced to come back. Not saying Biden is doing a good job at convincing them, thus far he's not. But discourse in the US is no longer about convincing the other side to join you. Everyone is just pulling from independents and new voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:
People tend to like the name but have no idea what it means, and it drops when you explain what it means. That fact was a pretty big deal last election season. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/p...th-care-system/ This is in large part because most insured people rate their insurance pretty highly and don't want to give it up for an unknown. https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/politics/gallup-private-health-insurance-satisfaction/index.html And even if they could be coaxed into liking it with the right wording and campaign. , a public option is simply more popular among Democrats in addition to there being less confusion over what it would mean and what it would do.  https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/11/democrats-prefer-a-public-option-to-medicare-for-all/ The official Democratic platform calling for universal health care through the method more popular with their own voters, instead of the less popular one, is not really surprising and isn't any particular rightward movement in either body. Successful UHC systems in other countries vary between single and multi-payer solutions anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
At this point I'm not sure what the democrats can do to convince people to vote for Biden. The last couple elections went well for the democrats so I'm hoping that'll carry over to 2024. I guess if the inflation keeps going down things might start to look up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:II believe the discussion first started when Shageletic posted:I'd love to see those studies. Because every study I've seen consistently shows a majority of Dem voters wanting M4All. And it makes sense. Private health insurance is routinely terrible for most people. Don't see how this example is terrible, or how you proved it as such. I support M4A and recognize it has a lot of public support. My point is that even though you ask Democrat primary voters "Do you want single payer," and they would say yes, you could also ask them, "Do you want [candidate who doesn't want single payer] or [candidate who does]," and in 2020, at least, people chose the former. And as Killer robot said, you can also ask them, "would you rather keep your insurance or go on a government plan" people will say they'd rather keep their insurance. It's way more complicated than a single question and answer; this isn't "unskewing." ------------------- On the broader point - when you talk about "business interests" having sway in the way that you have, you cannot ignore the way the American public gets warm fuzzies from terms like "pro-business" and "free enterprise" and "self-sufficiency," and dislikes phrases like "depends on," "welfare," or "public good." This isn't something business interests have to actively do, it's part of the fabric of American culture going back to the Gilded age, and they're happy to exploit it and perpetuate it as best they can. (I have to point out that "business interests" is also impossibly vague but let's not get into that right now.) But this stuff isn't written in stone! Public opinion shifts, through political events, through art and culture, through individual and group advocacy. "Bootstraps" narratives have fallen out of favor pretty strongly in the last decade or so, as far as I see it. Everybody at least acknowledges that some people have a disadvantage, rather than that pretending that everybody has an equal shot at success if they "work hard enough," which was an incredibly common view for most of the 20th century (The disagreement now is just whether we should do anything about it.) Even "capitalism" is starting to get a battered reputation, when 40 years ago it was practically the national religion. Public opinion on these things does move, but it doesn't happen overnight. And public opinion moves policy, but again - it's not overnight. You're gonna have to wait a few "nights." (Years or decades.) Shageletic posted:That's the platform Biden seems to be running on the economy? I mean here's a few examples: I'll grant that in those 280 character communications, that only a very small percentage of people get their political messaging from, yes, okay, they didn't acknowledge the difficulty of high prices. Ya got me. Shageletic posted:Do public projects and aid increase inflation? You're gonna find a lot of of economists that disagree. I think it (e: direct stimulus) could possibly be a good policy (and the latest polling I could find actually suggests that people do support it, so I was wrong about that) but you're asking the Dems to take a flyer on some kind of fringe economic theories. If they're wrong and inflation bounces back up to 4% instead of drifting down towards two, that's a huge blow to the Democrats' electoral chances that would outweigh the check itself. If they were going to do some form of economic relief, it would probaby be "safer" to do it closer to the election. Shageletic posted:Like I mentioned above, its a big subject. But since you presented the assetion that public aid leads to inflation, it behooves you to provide some evidence of that. To help you out a little bit, the issue isn't "public aid," it's the government spending money. They could be buying stuff for any reason. If you spent less at the Pentagon and spent that money on public aid it wouldn't cause much extra inflation. And obviously I would support doing that. The problem is that the government refuses to cut anything that hasn't already been cut, or raise taxes. Raising taxes to pay for expanded public aid likely would not be very inflationary, but sadly is the kind of thing the American government is currently incapable of doing. (Trust that all things pass and it will not be forever.) Shageletic posted:Don't see how hectoring anyone leads to electoral victories. Phrases like, "Are you better off than you were four years ago" or "it's the economy, stupid", do though.. Killer robot posted:The official Democratic platform calling for universal health care through the method more popular with their own voters, instead of the less popular one, is not really surprising and isn't any particular rightward movement in either body. Successful UHC systems in other countries vary between single and multi-payer solutions anyway. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Nov 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:At this point I'm not sure what the democrats can do to convince people to vote for Biden. The last couple elections went well for the democrats so I'm hoping that'll carry over to 2024. I guess if the inflation keeps going down things might start to look up. Biden 2024: Still Not Trump remains an effective campaign. Whether there are better strategies, or we would like something else doesn't change the fact that Not Trump is probably good enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Biden 2024: Still Not Trump remains an effective campaign. Whether there are better strategies, or we would like something else doesn't change the fact that Not Trump is probably good enough. I think a lot will come down to Trump's campaign. People came out in droves to vote Not Trump and was pretty effective at uniting the liberals and leftists against an open fascist. Those same people are mixed on Biden's presidency, but the second Trump starts to open his mouth all day, every day, those same people might remeber why they voted for Biden in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Biden 2024: Still Not Trump remains an effective campaign. Whether there are better strategies, or we would like something else doesn't change the fact that Not Trump is probably good enough. Mendrian posted:I think a lot will come down to Trump's campaign. People came out in droves to vote Not Trump and was pretty effective at uniting the liberals and leftists against an open fascist. Those same people are mixed on Biden's presidency, but the second Trump starts to open his mouth all day, every day, those same people might remeber why they voted for Biden in the first place. Trump was able to drum up some extra support by being the incumbent (12 million more votes), but he drummed up far more support for Biden (18 million more votes than HRC). People paying attention to Trump hurts Trump, and has since January 2017. He's just getting more polarizing, and more incoherent, and more unable to focus on anything but his personal grievances. It's hard to believe, but a lot of people have just straight up fuckin' forgotten what Trump dominating the news every day is like, and they are not going to like it when they are reminded. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Nov 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Its also because his son was in the military and possibly got his brain cancer from burn pit exposure. I think biden was willing to eat the political cost because right thing to do and because he was smart enough to realize there was no winnig stratigy in afganistan. the afganistan papers and those old vice documentarys kinda paint a very obvious picture afganistan was never gonna be won and the time that it could have been(sorta) was under W and he decided to go to iraq instead. the loving depressing thing is the fall/pull out could have gone way way worse. Biden essentially had no choice. The withdrawal had been negotiated by the Trump administration and the number of troops had been drawn down from 13,000 to 2,500 by the time Biden came into office. At the same time, the Taliban were mounting a successful military offensive that would have overcome the few troops remaining. Choosing to stay would have meant redeployment of troops—a political nonstarter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 02:54
|
|
|
He absolutely did the right thing with Afghanistan. The government there was even more corrupt and incompetent than we ever knew. We could have been there for a hundred years and the result would have been the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Chauvin stabbed in prison (AP)quote:Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer convicted of murdering George Floyd, was stabbed by another inmate and seriously injured Friday at a federal prison in Arizona, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
In other news apparently a new demographic is crossing via the southern border, Chinese immigrants. Last year there were 24,000 apprehensions and prior to that only 15,000 in the previous decade. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/24/us/politics/china-migrants-us-border.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Chauvin stabbed in prison (AP)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 05:36
|
|
|
That seems very weird. If there's one dude you'd think prison guards would want to protect it's that guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 05:52
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:That seems very weird. If there's one dude you'd think prison guards would want to protect it's that guy. You'd think. But on the other hand, he got caught/actually faced a consequence for it, so that probably changes the equation quite a bit. Oh well, hypocritical of me or not, I'm definitely not gonna lose any sleep over that guy getting got.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 06:21
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:That seems very weird. If there's one dude you'd think prison guards would want to protect it's that guy. The structure of prisons is such that they can't really go out of their way to specially protect one guy, short of putting him in an isolated ward or solitary confinement. That's especially true when the prison system is badly overcrowded and understaffed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 06:34
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:That seems very weird. If there's one dude you'd think prison guards would want to protect it's that guy. Prison systems across the US are frequently cored out in various ways (infrastructure review delay, maintenance, hiring budgets) that make it so that the prison staff isn't really able to properly guarantee his safety even if they're going out of their way for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 06:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The structure of prisons is such that they can't really go out of their way to specially protect one guy, short of putting him in an isolated ward or solitary confinement. That's especially true when the prison system is badly overcrowded and understaffed. You don't get the profit in For Profit by properly funding and staffing things after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 07:29
|
|
|
Gyges posted:You don't get the profit in For Profit by properly funding and staffing things after all. Chauvin is in a federal prison (FCI Tucson, to be specific), and there are no private prisons in the federal system. All federal contracts with private prison companies were ended or allowed to expire per an Executive Order issued 1/26/21. Yet another good thing Biden did - this one at the beginning of his administration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 07:38
|
|
|
Gyges posted:You don't get the profit in For Profit by properly funding and staffing things after all. Nah, this is a federal prison, not for-profit. The understaffing crisis has been brewing for a while now, and is largely thought to be the product of mismanagement and corruption in Bureau of Prisons leadership, along with persistent understaffing from Congress. As far as I can tell, the staffing issues started ramping up after 2016, and kicked into overdrive in 2020 due to the Bureau of Prisons' poor handling of the pandemic. The Trump-appointed BoP director was essentially forced to resign last year over a series of scandals drawing Congressional scrutiny (the staffing crisis was just one of many issues in the BoP). However, with more than one-third of the BoP's jobs currently unfilled, digging out of that hole is a slow effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 08:54
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:This is very true, and I think people underestimate just how true it's going to be. I don't think a 10 point Biden victory, or more, is out of the question, and I don't think that because I think Joe Biden is the secret sauce to American electoral success. Trump is performing well in polls right now as the abstract idea of "not Joe Biden, let's just go back to how things were please," he's not going to perform as well when he's Donald Trump. He's an amazingly weak candidate. I do hope that him being under indictment and/or on prison will depress Trump's vote but the polling isn't enouraging. Yes it's one year out blah blah but Trump should be at 0% now, not a viable candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 10:55
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Chauvin is in a federal prison (FCI Tucson, to be specific), and there are no private prisons in the federal system. All federal contracts with private prison companies were ended or allowed to expire per an Executive Order issued 1/26/21. Yet another good thing Biden did - this one at the beginning of his administration. poo poo I genuinely forgot about that one. Also even assuming he has some special protection from the guards, do not underestimate the cunning of prisoners. It's not like all prisons at all times are Oz, but if someone has a target on their back then the people who want them to get got have nothing but time to plan and prepare. Folks in prison can be unbelievably inventive, whether it's figuring out how to run a still in secret, smuggling stuff in and out, or improvising a weapon to stick into a cop's kidney. I would truly prefer his fate was genuine repentance and a life trying to make up for what he did, because that is what I want for all those who do evil, but I can't bring myself to be all that torn up over this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 11:13
|
|
|
Total mispost
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 12:17
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I'd argue that there is in fact a wide gulf between public preferences and Democractic Party establishment positions, from healthcare to inflation and the economy toforeign policy to combating climate change. With the possible exception of healthcare, these articles aren't saying what you're arguing. Your thesis here is "there is in fact a wide gulf between public preferences and Democractic Party establishment positions". I'm using Joe Biden's views as a marker of the Democratic Party establishment. But on the economy, the public preference is for lower inflation and more jobs. Biden's policy position is to reduce inflation and increase the amount of jobs. On climate change, Americans want to become carbon neutral by 2050 which the article points out is Biden's policy position. On Israel, Democrats don't have a well defined position (the division referenced in the headline), but the article points out that a majority of voters sympathize more with Israelis and a vast majority say backing Israel is in America's national interest. Unless you're arguing that Biden isn't doing enough to support Israel, he seems to be in line with the public preference. If anything these articles make the opposite point-- the Democratic establishment is very responsive to moving their positions to be in line with what voters are perceived as wanting. You can argue whether they're actually good at achieving policy goals, but that's a different question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Private prisons were a problem, but they were never a major cause of problems with the US prison system because they were never more than a single-digit percentage of the prison system. Our prison system is perfectly capable of being inhumanly brutal without a profit motive.(That said, certainly not shedding any tears for ol' Derek. I'm surprised it doesn't happen to more cop murderers.) Private prisons were just bad because privatizing the torture palaces we call "prisons" makes them even grosser than they are to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 14:24
|
|