|
I'ld say a 5. Here's to hoping MBS tries to be friendly with Biden and completely ends Saudi Arabia's participation in Yemen. At a minimum, at least we will stop selling arms (and providing troops) to them.
Kalit fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Nov 9, 2020 |
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i guess i just wonder why people think this is something that would happen. is it something that joe biden has articulated that he wants? or is this just absolute, fantastical projection? cuz from what i know of joe, there ain't no imperialist war he didn't approve of He has stated he would stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia and condemned their involvement in Yemen multiple times: https://www.forumarmstrade.org/2020_biden.html.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I mean, you can believe whatever you want. A lot of that comes from people who were most likely already going to vote for Biden. But when it comes down to it, more people still rated the economy as a higher priority than the pandemic: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/21/only-24-of-trump-supporters-view-the-coronavirus-outbreak-as-a-very-important-voting-issue/  I'm trying to find exit polling on numbers for who changed the candidate they were voting for either way. On one hand, you have the COVID response catastrophe. On the other hand, you have fear mongering about Biden "shutting down the entire economy and killing our jobs". I'm still not sold on the COVID response being a single reason why Trump loss. Kalit fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Sure, but the nature and depth of the ongoing economic downturn has been pretty dependent on the pandemic. The economy still would have been bad without the virus, but probably not "incumbent loses reelection for the first time in almost 30 years" bad. Oh yea, I 100% agree with the first part of that statement. Which is why it's very important for people to look at Sweden for why not enforcing any lockdown measures doesn't actually help out the economy any. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that can't seem to put the two together, which is why fear mongering over Biden locking everything down has worked. So while I'm sure there are some people who voted for Biden when they wouldn't have otherwise because of the pandemic response, I'm sure there are also some people who voted Trump who wouldn't have otherwise because of their perceived threat to the economy by more pandemic-related business restrictions (I likely have a family member that falls into this category). So I think this aspect needs to be taken into account when talking about the outcome of the election and how it could have shifted because of the pandemic. Especially since it would have to be very state specific in order to confirm that without the pandemic, Trump would have won the election. Kalit fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:This source also claims that Biden wants to end the forever war in Afghanistan which seems at odds with the messaging we've been getting over the last few months about how Trump isn't doing anything about the Russians giving bounty money to the Taliban. Um.... are you trying to say that this website is inaccurate? It's just aggregating links to what Biden has actually said. And... you know that the whole Russian bounty Taliban thing still isn't a confirmed thing, right (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-commander-intel-still-hasn-t-established-russia-paid-n1240020)? As far as Biden ending the "forever wars", I'm skeptical about that part because it's really complex (https://time.com/5890577/biden-middle-east-special-operations-forces/ for the latest on that). The arms dealing to Saudi Arabia is the part I was talking about, which Biden has continued to re-affirm his position on even after the primaries.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I've got a dollar on Klob because the "she was unfairly criticized for letting killer cops go BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN" narrative on blue MAGA twitter was really hot for a while, she's done no worse than Kamala, and making her AG would be a solid first step in following the Kasich Plan For Democrats, but even vetting her is a sign that they don't take stopping cop murder as a priority in any way. In addition to this, I'm assuming her and Buttigieg were guaranteed cabinet positions to drop out and endorse Biden before Super Tuesday. Honestly, Klobuchar was probably told she would get the VP spot, but then after the George Floyd riots they probably decided they need a VP candidate who isn't white.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I don't get going from Senator to Secretary being seen as a promotion. Seems like a sidegrade to me. As I stated above, IMO, it's not unreasonable to think Klobuchar was originally promised the VP spot. The George Floyd riots probably changed who they picked for VP. At a minimum, it definitely changed the rumored shortlists.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:We got names ya'll https://buildbackbetter.com/the-transition/agency-review-teams/ A number of silicon valley execs and people from the Obama/Biden administration, neither of which are surprising. I haven't looked too in depth, but one of the names that popped out at me under Department of State transition team was Tom Sullivan, who according to Linked In is the Director International Tax Planning at Amazon. Kalit fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Nov 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing that really puts the lie to the idea that there's a non-zero chance of Biden making things better for the poor/working class is to simply look at what happens in firmly blue states, like California. The Democrats have absolutely zero interest in being a pro-labor party (or a pro-"anything good" party for that matter; even their support for social issues is nearly all superficial). Prop 22 is basically a preview of the sort of future they would prefer for all of the American working class. Would you say Prop 8 in 2008 was a preview of showing how little Obama/Biden ended up caring about marriage equality? I'm not trying to say that the Biden administration will actually give a poo poo about the poor/working class. I'm just saying, IMO, you can't simplify what happens to a proposition in a firmly blue state to what the Democratic party will end up supporting. Even if it was years (or decades) too late. It's about how much funding that proposition has. In the case of prop 8, it was the mormon church. In the case of prop 22, it's silicon valley. Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Nov 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wasn't obama opposed to gay marriage until it went through on the courts? Read my post. Ytlaya and I was both talking about a preview. Which means a view into the future. Not currently. And I specifically said even if it was years (or decades) too late. Which is one of the reasons I didn't support Obama in 2008.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My memory is a bit fuzzy but like, if it was enacted by the courts then you could argue that yes, it is quite indicative of his administration's stance on gay marriage? Which is to say he didn't support it, it was done without his input? I didn't state it explicitly, but technically Obama supported it before the courts. Biden forced his hand in an interview in 2012. Obama supported it soon after. Oberfell vs Hodges was in 2015.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How many members of Obama or Biden's families belonged to the groups pushing Prop 8? Thanks for pushing whataboutism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I don't think you're allowed to cast shade on someone for doubting a source accurately reflects the actual intentions of a potential Biden administration only to express your own doubt about the exact same source and even the exact same subject in the very next paragraph. I'm sorry, I sincerely wasn't trying to cast shade on that first part. I was confused and was asking if I was interpreting you correctly that you thought the website itself was inaccurate and Biden didn't actually said that. My interpretation of this was because of the first four letters of your reply was "This source also claims" instead of something along the lines of "Biden also claims". I stated that more likely than not BIden is misleading or lying about ending forever wars, not that the website itself is lying about Biden's claims. The second part, guilty. I was definitely throwing shade. I did that since you brought up the Taliban bounty thing like it was a confirmed thing when it wasn't even being discussed (nor would it have had an impact on ending the war). Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Nov 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Maybe it doesn't come up much in d&d but we've observed in c-spam for quite some time now that the bounty story was never substantiated and hasn't served any apparent purpose except to prevent Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and also given Biden surrogates a way to attack Trump for not being sufficiently tough on Putin. But yes my phrasing was a little ambiguous it's not that I don't believe that Biden said these things it's that I don't believe he was telling the truth about his actual beliefs. Ah okay, thanks for the explanations. And do you have any sources for those thoughts on trying to leverage Trump to force troops to stay in Afghanistan (including by who) or are they just theories? TBH, it sounds a little  to me
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:In the interests of fairness, here's what good stuff I think might actually come about during a Biden presidency: Do you not consider stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia as a good thing? Or do you not think he'll follow through on that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:A very, very good chunk of Islamic radicalism can be traced right back to the Saudis having insane imams spreading their poison, which in turn fuels right-wing movements using it as an excuse to treat people like poo poo. Not giving them guns anymore doesn't solve this problem. The weapons we sell them have been directly used in the Yemen civil war... I'm guessing not giving them guns would inflict less pain on Yemen..... Kalit fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Nov 12, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:I think he'll follow through if he can find someone else willing to buy the weapons. I also think so long as the Saudis make the right comments and pretend to pull back from Yemen he'll gladly resume sales, probably with some unenforceable condition about not using the missiles we sell them on civilians. Yea, optimistically I'm hoping Biden actually follows through on his "reassessing our relationship with Saudi Arabia" comment. But as long as he at least stops loving selling weapons and stops the US's active support of Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen, I'll take it. At least we won't have coziness between Kushner and MBS anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:What makes me most doubtful is that Obama was the one who started our involvement in Yemen, but as always I would love to be surprised. Yea, something about hindsight 20/20 and Biden might have less bloodlust than Obama. I know, looking at Biden's history doesn't fill us with hope. Which is why I'm holding out hope that the original involvement was Obama's decision (or Biden realized it was a huge mistake). At a minimum, Biden has been outspoken about this issue multiple times in the past year. Kalit fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Nov 12, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 06:49
|
|