US Politics Thread

[lasereyes]

I’m getting tired of the notion that people were just hanging around in Afghanistan with no idea that the end date was coming in ONE WEEK!

Did they think they were going to rent a van the day before the USA officially left, fill it with their shit, then drive to the airport snd drive it onto a C17 so they could state over wherever they desired?

Anyone still there was either stupid or working for the US (Media, State Dept or Military) and should be accommodated!

The notion that the US military now has to go and supposedly hang around to help provide safe haven for people still in country is ridiculous!

Americans still in Afghanistan at this point SHOULD be on their own.

They knew WHAT was coming, and they knew WHO was coming. They also knew who was GOING and WHEN!!!

Maybe they were still there because Biden on July 8 said: "the likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely". I suggest you read the attached before responding, particularly the Q&A starting "Is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable".

Remarks by President Biden on the Drawdown of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan | The White House

East Room 2:09 P.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Earlier today, I was briefed by our senior military and national security leaders on the status

www.whitehouse.gov

Biden completely downplayed the risks (ignoring the statements and advice of US Intelligence). Now it has exploded in his face, he claims that chaos was inevitable and was built into his calculus. Breathtaking ineptitude garnished with a labyrinth of mis-truths.

In the face of this, your statement that "Americans still in Afghanistan at this point SHOULD be on their own" is utterly staggering.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

My comment was incorrect - he did not say the same as Trump whose entire handling of Covid and associated statements were beyond atrocious.

But Biden's statements were uneducated and highly unhelpful, conveying an incorrect sense of certitude about the virus risks. Here is one of his speeches so you can judge for itself:
"If you have been fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask"

As I said before, the CDC has been all over the place. They were saying in March of 2020 when the virus was spreading like wildfire that masks were not necessary. They are pretty discredited in most educated Americans' eyes - my family and friends all do our own independent research around the science and the studies rather than slavishly following the CDC. And this particular statement made no sense at the time. We have no long term data on the efficacy of vaccines and little data on its effectiveness against variants (even less in May when Biden made those statements). Delta was already a growing threat at the time - first cases were detected in Dec-2020.

For Biden to stand there and strongly imply that you are no longer at risk if you are vaccinated was at best highly irresponsible and a material contributor to the worsening infection situation. To cite your own comments, neither her nor the CDC followed the science and their statements were based neither on research nor data.

Let me reiterate yet AGAIN -- Biden parroted the CDC. We've already established that they haven't always been right. Joe Biden does not do his own independent health care research. This is like the third time I've said this.

As to your comment about what "most educated Americans" think, this poll (and a well-respected organization it is) doesn't comport with that view, and hasn't for some time:

Public Trust in CDC, FDA, and Fauci Holds Steady, Survey Shows | The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

A new survey finds that top U.S. health agencies retain the trust of the vast majority of the American public, as does Dr. Anthony Fauci.

www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org

You are welcome do your own healthcare research. What is your conclusion based on it?

Your last paragraph is again ironic based on research and data, in that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Biden was a "material contributor to the worsening situation", whatever he said or you say he implied. And I never wrote anything remotely like "neither he nor the CDC followed the science"; I said some of the CDC's recommendations turned out to be incorrect. They were certainly based on what they thought the science they had at the time told them.

But both the CDC and by extension Biden have another consideration to balance with whatever they say -- keeping the economy functioning. It's a public good. But that good must be weighed against the risks. The former President did the same and reached a different conclusion; governors and mayors have done it and continue to do it too. They weigh the good against the risks, and offer recommendations (or orders). That with hindsight we can poke holes in anyone's recommendations is just that -- hindsight.

Now do I think Biden wanted to tell people things were getting better and life could return to some more reasonable resemblance of normalcy? Sure -- most Presidents would. Did he favor the public good over the risk based on tone (your phrase: "strongly implied")? That's a matter of how you hear it.

Last, I think the fact that the CDC has been all over the map says a lot more about the wonkiness of COVID and the take rate of the vax then it does the CDC, but that's just an opinion. I don't know for sure -- I am sure later in depth reviews of the processes involved conducted by experts will -- again with hindsight -- tell us what they should/could have done to get this all spot on. Or maybe we will find they were under pressure to ease up on prescribed onerous strictures by the executive branch.

That we have any kind of vax at all is monumental scientific achievement by nearly anyone's standards.

 

[lasereyes]

Source?

AP ... https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-middle-east-taliban-doha-e6f48507848aef2ee849154604aa11be

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I’m getting tired of the notion that people were just hanging around in Afghanistan with no idea that the end date was coming in ONE WEEK!

Did they think they were going to rent a van the day before the USA officially left, fill it with their shit, then drive to the airport snd drive it onto a C17 so they could state over wherever they desired?

Anyone still there was either stupid or working for the US (Media, State Dept or Military) and should be accommodated!

The notion that the US military now has to go and supposedly hang around to help provide safe haven for people still in country is ridiculous!

Americans still in Afghanistan at this point SHOULD be on their own.

They knew WHAT was coming, and they knew WHO was coming. They also knew who was GOING and WHEN!!!

Have you been asked to go over there, Cap? How do you or your co-workers feel about that? And how does the union feel?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Reading every post and reaction I‘m gobsmacked at the level of childish debate.

Fuck you, cunts, it’s a muffin!

This is the U.S. Politics thread, mate -- it's a fucking dinner roll!

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

AP ... https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-middle-east-taliban-doha-e6f48507848aef2ee849154604aa11be

Thanks.

 

[Bigga]

First you tell me which part of…

…is a figure of speech.

I'm going to be polite and I'm just going to drop this here for you to doubt what the US Atty Gen can and cannot do. Since the Atty Gen reports to the Pres, logic dictates whether things can be done or not.

From Wiki and I can't be arsed editing out the citation bits:

On March 6, 2013, Holder testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the size of large financial institutions has made it difficult for the Justice Department to bring criminal charges when they are suspected of crimes, because such charges can threaten the existence of a bank and therefore their interconnectedness may endanger the national or global economy. (See financial contagion). "Some of these institutions have become too large," Holder told the Committee, "It has an inhibiting impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate."[154]

In a January 29, 2013 letter to Holder, Senators Sherrod Brown and Charles Grassley had criticized this Justice Department policy citing "important questions about the Justice Department's prosecutorial philosophy."[155] After receipt of a DOJ response letter, Brown and Grassley issued a statement saying, "The Justice Department's response is aggressively evasive. It does not answer our questions. We want to know how and why the Justice Department has determined that certain financial institutions are 'too big to jail' and that prosecuting those institutions would damage the financial system."[156][157]

Prosecution rates against crimes by large financial institutions are at 20-year lows.[158] Holder has also endorsed the notion that prosecutors, when deciding to pursue white-collar crimes, should give special consideration to "collateral consequences" of bringing charges against large corporate institutions, as outlined in a 1999 memorandum by Holder.

And THIS ^^^ is why banks get away with taking peoples' homes from being sold faulty goods and not paying the consequences of such behaviour.

I'm bored of you now.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

“Trustworthy British accent” . . . what the fuck is he on about?? :)

*Scottish

Some background on it below. Do Americans have a similar marketing myth for call handlers in the Philippines? :)

Trust me, I’m a Scotsman | The Spectator

I wonder what the Afghans think of the trustworthiness of New York City and Pennsylvanian accents at the moment... :)

 

[west didsblue]

AP ... https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-middle-east-taliban-doha-e6f48507848aef2ee849154604aa11be

The key paragraph in that is this:
“Renegotiating, though, would have been difficult. Biden would have had little leverage. He, like Trump, wanted U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. Pulling out of the agreement might have forced him to send thousands more back in”
I assume that he calculated that the blowback of sending thousands of extra troops back in would have been far greater than sticking to the agreement, and he would have been right, at least domestically which is where he’s most bothered about.

 

[lasereyes]

Let me reiterate yet AGAIN -- Biden parroted the CDC. We've already established that they haven't always been right. Joe Biden does not do his own independent health care research. This is like the third time I've said this.

As to your comment about what "most educated Americans" think, this poll (and a well-respected organization it is) doesn't comport with that view, and hasn't for some time:

Public Trust in CDC, FDA, and Fauci Holds Steady, Survey Shows | The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

A new survey finds that top U.S. health agencies retain the trust of the vast majority of the American public, as does Dr. Anthony Fauci.

www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org

You are welcome do your own healthcare research. What is your conclusion based on it?

Your last paragraph is again ironic based on research and data, in that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Biden was a "material contributor to the worsening situation", whatever he said or you say he implied. And I never wrote anything remotely like "neither he nor the CDC followed the science"; I said some of the CDC's recommendations turned out to be incorrect. They were certainly based on what they thought the science they had at the time told them.

But both the CDC and by extension Biden have another consideration to balance with whatever they say -- keeping the economy going. It's a public good. But that good must be weighed against the risks. The former President did the same and reached a different conclusion; governors and mayors have done it and continue to do it too. They weigh the good against the risks, and offer recommendations (or orders). That with hindsight we can poke holes in anyone's recommendations is just that -- hindsight.

Now do I think Biden wanted to tell people things were getting better and life could return to some more reasonable resemblance of normalcy? Sure -- most Presidents would. Did he favor the public good over the risk based on tone (your phrase: "strongly implied")? That's a matter of how you hear it.

Last, I think the fact that the CDC has been all over the map says a lot more about the wonkiness of the variant and the take rate of the vax then it does the CDC, but that's just an opinion. I don't know for sure -- I am sure later in depth reviews of the processes involved conducted by experts will -- again with hindsight -- tell us what they should/could have done to get this all spot on. That we have any kind of vax at all is monumental scientific achievement by nearly anyone's standards.

I wouldnt base anything on a poll. Election polls are among the most scientifically researched and they have proved to be wildly inaccurate. So what you cited doesn't prove anything. The CDC has been widely and rightly criticized, for instance:

CDC’s slow, cautious messaging on Covid-19 seems out of step with the moment, public health experts say

Public health officials say the conservative nature of the CDC's approach to Covid is a marked departure from how it deals with other major public health issues, like HIV and opioid use disorder.

www.statnews.com

Biden is the President - the buck stops with him. It's his duty to know what sources are reliable or not. And you did not need to do one jot of independent research to know there were huge uncertainties and next to no science, research or data on the effectiveness of vaccines against Covid variants. Neither he nor the CDC were following the science. It was at best lazy; but arguably politically expedient (given growing unrest around lockdowns, restrictions and perceived loss of social freedom).

As for your statement on weighing the risks, well he didn't do that did he? His comment was made with certitude. So much so that he reiterated it. No equivocation, no caveats, no qualifiers.

On your last comment, I think you are maybe still missing my point. I am not criticizing anyone for the uncertainties of the pandemic progression. In fact the opposite - my beef is there are way too many definitive statements when there is so much we don't know. Politicians always want to convey authority and that they are in charge. Facts, research and intellectual integrity are generally the first casualties.

 

[west didsblue]

I'm going to be polite and I'm just going to drop this here for you to doubt what the US Atty Gen can and cannot do. Since the Atty Gen reports to the Pres, logic dictates whether things can be done or not.

From Wiki and I can't be arsed editing out the citation bits:



And THIS ^^^ is why banks get away with taking peoples' homes from being sold faulty goods and not paying the consequences of such behaviour.

I'm bored of you now.

Not as bored as I am of you with your constant deflections and bullshitting.

 

[Bigga]

The makings of the crisis actually started in mid 2006 when sub-prime loans started to unravel. But it didn't become a full blown crisis until late summer 2008. The stock market actually hit an all-time high in Sep-2007 and despite the collapse of Bear Stearns in March 2008, they were bought out by JP Morgan and there was no panic of any sort.

But that is not really the point. Both parties supported de-regulation and both received huge dollops of special interest money to stay quiet or even quash regulation (e.g. Barney Frank as I cited). Wall Street donations are fairly evenly divided between the two parties and the 64 ton gorilla Goldman is decidedly Democrat leaning (Hank Paulson being a notable exception).

None of these mob understand the phrase "basically the same" and you highlight it as case-in-point here. They're content on picking up on the minutiae of stragglers crashing pans together as so to distract the WML from the ciphering of money to the Rich Pigs.

Always focused on the wrong direction.

Follow the money, not the smoke.

 

[lasereyes]

The key paragraph in that is this:
“Renegotiating, though, would have been difficult. Biden would have had little leverage. He, like Trump, wanted U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. Pulling out of the agreement might have forced him to send thousands more back in”
I assume that he calculated that the blowback of sending thousands of extra troops back in would have been far greater than sticking to the agreement, and he would have been right, at least domestically which is where he’s most bothered about.

The point is he was not bound by the agreement and could have pulled out of it without violating anything. Ergo, this situation has nothing to do with Trump. It was Biden's decisions.

Also, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the issue is not so much the decision to pull out - it is the catastrophic way it has been done

EDIT: that's not to say I think Trump's agreement with the Taliban was sound - it also defies logic to me. But the notion that there is some kind of cause and effect and Biden had no choice simply flies in the face of facts.

 

[Bigga]

Not as bored as I am of you with your constant deflections and bullshitting.

All I know is you hate being schooled as this type of line is the one you post when you spit your dummy out.

Jog on, child.

 

[west didsblue]

The point is he was not bound by the agreement and could have pulled out of it without violating anything. Ergo, this situation has nothing to do with Trump. It was Biden's decisions.

Also, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the issue is not so much the decision to pull out - it is the catastrophic way it has been done

EDIT: that's not to say I think Trump's agreement with the Taliban was sound - it also defies logic to me. But the notion that there is some kind of cause and effect and Biden had no choice simply flies in the face of facts.

Sure he had a choice.
A shit one or an even worse one.
He went for the shit one.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I suspect there are VERY twitchy Republicans right now.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I wouldnt base anything on a poll. Election polls are among the most scientifically researched and they have proved to be wildly inaccurate. So what you cited doesn't prove anything. The CDC has been widely and rightly criticized, for instance:

CDC’s slow, cautious messaging on Covid-19 seems out of step with the moment, public health experts say

Public health officials say the conservative nature of the CDC's approach to Covid is a marked departure from how it deals with other major public health issues, like HIV and opioid use disorder.

www.statnews.com

Biden is the President - the buck stops with him. It's his duty to know what sources are reliable or not. And you did not need to do one jot of independent research to know there were huge uncertainties and next to no science, research or data on the effectiveness of vaccines against Covid variants. Neither he nor the CDC were following the science. It was at best lazy; but arguably politically expedient (given growing unrest around lockdowns, restrictions and perceived loss of social freedom).

As for your statement on weighing the risks, well he didn't do that did he? His comment was made with certitude. So much so that he reiterated it. No equivocation, no caveats, no qualifiers.

On your last comment, I think you are maybe still missing my point. I am not criticizing anyone for the uncertainties of the pandemic progression. In fact the opposite - my beef is there are way too many definitive statements when there is so much we don't know. Politicians always want to convey authority and that they are in charge. Facts, research and intellectual integrity are generally the first casualties.

"I wouldn't base anything on a poll. Election polls are among the most scientifically researched and they have proved to be wildly inaccurate." It's getting really, really frustrating responding to sentences like this. This assertion is factually incorrect. There have been several posts about this topic on the political threads here for a long time -- months or years.

And anyway, you informed me of what "educated Americans think." The alternative to not basing an opinion about "what Americans think" on a poll is . . . what then?

I don't understand the relevance of this article to your argument. It's not irrelevant to my point though -- here's the former CDC director discussing the public good/risk trade-off I referred to:

“I have sympathy for the CDC,” said Frieden, who called making CDC guidance “an art and a science” that doing so “requires an encyclopedic knowledge of the data as well as a sensible way of interpreting the data and applying it to everyday life.”

Obviously you have a well-crafted perspective on the research process here, and/or some medical expertise. I asked for what your research and that of your friends and family has told you. You keep saying the CDC "was not following the science". What do you know about the science that they don't? That you believed the Delta variant or others were still threats and thus the mask mandate should have stayed in place? Did you do the scientific research to determine this, or did you just guess right?

We are arguing about why Biden communicated what he did. So do me this favo(u)r -- tell me exactly what you would have said as the President of the US at the moment he gave the speech you linked to. You say there are way too many definitive statements. Okay, write his script and the CDC's script. You say the buck stops with Biden, and it does. Well, you're him. Make sure whatever you write is based only on facts, research and intellectual integrity.

I don’t think this exercise will be easy.

 

[BobKowalski]

The point is he was not bound by the agreement and could have pulled out of it without violating anything. Ergo, this situation has nothing to do with Trump. It was Biden's decisions.

Also, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the issue is not so much the decision to pull out - it is the catastrophic way it has been done

EDIT: that's not to say I think Trump's agreement with the Taliban was sound - it also defies logic to me. But the notion that there is some kind of cause and effect and Biden had no choice simply flies in the face of facts.

The US was bound by the agreement. Failure to honour the agreement would have just reopened hostilities and meant more troops and Biden would have been painted as a warmonger who ’threw out the peace deal’. Every American casualty would have conservatives screaming in protest that ‘Biden has American blood on his hands’.

Biden was against the troop build up in 2010 so by inclination and political calculation he was always going to honour the peace deal and get out. Trump put down an exit ramp and Biden took it.

 

[SWP's back]

Firstly, you need to tone it right down or you will have nobody to debate with on this forum. Secondly, your comment is factually inaccurate - I responded to another post explaining why so you can read that.

I’ll maintain my tone and if I lose the ability to “debate” with idiots then so be it. I’ve read the post and it’s also moronic and inaccurate.

 

[Bigga]

Another 'grifter' who understands how the US casino always wins...