2024 Presidential Election thread

[ewsieg]

4 minutes ago, pfife said:

I said I do accurate representations of HISTORY.   I'm not particularly concerned about YOUSTORY.

Ahh, so pick specific facts, disregard context, and ignore other facts if they don't fit your view of the world....got it.   

Context is that a bipartisan group of Michigan legislatures, at the urging of Whitmer, all worked together to not only kill Brian Woodward, but they realized the mistake they made and refused to fix it.  Whitmer did sign the bill into law, so context aside, she is directly responsible for his death.

[oblong]

they passed a law that had instructions to kill a guy named Brian Woodward?  Did they make him drink old Flint Water?  Was Snyder there too?  Did the law have crazy fonts in it that people couldn't read?  I'm confused here.

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

To quote Cy Curnin:  

One Thing Leads to Another - Wikipedia

Haha!

So on that basis, we should put the blame on Trump because HE'S the one who authorized releasing 8,000 Taliban soldiers from prison the year prior. You know... one thing leads to another (great title/lyric in a Fixx song too...)!

[romad1]

4 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Haha!

So on that basis, we should put the blame on Trump because HE'S the one who authorized releasing 8,000 Taliban soldiers from prison the year prior. You know... one thing leads to another (great title/lyric in a Fixx song too...)!

Yes, Trump is to blame for that deal with the Taliban.  I was always in favor of getting out given the impending struggles w/Russia and China though. 

[romad1]

F all the way off.  Death it is! 

[romad1]

Please, please, please, please, please, please run on this platform Republicans.   Can you imagine?

[1984Echoes]

I was also for getting out mostly because the extensive corruption meant an unwinnable government.

But Trump screwed it up, Intelligence screwed it up, the military screwed it up (based on the intelligence... remember when Biden ordered our forces out in February but his generals begged for more time? That lasted until... it didn't).

But brainless/ dishonest Republicans wanna heap everything on Biden (of course they do) when he's the LAST guy on the list in this blame game... (Last guy out gets all the blame?)

[romad1]

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I was also for getting out mostly because the extensive corruption meant an unwinnable government.

But Trump screwed it up, Intelligence screwed it up, the military screwed it up (based on the intelligence... remember when Biden ordered our forces out in February but his generals begged for more time? That lasted until... it didn't).

But brainless/ dishonest Republicans wanna heap everything on Biden (of course they do) when he's the LAST guy on the list in this blame game... (Last guy out gets all the blame?)

I'm over it.  Biden and his team have been solid wrt China and Russia.  Terrorism is yesterday's papers. 

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

That was not a method & process problem...

That was entirely an intelligence failure.

"We're good for a couple years as the Afghan forces can hold off the Taliban."

"Oh wait, the Afghani forces melted into the wind and the Taliban forces have just taken Khabul... RUN!!!"

this is an interesting point, because it highlights the difference in the two aspects of intelligence analysis. One one hand, they were probably accurate in their quantitative measurements of the Afghan army's resources and capabilities, but the strategic analysis of the human factors failed, just like it did in Vietnam. Just because an army can fight, doesn't mean they will. In both 'Nam  and Afghanistan, the situation was that the army we left behind realized that without us, they could not win in the end, so there was no point in prolonging the conflict. And that is the perfectly rational analysis of the situation. The US top level strategic analysis simply assumed those armies would fight because if would be convenient for *us* and our domestic politics if they did,  and that was the major failure of intelligence vision.

[oblong]

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this is an interesting point, because it highlights the difference in the two aspects of intelligence analysis. One one hand, they were probably accurate in their quantitative measurements of the Afghan army's resources and capabilities, but the strategic analysis of the human factors failed, just like it did in Vietnam. Just because an army can fight, doesn't mean they will. In both 'Nam  and Afghanistan, the situation was that the army we left behind realized that without us, they could not win in the end, so there was no point in prolonging the conflict. And that is the perfectly rational analysis of the situation. The US top level strategic analysis simply assumed those armies would fight because if would be convenient for *us* and our domestic politics if they did,  and that was the major failure of intelligence vision.

and no President, until Biden, had the guts to "lose"

Nixon had bigger problems so getting out was at that point not his worst problem so why not.... 

 

[pfife]

5 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Ahh, so pick specific facts, disregard context, and ignore other facts if they don't fit your view of the world....got it.   

Context is that a bipartisan group of Michigan legislatures, at the urging of Whitmer, all worked together to not only kill Brian Woodward, but they realized the mistake they made and refused to fix it.  Whitmer did sign the bill into law, so context aside, she is directly responsible for his death.

no I quite plainly just picked real facts and disregarded your hypothetical situation, I've been down hypothetical avenue with you too often

Edited September 7, 2023 by pfife

[MIguy]

7 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Ahh, so pick specific facts, disregard context, and ignore other facts if they don't fit your view of the world....got it.   

Context is that a bipartisan group of Michigan legislatures, at the urging of Whitmer, all worked together to not only kill Brian Woodward, but they realized the mistake they made and refused to fix it.  Whitmer did sign the bill into law, so context aside, she is directly responsible for his death.

Brian Woodward was still receiving care when he died.  What changed as a result of the new law was that he was no longer covered to receive home care and had to be moved to a facility.   You trying to frame it as if he lost all coverage and was left to die is just flat out BS.  

[Toddwert]

6 hours ago, romad1 said:

F all the way off.  Death it is! 

so proud they had to hurry up and hide it .... of course they are Jeter fans 😉

[1984Echoes]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

this is an interesting point, because it highlights the difference in the two aspects of intelligence analysis. One one hand, they were probably accurate in their quantitative measurements of the Afghan army's resources and capabilities, but the strategic analysis of the human factors failed, just like ...

We already had this conversation, I think maybe even earlier in this thread...

I forget if you were a part of that convo but I'm thinking you were...

It's exactly as you've stated it.

It's in this thread because... a comparison was made between Afghanistan and Ukraine, by myself. Both involve a failure of US Intelligence to evaluate the "mood" of the population... per your comparison, the same as what happened in Vietnam. US Intelligence is consistently NOT evaluating mood: South Vietnamese = hated their President as a corrupt elite not interested in their welfare/ perfectly open to North Vietnamese leadership and, also, the overriding desire to expel ALL foreign forces, no matter the cost; North Vietnamese = a desire to expel ALL foreign forces, no matter the cost; Afghanistan = corrupt government, corrupt military, corrupt belief in themselves as a nation, a population with no actual desire to fight against the Taliban; Ukraine = complete misunderstanding of Ukrainian rage against Russia, going back at least as far as the Holodomor, and even previous to that their declaration of Independence in 1917 that was stamped out by the nascent Soviet Union in 1921, but also including the 2014 invasion...

The Ukrainians were going to fight tooth & nail against any Russian invasion. Did US Intelligence understand that?

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, 1984Echoes said:

We already had this conversation, I think maybe even earlier in this thread...

LOL, wouldn't be surprised!

[1984Echoes]

😉

[ewsieg]

14 hours ago, MIguy said:

Brian Woodward was still receiving care when he died.  What changed as a result of the new law was that he was no longer covered to receive home care and had to be moved to a facility.   You trying to frame it as if he lost all coverage and was left to die is just flat out BS.  

This is like arguing there is no need for health insurance because the law says an ER can't refuse to provide you life saving treatment.  

https://www.michiganradio.org/2022-02-08/it-has-destroyed-my-life-a-car-crash-survivor-says-of-changes-to-michigans-car-insurance-law

He was living a comfortable and productive life, in his own home, until this law stripped the opportunity for him to get the care that he needed, but also the care that he was insured for when he paid his premiums leading up to his accident in 1983.  Meanwhile at the time his care was cut, there was 27 billion dollars saved up specifically for his needs.  It would not have cost the State of Michigan or any insurers a dime to simply allow grandfathered individuals to stay in that system.  Instead of doing a thing about it, Whitmer did pull a few billion to give everyone 400 bucks.  

Once his care was cut, he was forced out of his home and his health deteriorated quickly.  He was left to die and not a damn person in Lansing gave a ****.

[MIguy]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

This is like arguing there is no need for health insurance because the law says an ER can't refuse to provide you life saving treatment.  

https://www.michiganradio.org/2022-02-08/it-has-destroyed-my-life-a-car-crash-survivor-says-of-changes-to-michigans-car-insurance-law

He was living a comfortable and productive life, in his own home, until this law stripped the opportunity for him to get the care that he needed, but also the care that he was insured for when he paid his premiums leading up to his accident in 1983.  Meanwhile at the time his care was cut, there was 27 billion dollars saved up specifically for his needs.  It would not have cost the State of Michigan or any insurers a dime to simply allow grandfathered individuals to stay in that system.  Instead of doing a thing about it, Whitmer did pull a few billion to give everyone 400 bucks.  

Once his care was cut, he was forced out of his home and his health deteriorated quickly.  He was left to die and not a damn person in Lansing gave a ****.

Yep, all Whitmer's fault that a guy paralyzed from the shoulders down eventually died as a result of his condition. 

[ewsieg]

8 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Yep, all Whitmer's fault that a guy paralyzed from the shoulders down eventually died as a result of his condition. 

I have previously complained about the bi-partisan bill and not just Whitmer being at fault for this.  Ultimately though, Whitmer signed it.  She could have sent it back to fix the error (which she has admitted was an 'error') but she signed it anyway. 

And even if you're right, he somehow survived and was healthy for 38 years and for some odd reason once he wasn't given the care that he deserved (and paid for) that just coincided with his decline, he deserved to decline at home where he could have made his own decision to quit his job and try to make the best of his remaining years, instead he was forgotten by Whitmer (and others).  

[gehringer_2]

I don't know what a good answer around this issue could have been. The uncapped benefit  had become politically unsustainable and was going to change, I think regardless of which party was in control. Would a veto have produced a better bill eventually? Fair enough question. OTOH, don't pretend the Gov, whoever it was, would not have taken a political hit for vetoing a concept the public was on board with big time - i.e. insurance cost reduction. (and of course, given the public's capacity [i.e lack thereof] to process policy nuance.)

Edited September 8, 2023 by gehringer_2

[MIguy]

2 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I have previously complained about the bi-partisan bill and not just Whitmer being at fault for this.  Ultimately though, Whitmer signed it.  She could have sent it back to fix the error (which she has admitted was an 'error') but she signed it anyway. 

And even if you're right, he somehow survived and was healthy for 38 years and for some odd reason once he wasn't given the care that he deserved (and paid for) that just coincided with his decline, he deserved to decline at home where he could have made his own decision to quit his job and try to make the best of his remaining years, instead he was forgotten by Whitmer (and others).  

The Michigan Supreme Court's ruling specifically stated that there had been no intent in the law for people currently receiving care to be stripped of those benefits.  This was all about how insurance companies interpreted the law and had nothing to do with Whitmer or any other lawmaker.  

Could the law have been written more clearly so the insurance companies didn't use it to cut benefits to existing claims?  Absolutely.   

[ewsieg]

28 minutes ago, MIguy said:

The Michigan Supreme Court's ruling specifically stated that there had been no intent in the law for people currently receiving care to be stripped of those benefits. 

Correct, which now MCCA is looking at this as a 'loss' to the fund and due to Whitmer's work to take another 3 billion out for 'refunds', our fee is being raised again.

28 minutes ago, MIguy said:

This was all about how insurance companies interpreted the law and had nothing to do with Whitmer or any other lawmaker.  

Wait, what?  The legislative and executive branches aren't responsible for how others interpret laws they pass?  

[MIguy]

7 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Correct, which now MCCA is looking at this as a 'loss' to the fund and due to Whitmer's work to take another 3 billion out for 'refunds', our fee is being raised again.

Wait, what?  The legislative and executive branches aren't responsible for how others interpret laws they pass?  

Did I not say that the law could have been written more clearly as to not need the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify it?

This is a very weird hill you're determined to die on, especially since it has nothing to do with the topic, the 2024 Presidential election.

Edited September 8, 2023 by MIguy

[ewsieg]

nm

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by ewsieg

[ewsieg]

9 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Did I not say that the law could have been written more clearly as to not need the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify it?

This is a very weird hill you're determined to die on, especially since it has nothing to do with the topic, the 2024 Presidential election.

I got on a tangent, but there seems to be a lot of talk that Whitmer is a likely frontrunner should Biden not run.  She is going to have some issues she can get hit on.  I personally would prefer her over most democrats I can think off, but she has flaws.....like being party to the death of Brian Woodward.