All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[babyblob]

Numbers are meaningless to Qpublicans. To them, it's all about the narrative which, thanks to their propaganda arm, Faux News, the GQP can push 24/7 to make Democrats sound like worse crooks and slimeballs than they themselves are.

I will say one thing about the GOP. They know how to spin a story and create a narrative where there is none. Masters of the spin who do what it takes to come out on top. mean while most of the Dems take the high road and spend so much time playing the good guy they let these nut jobs sound off with out challenge because they dont want to look like the bad guys.

[Jackalope89]

The Green Party and the Constitution Party do exist. Donald Trump's first failed presidential run was for the Constitution Party.

Oh yeah, I see your point.

Those exist, but are barely blips. The largest 3rd party, the Libertarians (which is a mess of a rabbit hole in its own right), struggle to be even semi-relevant on their best years. And that's with a streaker jogging across their televised convention.

But yeah. The GOP have dropped considerably since Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Ike. Becoming a haven to ideologies that were enemies of the US at one point or another. With the talking heads either ignoring it, avoiding it, or outright encouraging it.

[Korath]

That's my feeling as well, the division is of our making and not something that has naturally been decided by those living there which makes me wonder if it could succeed continuously with out our involvement.

To be honest, Korea is also in the backyard of China and there is no way that they'd allow for a free democratic and united Korea at their frontier. Just like during the Korean War, they'd send troops there to prevent any NK defeat.

Of course, nowadays, there is a lot of peoples in SK who only pay lip service to the idea of reunification because it'd be both too costly to uphold NK's infrastructure and because it's serve them to have a bugger state between them and China.

[worstblogever]

If you're taking it for granted that politicians will make the wrong decision because their families stand to benefit financially, this has some implications with Hunter Biden selling his artwork for up to $500,000 a pop.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/a...ite-house.html

Well, look at you missing the whole point.

We're talking about multiple Republicans using their platform to spread misinformation that increases their profit margins... and you bumble in here for some apple/orange whataboustism because someone paid Hunter Biden for art...

If someone paid a million for a doodle Hunter Biden made on a cocktail napkin... IT WOULDN'T KILL ANYONE.

But hey, on brand that a Republican doesn't empathize with his party taking actions that result in very real deaths.

[Kirby101]

China hasn't had troops in North Korea since 1953 and in no way dominates their policy decisions the way that the United States controls that of the South. One would imagine they would not be thrilled if the North were to collapse and all of those US troops moved up to the Chinese border, but a unified Korea with no residual American presence would certainly be acceptable to everyone on both sides of the DMZ as well all of the other countries in the region. Of course, there is the matter of that 800 pound gorilla NOT located anywhere near the Asia Pacific that must be accounted for.

China doesn't keep N Korea propped up by having troops stationed there.
And Our troops do not prop up S Korea, our trading with them does.
I don't see any of this happening, it is just what if scenarios.

[PwrdOn]

China doesn't keep N Korea propped up by having troops stationed there.
And Our troops do not prop up S Korea, our trading with them does.
I don't see any of this happening, it is just what if scenarios.

South Korea's top trading partner by a fairly significant margin is, of course, China, which also dwarfs the volume of trade that either has with the North. It's true that South Korea doesn't need to America to prop it up anymore, but in that case, what are our troops still doing there? And why is the world's 9th largest economy, not to mention a rising cultural power, being forced to sit at the kiddie table in all diplomatic negotiations while the US speaks on their behalf, especially when North Korea was never subjected to the same treatment by either China or the USSR?

And this really gets to the heart of the matter doesn't it? America's client states, whether you're talking about South Korea, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Afghanistan, Iraq, whoever, SHOULD have more than enough geopolitical clout to stand on their own and set their own agenda. However, we categorically deny them this right, and force them to go sit in a corner while we make all of the relevant decisions, naturally to benefit our national interests and not theirs. And because of this fact, these countries simply are never respected by their adversaries or considered as anything more than US puppets, and this makes their enemies much more confident in their success while conversely eroding their own self-confidence. Whatever the hard military facts, everyone BELIEVES that the minute America withdraws its support all of these countries will fall like dominoes, and this often turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Mister Mets]

Why would there be a refugee crisis if North Korea collapses? One would think that all of those poor starving people would be happy to join the prosperous, democratic society in the South and that the South Koreans would in turn welcome back their long lost brothers and sisters with open arms, because you know, that would be the decent and humanitarian thing to do and the country has more than enough resources to accommodate them. Why the hell would they flee to China?



China hasn't had troops in North Korea since 1953 and in no way dominates their policy decisions the way that the United States controls that of the South. One would imagine they would not be thrilled if the North were to collapse and all of those US troops moved up to the Chinese border, but a unified Korea with no residual American presence would certainly be acceptable to everyone on both sides of the DMZ as well all of the other countries in the region. Of course, there is the matter of that 800 pound gorilla NOT located anywhere near the Asia Pacific that must be accounted for.

North Korea has a population of over 25,000,000 people.

It will be quite difficult for a country with double the population to accommodate all of them. I'm not sure South Korea has the resources, especially when you take into account the potential problems of North Koreans, as many will be malnourished and will have various health maladies from decades of poor medical care. They are also likely to lack education and job training relative to their counterparts in South Korea.

What makes anyone think Kim would willingly let his people flee the North under any circumstances? I wouldn't put it past him to order refugees massacred rather than let them leave. On top of that, what are the chances said refugees, brainwashed since birth would WANT to leave in the first place? They'd probably be too frightened to leave since life in the North has been all they've known.

I don't think Kim will willingly let people flee. The scenario is more about what happens if North Korea collapses. There are always potential coups as well as health problems for Kim Jong-un, whose health has always been a topic of some concern.

[Mister Mets]

On one hand it is not much of the same. A guy buying a shitty painting from Hunter in hopes that it will make Daddy Biden happy with him is a far cry from a Senator being Anti Vax, anti mask when he knows that will get people sick while at the same time having stocks in a company that makes the medicine for people when they get the illness the person is trying to prevent.

You made a point to say how little was made by Rand Paul on his stock. It does not matter if it is 1 dollar or a million dollars. Any money made on something like that is very very wrong.

Putting people at risk of a virus risk their lives by telling people not to wear masks and get a free vaccine is fine as long as a person only makes a couple thousand dollars and not a couple million.

The specific goalpost was that we should treat it as a given that Rand Paul and Ron DeSantis and likely Jon Cornyn are compromising on people's health in order to make money.

Whether it's a good idea to allow politicians' spouses to own stock in a company that is affected by their decisions is a different question. I can certainly understand the argument that this shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I do think it's problematic to suggest it's okay for a politician to have a conflict of interest if you think you'll be understand where they're coming from. Whatever our attitude is, we should be consistent and open. If you figure a potential conflict of interest should be understood as the reason for any decision a politician makes, it would make sense to apply this evenly to all politicians. If someone's biased this should be mentioned early on just to avoid any wasted time with an obvious counterpoint. For example, if someone believes Republican conflicts of interest are understandable, but we should have the strongest negative inference for a Democrat (to be clear, this is not my position) this should be stated openly and unambiguously.

We should also figure that people who disagree with us politically have different understandings and priorities. People come at things from different frames of reference, and sometimes it's hard to imagine why someone else may have a different risk tolerance. Taking the strongest negative inference on someone you disagree means that when someone else doesn't understand where a politician you agree with is coming from, they get to do the same thing. It also creates a weird situation where ignorance is prized. A person who is well-informed and understands where other people are coming from will not be able to use this tactic.

There are other serious issues than Covid, and the wrong decisions will have terrible consequences later.

The Trumps made hundreds of millions while in office, but people think that a half million thrown at a disgraced son is gonna sway his father.

Republicans are incorruptible no matter how much money is thrown at them, but Democrats will sell out for pennies on the dollar, it seems.

This does not seem to be a valid response to anything said here.

The specific goalpost was that Rand Paul was obviously corrupted by a stock that is worth five figures.

So Trumps making money is irrelevant here. I'm not sure who said that Trump is incorruptible, but the argument would be that if Rand Paul was corrupted by a five figure investment his wide made, it stands to reason Biden can be corrupted by six figure payoffs to his son.

Cards on the table, I don't think Biden is going to be swayed by his son's art buyers. It's still a bad idea for his son to be selling art for six figures at this time, especially when the main thing that makes the work interesting is that the artist's father is President.

I doubt Rand Paul was corrupted by his wife's stock purchase. It was still a bad idea for his wife to buy the stock.

I'm sure Trump compromised on his duties as President in order to make money.

[PwrdOn]

North Korea has a population of over 25,000,000 people.

It will be quite difficult for a country with double the population to accommodate all of them. I'm not sure South Korea has the resources, especially when you take into account the potential problems of North Koreans, as many will be malnourished and will have various health maladies from decades of poor medical care. They are also likely to lack education and job training relative to their counterparts in South Korea.

Curiously enough, there was no question of whether South Vietnam would be fully integrated into the North's economy when the communists took over there, and while there's still a cultural divide between north and south, their sense of national identity and solidarity is stronger than it has ever been. How is it that an impoverished communist country can take over a wealthier capitalist country without much of a residual hangover post-reunification, but doing the same in reverse is some kind of existential nightmare that we dare not even contemplate?

[babyblob]

The specific goalpost was that we should treat it as a given that Rand Paul and Ron DeSantis and likely Jon Cornyn are compromising on people's health in order to make money.

Whether it's a good idea to allow politicians' spouses to own stock in a company that is affected by their decisions is a different question. I can certainly understand the argument that this shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I do think it's problematic to suggest it's okay for a politician to have a conflict of interest if you think you'll be understand where they're coming from. Whatever our attitude is, we should be consistent and open. If you figure a potential conflict of interest should be understood as the reason for any decision a politician makes, it would make sense to apply this evenly to all politicians. If someone's biased this should be mentioned early on just to avoid any wasted time with an obvious counterpoint. For example, if someone believes Republican conflicts of interest are understandable, but we should have the strongest negative inference for a Democrat (to be clear, this is not my position) this should be stated openly and unambiguously.

We should also figure that people who disagree with us politically have different understandings and priorities. People come at things from different frames of reference, and sometimes it's hard to imagine why someone else may have a different risk tolerance. Taking the strongest negative inference on someone you disagree means that when someone else doesn't understand where a politician you agree with is coming from, they get to do the same thing. It also creates a weird situation where ignorance is prized. A person who is well-informed and understands where other people are coming from will not be able to use this tactic.

There are other serious issues than Covid, and the wrong decisions will have terrible consequences later.

This does not seem to be a valid response to anything said here.

The specific goalpost was that Rand Paul was obviously corrupted by a stock that is worth five figures.

So Trumps making money is irrelevant here. I'm not sure who said that Trump is incorruptible, but the argument would be that if Rand Paul was corrupted by a five figure investment his wide made, it stands to reason Biden can be corrupted by six figure payoffs to his son.

Cards on the table, I don't think Biden is going to be swayed by his son's art buyers. It's still a bad idea for his son to be selling art for six figures at this time, especially when the main thing that makes the work interesting is that the artist's father is President.

I doubt Rand Paul was corrupted by his wife's stock purchase. It was still a bad idea for his wife to buy the stock.

I'm sure Trump compromised on his duties as President in order to make money.

Conflicts of interest in either side should not be allowed. But there is a difference in owning stock in a company that treats an illness when people get it and then fighting the attempts like masks and vaccines that keep people from getting the illness in the first place then an average artist using his name to sell paintings. Rand may not courrpted by the money which I will say in the grand scheme of things is not alot but it is a hard pill to sallow that he does not care about it at all when he is going on and on about anti mask and all of that like he is. He is telling people not to do things that may keep them from getting an illness. And if they get the illness a company his wife owns stock in profits on it and in the long run he does as well. it is a shitty look and makes him a pretty damn scummy person.

If Hunter was telling people hey come buy my work and I will have you meet with my dad, or put in a good word for you etc.. that would be a huge problem. And if did that and I am sure many others on here would be calling him out for being just as bad. But from what I understand he has not nor has it even been hinted at. He is using his name to sell his work which is going for a hell of a lot more then it would if he was not the son of the president. Dont really like that but he is not promising favors or meets or even saying well ill give my name to my old man and tell him what you did.

To be honest I dont think Rand looked at his wife at the start of covid and said lets spread lies and be anti mask so we can make 50 grand. No but he and his family are profiting from a company that treats a preventable illness, one that he is encouraging people to not take the steps needed to avoid getting. If he wanted to avoid the conflict he and all the other GOP who have the stocks should sell them. it would be a little bit of a better look. But they will not because they are making money off of them. So even if his goal was not to spread lies so they could make massive amounts money the fact they are making money while their words and actions are putting people at risk is not something that can be defended.

[green_garnish]

If you're taking it for granted that politicians will make the wrong decision because their families stand to benefit financially, this has some implications with Hunter Biden selling his artwork for up to $500,000 a pop.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/a...ite-house.html

I think a more accurate characterization is to take it for granted that there are some decisions a politician will make for the wrong reasons, whether we agree with the decision or not, or whether it's helpful or not.

Also, I don't see a correlation between Hunter selling his work for what people will pay for it, and people getting rich off vaccines they publicly have a negative position on. Joe Biden is not attempting to make public policy around art sales. We know other politicians were buying stock in vaccine companies at the same time they were publicly stating (in some cases still are) the pandemic is much ado about nothing.

[Tami]

FBI joins investigation into QAnon-affiliated leak

An FBI spokeswoman told CNN on Tuesday that the FBI Denver field office has joined a Colorado district attorney's investigation into the county clerk's office and how voting machine logins from the county wound up in the QAnon-affiliated video.

The secretary of state's office also is conducting its own probe and last week ordered the replacement of election equipment in the county.

The voting machine logins were featured in an August 3 video posted on a QAnon-affiliated Telegram ​channel about 2020 election fraud claims.

In a news conference last week, Griswold blamed Peters for the leak, saying the secretary of state's office could not establish a verifiable chain of custody ​for the machines, and that Peters brought a "non-employee" to a May 25 "trusted build" meeting where closely guarded voting machine login credentials were visible to attendees. Griswold said her employees had been misled to believe that the "non-employee" in question was a county employee.

Griswold's office had said Monday that the secretary of state would appoint a new person to oversee elections in Mesa County.

[JCAll]

Well, look at you missing the whole point.

We're talking about multiple Republicans using their platform to spread misinformation that increases their profit margins... and you bumble in here for some apple/orange whataboustism because someone paid Hunter Biden for art...

If someone paid a million for a doodle Hunter Biden made on a cocktail napkin... IT WOULDN'T KILL ANYONE.

But hey, on brand that a Republican doesn't empathize with his party taking actions that result in very real deaths.

It's that special GOP logic where the hard up son having to ride his successful father's coattails to achieve success is exactly the same thing as committing mass murder for fun and profit.
Though W managed to do both, and still found time to hawk terrible paintings on the side. What an over achiever.

[Mister Mets]

Curiously enough, there was no question of whether South Vietnam would be fully integrated into the North's economy when the communists took over there, and while there's still a cultural divide between north and south, their sense of national identity and solidarity is stronger than it has ever been. How is it that an impoverished communist country can take over a wealthier capitalist country without much of a residual hangover post-reunification, but doing the same in reverse is some kind of existential nightmare that we dare not even contemplate?

First, I didn't say Korean reunification is a nightmare we dare not contemplate. It's something that may very well happen in the future, and if it occurs, it will be difficult. A lot of people are contemplating it, and they should.

While I'm not an expert in Vietnamese reunification it can be easier for an impoverished country to absorb a wealthier one. They gain a lot.

Conflicts of interest in either side should not be allowed. But there is a difference in owning stock in a company that treats an illness when people get it and then fighting the attempts like masks and vaccines that keep people from getting the illness in the first place then an average artist using his name to sell paintings. Rand may not courrpted by the money which I will say in the grand scheme of things is not alot but it is a hard pill to sallow that he does not care about it at all when he is going on and on about anti mask and all of that like he is. He is telling people not to do things that may keep them from getting an illness. And if they get the illness a company his wife owns stock in profits on it and in the long run he does as well. it is a shitty look and makes him a pretty damn scummy person.

If Hunter was telling people hey come buy my work and I will have you meet with my dad, or put in a good word for you etc.. that would be a huge problem. And if did that and I am sure many others on here would be calling him out for being just as bad. But from what I understand he has not nor has it even been hinted at. He is using his name to sell his work which is going for a hell of a lot more then it would if he was not the son of the president. Dont really like that but he is not promising favors or meets or even saying well ill give my name to my old man and tell him what you did.

To be honest I dont think Rand looked at his wife at the start of covid and said lets spread lies and be anti mask so we can make 50 grand. No but he and his family are profiting from a company that treats a preventable illness, one that he is encouraging people to not take the steps needed to avoid getting. If he wanted to avoid the conflict he and all the other GOP who have the stocks should sell them. it would be a little bit of a better look. But they will not because they are making money off of them. So even if his goal was not to spread lies so they could make massive amounts money the fact they are making money while their words and actions are putting people at risk is not something that can be defended.

Rand Paul's callousness is more likely to be due to something else, like his occasionally weird libertarian streak. If he's corrupted by anything it's more likely concerns about how primary voters will act in Kentucky.

With Hunter Biden, there really is no reason for his work to be worth half a million dollars aside from him being the son of a President. He has no training, nor does he have any resume in the subject. To compare with another political scion, Nancy Pelosi has a daughter who made documentaries, but people take her seriously because she's been doing it for a while and she made her first movie before her mom was leader of the House Democrats, after ten years as a field producer for NBC. While there are some efforts to make sure Hunter Biden doesn't know who is buying his work, it's not going to be difficult for a buyer to make themselves known later, after providing several times more money than Rand Paul's wife ever got, and promising more later.

I think a more accurate characterization is to take it for granted that there are some decisions a politician will make for the wrong reasons, whether we agree with the decision or not, or whether it's helpful or not.

Also, I don't see a correlation between Hunter selling his work for what people will pay for it, and people getting rich off vaccines they publicly have a negative position on. Joe Biden is not attempting to make public policy around art sales. We know other politicians were buying stock in vaccine companies at the same time they were publicly stating (in some cases still are) the pandemic is much ado about nothing.

I certainly agree that politicians will make decisions for the wrong reasons, but we should also strive to avoid being wrong when calling them out. It's one thing to say that something is sketchy and shouldn't be done, and I'll do that with Rand Paul and Joe Biden. It's another to act as if it's a certainty that this explains a politician's decisions, when it often doesn't. It's probably not enough to sway Rand Paul. Kelly Loeffler and Dianne Feinstein were cleared by investigations.

It is probably for the best that Richard Burr is not running for another term.

[green_garnish]

I certainly agree that politicians will make decisions for the wrong reasons, but we should also strive to avoid being wrong when calling them out. It's one thing to say that something is sketchy and shouldn't be done, and I'll do that with Rand Paul and Joe Biden.

What is your example of something Biden has done as president that he shouldn't have?