U.S. Presidential Primaries 2024!

[Angrybk]

3 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Imagine, the emasculated bullshit artist from the west coast v toxic masculine bullshit artist from the east coast.

I think Trump would eat him for breakfast, probably call him a cuck because Trumps kid married his ex wife.  

Edited April 4, 2023 by Angrybk

[Josh]

7 minutes ago, Angrybk said:

I don’t see Newsom having a chance in hell. A lot of -Californians- think he’s a rich smug wussy bullshit artist, I really can’t see him being appealing to Middle America at all. 

I agree, but he has been making a lot of noise like he was considering a run. Certainly if Biden backed out he would, regardless of how difficult a general election would be.

[Angrybk]

1 minute ago, Josh said:

I agree, but he has been making a lot of noise like he was considering a run. Certainly if Biden backed out he would, regardless of how difficult a general election would be.

I think the Dems problem is that everybody is too old or too young. I actually had high hopes for Mayor Pete but so far it looks like his super smart guy background hasn’t translated to political competence. 

[Josh]

2 minutes ago, Angrybk said:

I think the Dems problem is that everybody is too old or too young. I actually had high hopes for Mayor Pete but so far it looks like his super smart guy background hasn’t translated to political competence. 

I think the best bet for the Dems at the national level would a few of the interior state dem governors. But I think Biden is in this unless he dies, unfortunately. And I give it 2/3 that Trump is his opponent.

[17thfabn]

55 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Imagine, the emasculated bullshit artist from the west coast v toxic masculine bullshit artist from the east coast.

We had that in 2016 except the emasculated bullshit artist was FROM the east coast.

Hopefully the "masculine" bullshit artist from the east coast will just go away. One can hope.

[Skywalkre]

On 4/3/2023 at 4:18 PM, DKTanker said:

Only comically bad to those that embrace the idea of forever wars.

It was comically bad because in typical politician fashion he was trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth without taking a real stance.  His labeling of it as a territorial dispute was either incredibly ignorant or borderline Russian-sympathizing (he's apparently tried to walk that back, since).  He tried pushing for an isolationist stance while also supporting the Biden administration's position.

In short, he didn't have the balls to take a real position and explain it as such.  Other Rs called him out and rightfully so.  Just another example of DeSantis falling short on the national stage in recent weeks.

[Skywalkre]

On 4/3/2023 at 5:41 PM, Josh said:

Like most everything Zeihan, I heavily disagree with his logic while broadly agreeing with his conclusion.

Agreed.  Zeihan is a good... orator/storyteller.  He can weave together a narrative quite gracefully but some of the facts are either missteps (we're human, we all forget/mix up stuff once in a while) or just purposeful simplifications.  The conclusions seem solid, though.

On 4/3/2023 at 5:41 PM, Josh said:

I don't think independent voters are thinking that Trump intends to change the electoral system, unless that is slang for "he would make every effort to take and hold power regardless of legality". I think independents are simply turned off by the chaos, lies, and election denialism.

I think what he was referencing was the slew of R nominees in the midterms who were blatantly threatening to not follow the rule of law in lieu of this nonsense over and in concern of future 'stolen' elections.  That turned out to be a big motivator for a lot of independents and even moderates.  He lumped the latter in as effectively R or D... but from what I've seen it seems a lot of those on the R side of the fence didn't vote in protest or actually voted for the other side.  I was in that camp.  Most of my ballot was empty as I simply refused to vote for the nutjob Rs.

On 4/3/2023 at 5:41 PM, Josh said:

But I agree with his point that it would take exceedingly little for Trump to win - basically nothing can stop about 30% of GOP primary voters from coting that way. He can't lose that demo without physically dying.

Rs have basically relinquished the party to Trump at this point.  I wonder, though, if there's any chance this close to the election of re-writing the rules so it's not winner take all?  At this point that seems the only way to prevent Trump from winning the nomination (and losing the election) again.

[DKTanker]

4 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

It was comically bad because in typical politician fashion he was trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth without taking a real stance.  His labeling of it as a territorial dispute was either incredibly ignorant or borderline Russian-sympathizing (he's apparently tried to walk that back, since). 

That's exactly what it is, a border dispute.  Nine years ago the United States, under the auspices of Dear Obama, conceded the Russian quasi-annexation of eastern portions of Ukraine and Crimea.  In the interim Ukraine wasn't having it and was waging a war of attrition against Russian backed forces in the Donbass.  Last year Putin decided to go all in to settle the border dispute once and for all.  But let's all be clear about this, the war didn't start in 2022, it started in 2014 when Obama gave tacit approval to the Russians.  You know, because Russia was now our friend, because the Cold War was long over.  It remains a border dispute between nations led by despots with absolutely no US national interest involved.  That's not being a Russian sympathizer, it's being a US interest sympathizer.

[R011]

36 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

That's exactly what it is, a border dispute.  

In the sense that the German invasion of Poland in 1939 was a border dispute.  In both cxases, the attacking power wanted to erase the border and include the victim into their own country whether they wanted to be annexed or not.  

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

In the sense that the German invasion of Poland in 1939 was a border dispute.  In both cxases, the attacking power wanted to erase the border and include the victim into their own country whether they wanted to be annexed or not.  

Let's use a bit of intellectual honesty here.  There has been no evidence of Russia wanting to annex the entirety of Ukraine.  No, this border dispute is more like that of Soviet Union's border dispute with Finland.  You remember your history lessons, don't you?  The war during which the western allies supported Soviet Union's desire to annex Finnish territory?  Or more recently, Russia's border dispute with Georgia which resulted in the annexation of portions of Georgia, another concession to Russia the west was eager to grant.  In all those cases Soviet Union / Russia was quite satisfied with limited gains from the border disputes.

 

[R011]

6 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Let's use a bit of intellectual honesty here.  There has been no evidence of Russia wanting to annex the entirety of Ukraine.  No, this border dispute is more like that of Soviet Union's border dispute with Finland.  You remember your history lessons, don't you?  The war during which the western allies supported Soviet Union's desire to annex Finnish territory?  Or more recently, Russia's border dispute with Georgia which resulted in the annexation of portions of Georgia, another concession to Russia the west was eager to grant.  In all those cases Soviet Union / Russia was quite satisfied with limited gains from the border disputes.

 

No evidence except numerous statemetns by senior Russian officials and the official word from Moscow that they want to "denazify" Ukraine and stop them from having an independent foreign policy.

[futon]

They did march an entire column of military vehicles torwards Kyiv along with a sort of surgical style heliborne infiltration near Kyiv in the early stage. So they tried what could amount to a full military takeover (or near full since Lviv probably has enough cushion to not comply with a Russian controlled Kyiv). What comes after military takeover (annexation, puppet state, multi-mini little states like in Donbas) is up to speculation, probably whichever is most practical from after achieving total military victory with Russian flag over Kyiv. Whichever form it is, its all basically the same category as annexation though. Resistance and mud was clearly more problematic than they expected.

Edited April 7, 2023 by futon

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Let's use a bit of intellectual honesty here.  There has been no evidence of Russia wanting to annex the entirety of Ukraine.  No, this border dispute is more like that of Soviet Union's border dispute with Finland.  You remember your history lessons, don't you?  The war during which the western allies supported Soviet Union's desire to annex Finnish territory?  Or more recently, Russia's border dispute with Georgia which resulted in the annexation of portions of Georgia, another concession to Russia the west was eager to grant.  In all those cases Soviet Union / Russia was quite satisfied with limited gains from the border disputes.

 

In actual fact, hours after the war started, an editorial in a Russian news agency, supposedly triggered prematurely, demonstrated just such an intent. It makes interesting reading, that clearly indicates Russia intended to take the entire country, in fact we already know that. Taking Kyiv makes no sense, if the intent was to give it back.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60562240

A Russian news agency has published and then deleted an article prematurely praising Russia's success in invading Ukraine.

It applauds Russian President Vladimir Putin for solving the Ukraine "problem", saying that "Ukraine has returned to Russia" through military action. It suggests the author anticipated a rapid victory and the piece was published prematurely.

The article, published by the state-owned RIA-Novosti news agency on Saturday (26 February) and described by Christo Grozev of fact-checkers Bellingcat as "extremely shocking, even for Kremlin standards", was quickly deleted from its website.

Other Twitter users called it Russia's "victory celebration".

However, it still remains visible on the Internet Archive website, and at the time of writing it's also visible on a regional page of Russia's government-owned Sputnik news site.

A syndicated version in English entitled "The New World Order" can also be seen on the website of Pakistan's Frontier Post.

What's in the article?

Many Twitter users presumed the editorial piece was intended for publication after a swift Russian victory in Ukraine.

In it, contributor Petr Akopov claims that Russia is returning to lead a new world order, while making good the "terrible catastrophe" that was the end of the Soviet Union in 1991.

It is headlined "The arrival of Russia in a new world", but the Russian word for "arrival" (nastuplenie) can also mean "attack".

Mr Akopov justifies the "virtual civil war" as "Russia restoring its historical fullness, gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together".

Moscow is drawing together "Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians (Ukrainians)", he says, suggesting a Russian plan to increase its sphere of influence.

The architect of this act of reunion is, of course, Mr Putin, who is praised for taking action now, rather than leaving the situation to be resolved in the future.

"Vladimir Putin has assumed, without a drop of exaggeration, a historic responsibility by deciding not to leave the solution of the Ukrainian question to future generations," the article says.

It concludes by claiming that the military action "is Russia's return of its historical space and its place in the world", which has put the Anglo-Saxons of Europe and the US in their place.

"Western global domination can be considered completely and finally over," it claims.

Some claims on social media say that the timing of the article's publication - exactly 08:00 on Saturday - shows that it was planned in advance by those who thought that the war would reach a swift conclusion.

 

Besides, we have other demonstrations Putin is territorially acquisitive. He said he had no ambitions for territory in Georgia, but still regularly moves the border when he thinks nobody is looking. He said he had no territorial ambitions in Ukraine, after he took Crimea. Why anyone actually believes a single fucking word he says now, is a complete mystery to me. This isnt the USSR content with limited gains, this is Putin, and he wants what he believes is his due.

Belarus is next, watch this space.

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

6 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Let's use a bit of intellectual honesty here.  There has been no evidence of Russia wanting to annex the entirety of Ukraine.  No, this border dispute is more like that of Soviet Union's border dispute with Finland.  You remember your history lessons, don't you?  The war during which the western allies supported Soviet Union's desire to annex Finnish territory?  Or more recently, Russia's border dispute with Georgia which resulted in the annexation of portions of Georgia, another concession to Russia the west was eager to grant.  In all those cases Soviet Union / Russia was quite satisfied with limited gains from the border disputes.

The Finnish case was only made a 'border dispute' after the Russians got a very bloody nose despite breaking through. They had Kuusinen's 'Finnish' collaborationist government set up and recognized it as 'the only sovereign government of Finland', it was actually disbanded in 1940 and the puppet republic ceased to exist - there was no point since only rather small slices of Finland have been conquered.

They would prefer all of Ukraine (directly or indirectly), but would be satisfied with partitions as an alternative - that's why they proposed it both in 2014 and 2022. Even if partitions were less optimal for them, they would still assure that Ukraine either doesn't exist or exists as a small, irrelevant rump state around Kiev. They consider Ukrainians to be Russians and the idea of relevant Ukraine as an alternative model of political, social and economic development doesn't sit well with them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

So I guess that's pretty categoric then...

 

[Sardaukar]

Medvedejev trying to get himself some publicity and popularity, since he has been sidelined years ago. 

[Josh]

On 4/6/2023 at 11:40 PM, DKTanker said:

Let's use a bit of intellectual honesty here.  There has been no evidence of Russia wanting to annex the entirety of Ukraine.  No, this border dispute is more like that of Soviet Union's border dispute with Finland.  You remember your history lessons, don't you?  The war during which the western allies supported Soviet Union's desire to annex Finnish territory?  Or more recently, Russia's border dispute with Georgia which resulted in the annexation of portions of Georgia, another concession to Russia the west was eager to grant.  In all those cases Soviet Union / Russia was quite satisfied with limited gains from the border disputes.

 

I disagree with that assessment; the initial attempt to encircle Kiev was a fairly blatant attempt to displace the entire government and either annex the whole nation or minimally install a local Russian sympathizer. That it didn’t work doesn’t mean it wasn’t the intent. Putin insists that Ukraine isn’t a country to this day. Medvedev declared Ukraine won’t exist just a day ago.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

Medvedejev trying to get himself some publicity and popularity, since he has been sidelined years ago. 

But just because he is a drunk and feels neglected, doesnt mean he doesnt believe all this shit.

[Harold Jones]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:49 PM, Skywalkre said:

...Rs have basically relinquished the party to Trump at this point.  I wonder, though, if there's any chance this close to the election of re-writing the rules so it's not winner take all?  At this point that seems the only way to prevent Trump from winning the nomination (and losing the election) again.

No, not because there isn't time but because not enough people in the party leadership are willing to weather the shitstorm that would occur if they changed the rules to "steal" the primaries from Trump.  He also has enough hardcore believers that if he lost he'd be able to give the election to the Democrats by telling his followers to not vote in the obviously rigged general election. Think the Georgia runoffs on a national scale.

[DKTanker]

2 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

 He also has enough hardcore believers that if he lost he'd be able to give the election to the Democrats by telling his followers to not vote in the obviously rigged general election. Think the Georgia runoffs on a national scale.

December of 2020 Trump was begging congress to grant yet more Covid relief in the form of payments to individuals.  It was a blatant attempt to buy votes for the Georgia runoff elections.  So Trump wasn't telling people not to vote, those were other voices with other agendas.  The GOP, while encouraging people to vote did absolutely nothing to assuage fears that the runoff election might be rigged.  In the end I think both Trump and the GOP got exactly what they wanted out of the Georgia runoff elections.

I do agree with you that if Trump is denied the GOP nomination in 2024 his following will likely sit out the 2024 election.  I'll go one better.  If Trump is not the GOP nominee, for whatever reason: sickness, incarceration, death..., his following will sit out the 2024 election.  At this point I think the only way the GOP can win the 2024 election is if Trump gracefully bows out and gives a full throated endorsement to the GOP nominee.  Even then it would be a close run thing as the Marxist indoctrination of those 18-35 years of age runs fairly deep.

Edited April 9, 2023 by DKTanker

[Josh]

Desantis signs the 6 week abortion ban into law. I’m surprised he didn’t try to get the legislation to shelve the law behind the scenes, because such a restrictive law is going to paint a target on him in a general election. That’s basically several percentage points of women voters he will never get back.

[urbanoid]

It's a rather idiotic hill to die on for the Republicans. If it works as they think it will, it will statistically mean more minorities and minorities statistically don't vote for them.

[BansheeOne]

I suspect it's another function of the fringes ruling debate, and thus primaries, in both parties. You will only win the Republican nomination if you show yourself to be the biggest hardass or at the very least not "soft" on abortion, but in the process alienate moderate voters you need to win the general election. Words is one thing; candidates typically run as radicals in the primaries, then as centrists in the general. But when you actually enact stuff to appease the fringe voters, you'll wear that around your neck all the way to the polls.

[DKTanker]

43 minutes ago, Josh said:

Desantis signs the 6 week abortion ban into law. I’m surprised he didn’t try to get the legislation to shelve the law behind the scenes, because such a restrictive law is going to paint a target on him in a general election. That’s basically several percentage points of women voters he will never get back.

The ones he would never have had.

[DKTanker]

1 minute ago, BansheeOne said:

 But when you actually enact stuff to appease the fringe voters, you'll wear that around your neck all the way to the polls.

Doesn't seem to hurt Leftists in the US to the same degree.  Perhaps that's because they simply don't let it bother them and get defensive about it.  "What, you don't like my decision, are you a racist, fascist, homophobe...?"  The US public education system being a Leftist indoctrination system for the last 45 years might play into it as well.