|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views.
Do you think they gave her a choice? Either fall in line with the votes and stop sabotaging, or gtfo and open a spot for someone else? I think they want to try and take Arizona, knowing that Manchin is really no longer a threat, if they can do so, to blocking them.
|
On December 09 2022 22:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views. I wonder if she will steal more rep or dem votes given her voting history.
She's still more to the left than the right, afaik, so I think it'll unfortunately hurt the Democratic candidate more than the Republican candidate.
|
Sinema faced a serious threat of being primaried by Rep. Gallego so this is a protective measure a la MAD. Either Democrats split the left and center vote in a three-way race in 2024 and risk giving the Republican candidate a better chance of winning; or Democrats sigh, fall in line, and vote for her as a relatively reliable indie vote.
It must be irritating for AZ Dems because we've seen Kelly and Hobbs win as generic Democrats who didn't need to pull off a maverick shtick. At least she is still caucusing with Democrats so there shouldn't be any issues with committees and judges.
I dunno, maybe she genuinely doesn't see herself as a Democrat anymore or wants to be catered to more with a Democratic Senate majority as slim as this. I don't see this move helping her electorally. She's underwater with everyone in AZ - Democrats, Republicans, and indies - and this doesn't endear her to the side she's closest to politically.
|
On December 09 2022 22:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views. Do you think they gave her a choice? Either fall in line with the votes and stop sabotaging, or gtfo and open a spot for someone else? I think they want to try and take Arizona, knowing that Manchin is really no longer a threat, if they can do so, to blocking them.
From what I gather, lines of communication between Sinema and the state party are very frayed, so I imagine this is all taking place in a cloud of uncertainty, at least as of the recent election.
|
|
|
I’m still in shock at this trade for the stupid god damn basketball player. Some dumbass smokes weed in Russia and we free a dangerous war criminal in exchange. I’m just so mad. People sit in prison for weed while this happens. Godddd damn. Ahhhhhhhhhh
Please someone be generous and give me any possible scenario where this is appropriate.
|
United States24718 Posts
I'm not totally sure what aspect of this is pissing you off in particular. If the basketball player had been arrested by Russian police for a minor case of jaywalking and then sentenced to 20+ years, would you agree to the trade then?
|
Mohdoo doesn't think the trade was equivalent. Pot smoker for a known arms dealer. It isn't "fair"
|
United States43161 Posts
On December 10 2022 02:39 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m still in shock at this trade for the stupid god damn basketball player. Some dumbass smokes weed in Russia and we free a dangerous war criminal in exchange. I’m just so mad. People sit in prison for weed while this happens. Godddd damn. Ahhhhhhhhhh
Please someone be generous and give me any possible scenario where this is appropriate.
She’s essentially an innocent political prisoner seized for foreign policy reasons by a brutal hostile state. Her crime has absolutely nothing to do with why they arrested her or sentenced her.
As a rule I’m fine with the state department trying to get people home under those circumstances. It’s nothing like an American sitting in a state jail for possession of weed, though I agree that should stop too. Americans guilty of crimes in America under American laws and judged by their peers is at least some kind of justice, even if the laws are bad.
My suspicion is that you’re overstating the danger posed by the guy they released but I can’t support that assertion with evidence.
|
she was essentially kidnapped by the russian government, them likely planning in advance to use her for a prisoner exchange. who she was really doesn’t matter. if it wasn’t her, it would be her and whoever they decided to detain next.
marijuana was decriminalized in russia in 2004. 18 long years ago. Like Kwark and Micronesia have said, what she did has really no bearing on what happened. she was kidnapped.
i get the gut reaction of ‘yea but he’s a killer.’ but how many americans will it take getting detained for no reason and held in the gulags before it becomes a good trade? because that’s the only other way it goes i think?
we need to just bar americans from being allowed to travel to Russia, that’s the real answer here.
|
An arms deal that has been in prison for the last decade. I question if he holds any actual value to Russia.
|
On December 10 2022 02:54 Gorsameth wrote:
An arms deal that has been in prison for the last decade. I question if he holds any actual value to Russia.
Probably negative value at this point.
The Russian arms he trafficked in his lifetime has probably made a measurable negative impact to the Russian invasion in Ukraine, and there ain't anywhere near as much free shit floating around now
|
people are in prison for weed here for just as long. Actually longer than 20 years. And yet they are still in prison. While Biden releases a war criminal just for the sake of freeing someone who smoked weed. It’s absolute madness.
|
United States24718 Posts
Mohdoo you aren't being clear with what your actual objection is. I think almost everyone here agrees that over-criminalization of weed in the USA is bad. Other than that, what mistake was made?
|
On December 10 2022 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
people are in prison for weed here for just as long. Actually longer than 20 years. And yet they are still in prison. While Biden releases a war criminal just for the sake of freeing someone who smoked weed. It’s absolute madness.
I understand your objection to the trade on the pretext that the hypocrisy is palpable. But this is apples and oranges. One is a political prisoner and the other are people who are unfairly jailed for small amounts of possession and are still in jail.
US laws need to change but that doesn't affect how this played out. They are separate issues.
|
On December 10 2022 03:18 micronesia wrote:
Mohdoo you aren't being clear with what your actual objection is. I think almost everyone here agrees that over-criminalization of weed in the USA is bad. Other than that, what mistake was made?
Making an enormous concession to help someone not be in jail for weed, while still allowing many other people to remain in jail, is completely fucked. It is a remarkable example of class hierarchy.
Person 1: Has a gram of weed on them --> 30 years in prison
Person 2: Has a gram of weed on them, in Russia --> US government directly does everything they can to free them
If they throw her in prison when she gets back to the US, I'm cool with it. But this is such an atrocious example of different outcomes for different classes that I think its totally intolerable.
I am saying this is too extreme of a slap to the face of the lower class by the federal government. This simply can't be allowed to happen. The difference in outcomes is too big.
|
United States24718 Posts
So to clarify, you think she should be forced to spend decades in a russian prison because the excuse russia came up with to make her a political prisoner was, coincidentally, weed, which the usa over-criminalizes here? Am I understanding you correctly?
Nobody is denying the irony of this case.
|
On December 10 2022 03:41 micronesia wrote:
So to clarify, you think she should be forced to spend decades in a russian prison because the excuse russia came up with to make her a political prisoner was, coincidentally, weed, which the usa over-criminalizes here? Am I understanding you correctly?
Nobody is denying the irony of this case.
Yes. The US government can't prioritize someone in this way. I think it is deeply unethical. The goal of a government should be to provide for its citizens equally. That is not the case. This is an enormously egregious example of that. If Biden had first taken a moment to pardon all federal weed stuff and then rescheduled weed, and THEN done this, I'm all for it. That's what should have happened. People being left to rot in prison because they are the wrong class is atrocious.
|
United States43161 Posts
“If our government is going to fuck over our citizens domestically then we better make sure they’re fucked just as hard abroad by other governments. To do otherwise would be unethical.”
|
On December 10 2022 04:04 KwarK wrote:
“If our government is going to fuck over our citizens domestically then we better make sure they’re fucked just as hard abroad by other governments. To do otherwise would be unethical.”
You are ignoring the disrespect to people of a lower class. Our institutions treating citizens equally is enormously important. This isn't a zero-cost thing. It isn't just "irony". It is an injustice. You can't just pretend that doesn't mean anything.
She can wait while Biden takes steps to give the same treatment to everyone else. There is too much harm done to too many people, and also our institutions, by letting this happen without the same being applied to everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
