2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I'm just curious... have you read any history books before?
When people tear down institutions... what typically forms in its place?
when people tear down institutions that should never have existed, you go back to when they didn't exist.
the USA existed and flourished without the EPA and the DoE for 2 centuries.
it existed and flourished without any DEI office in any government agency.
it existed and flourished with intelligence services that couldn't spy on citizens.
it existed and flourished without public pensions, medicare and medicaid.
it existed and flourished with 1/10 of the building codes.
it existed and flourished with 1/50 of current labor laws.
it existed and flourished without federal intervention in housing markets
it existed and flourished without federal intervention in college loans
and so on
the only real conspiracy theory he mentioned was the absurd "Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset insanity". and that is most certainly not a position the "radical left" agrees with. if anything Gabbard is an asset of American intelligence.
K, V... answer my question then. Why parrot a Kremlin talking point?
when people tear down institutions that should never have existed, you go back to when they didn't exist.
the USA existed and flourished without the EPA and the DoE for 2 centuries.
it existed and flourished without any DEI office in any government agency.
it existed and flourished with intelligence services that couldn't spy on citizens.
it existed and flourished without public pensions, medicare and medicaid.
it existed and flourished with 1/10 of the building codes.
it existed and flourished with
Wrong. So you haven't read much history. Figures.
That wasn't the justification that Putin used to invade Ukraine-- the justification was that Ukraine was attacking ethnic Russians.
But beyond that I don't know. Are we sure that there were no bioweapons labs?
Here's the chatgpt answer:
There is no credible evidence to support claims that Ukraine operates biological weapons laboratories. These assertions have been widely discredited by multiple authoritative sources:
United Nations: The UN has stated it is not aware of any biological weapons programs in Ukraine.
AP NEWS
United States Department of Defense: The Pentagon has clarified that Ukraine does not possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons programs.
POLITIFACT
Independent Fact-Checking Organizations: PolitiFact and other fact-checkers have debunked the notion of U.S.-funded bioweapons labs in Ukraine, emphasizing that existing laboratories are focused on public health research and disease prevention.
POLITIFACT
These laboratories are part of Ukraine's public health infrastructure, aimed at monitoring and preventing the spread of infectious diseases. They receive support from international partners, including the United States, to enhance biosafety and disease surveillance capabilities. This collaboration is consistent with global health initiatives and does not involve the development of biological weapons.
In summary, the allegations of Ukraine operating bioweapon labs lack substantiation and have been refuted by credible international organizations and experts.
Im not too familiar with her Ukraine comments so I can only take what you said at face value so with that in mind...
1. she is about to be in cabinet so maybe her actions were self serving?
2. maybe it was directed at the far right that was spewing all kinds of stuff about Ukraine and Covid and biolabs and Hunter Biden iirc.
It was part of the justification. Maybe I should have stated that more clearly. But let's say it was zero part of the justification. Why parrot that talking point unless you had absolute concert proof? Who are you serving at that point? <--- this is what I'd like answered. Whose interest?
There's been no evidence there's bioweapon labs, unless you have something I haven't seen... please share.
there is a portion of Americans that believe crap x. crap x could be helpful for Putin if a majority believed that.
some politicians will position themselves to represent that portion of the population, to gain political power. you are serving yourself by taking that stance, or you try to.
in fact Gabbard is close to getting a role in the administration. that's who got helped by her takes. herself.
she is being rewarded because she represent some hard to quantify but non-0 portion of voters, who wouldn't usually vote republican otherwise. she is an asset in the big republican tent.
I don't like her too much (she was a leftie after all, so not my tribe at all) but I don't need to think of her as a Russian asset when basic political considerations explain her stances better
It was part of the justification. Maybe I should have stated that more clearly. But let's say it was zero part of the justification. Why parrot that talking point unless you had absolute concert proof? Who are you serving at that point? <--- this is what I'd like answered. Whose interest?
There's been no evidence there's bioweapon labs, unless you have something I haven't seen... please share.
From a quick Google it looks like there were numerous labs just no indication that they were researching or producing weapons.
As for why she would bring it up, I could only speculate especially without knowing the full context.
btw the worst thing, possibly an unforgivable one, that Trump, Gabbard, RFK and Musk have in common is that they were all democrats.
I don't know a ton about Tulsi but that is pretty flimsy evidence that she is working for a foreign government. Maybe she read it online somewhere and believed it. Look at the stuff someone like MTG believes.
A ton of politicians just called Israeli soccer hooligans getting beat up after they beat other people up a "pogrom," which was an Israeli talking point. Granted, a lot of them take money from AIPAC, but I don't think they are agents of the Israeli government.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of this.
Im not too familiar with her Ukraine comments so I can only take what you said at face value so with that in mind...
1. she is about to be in cabinet so maybe her actions were self serving?
2. maybe it was directed at the far right that was spewing all kinds of stuff about Ukraine and Covid and biolabs and Hunter Biden iirc.
1) So she repeated Kremlin talking points in 2022, because she thought it would help her get a Trump cabinet appointment?
2) No.
If you're not familiar, you can just google. I remember when she said this back then, thinking.. "Well, any doubts I had about Tulsi not being a Russian asset just went out the window."
I can't think of one reason you'd say something like this... but I'm open to someone finding an alternative reason.
Tulsi Gabbard, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the U.S. intelligence services, in 2022 endorsed one of Russia's main justifications for invading Ukraine: the existence of dozens of U.S.-funded biolabs working on some of the world's nastiest pathogens.
Moscow claimed Ukraine was using the labs to create deadly bioweapons similar to COVID-19 that could be used against Russia, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin had no choice but to invade neighboring Ukraine to protect his country.
I don't know a ton about Tulsi but that is pretty flimsy evidence that she is working for a foreign government. Maybe she read it online somewhere and believed it. Look at the stuff someone like MTG believes.
A ton of politicians just called Israeli soccer hooligans getting beat up after they beat other people up a "pogrom," which was an Israeli talking point. Granted, a lot of them take money from AIPAC, but I don't think they are agents of the Israeli government.
I'm sure there are plenty o
It's not evidence... I'm doing that critical thinking thing. There's more stuff, like RT calling Tulsi, "their girl". They've been saying that for awhile. I'm just adding things up, trying to make sense of the situation. Bolton seems to believes she's a Russian asset.
So she randomly believed something, and as a former government official, and just decided to parrot a Kremlin talking point at a critical point in history? Russia was looking for reasons to justify a war... and here comes Tulsi to the rescue.
This thread is pretty telling. I thought this was just something so obvious, it wouldn't warrant much discussion.
New thread for Caby picks?
From a quick Google it looks like there were numerous labs just no indication that they were researching or producing weapons.
As for why she would bring it up, I could only speculate especially without knowing the full context.
Ya, that's what we're trying to do. Speculate.. use some critical thinking skills.
You guys are poker players... you have a hand w/ incomplete information... what's the likelihood of X?
btw the worst thing, possibly an unforgivable one, that Trump, Gabbard, RFK and Musk have in common is that they were all democrats.
Who cares what they once claimed they were?
I give Trump and Musk getting along, maybe 2 month tops. No way these two megalomaniacs will stand each other. There's already signs the relationship is eroding.
You can mark this post.
i am not on team "big pharma is bad". I am on team pragmatic libertarian.
I am not against billionaires either.
to win elections you need a lot of dumb people voting for you (that works for both parties), and whatever you say to get their votes is fair game.
then you are judged on results. and for me the less government there is in society the better society is (up to a point that the USA passed like 140 years ago)
That’s great but still maga put people in place where they are suppose coming from places that are bad for America….
Ps: would you trust a lefty to put in places regulations that promises to favour libertarianism?
Obviously not right ?
So let’s fight Wall Street and lobbyists by putting wall street in charge is a great idea …
It's not evidence... I'm doing that critical thinking thing. There's more stuff, like RT calling Tulsi, "their girl". They've been saying that for awhile. I'm just adding things up, trying to make sense of the situation. Bolton seems to believes she's a Russian asset.
So she randomly believed something, and as a former government official, and just decided to parrot a Kremlin talking point at a critical point in history? Russia was looking for reasons to justify a war... and here comes Tulsi to
I don't think it's really critical thinking to extrapolate from someone echoing a couple talking points that they are a secret agent for a foreign government. This would mean almost all of our elected officials were agents of foreign governments, in some cases multiple ones.
Nor to believe so because somebody else "seems too." Least of all when that person is a comic book villain like John Bolton.
To state the obvious, if someone like Tulsi was a Russian agent investigating her and proving it would be a top priority, but that hasn't happened.
A simpler explanation would be that Tulsi is against the proxy war and, like most people, she uncritically accepted bad arguments that support her position. The link you provided doesn't quote her, but includes this, which also might be true.
Gabbard, a military veteran and a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, later said she wasn't accusing the United States or Ukraine of anything nefarious and was just voicing concerns about protecting the labs.
OK, I found another article from Newsweek.
. She said these were being used to conduct research into dangerous pathogens, which bore a resemblance to a Russian conspiracy theory that Ukraine was creating bio weapons. Gabbard had asserted, accurately, that the U.S. funds bio labs in Ukraine, but she did not mention bio weapons labs.
In her 2020 post on what was at the time Twitter and is now known as X, Gabbard said: "Like COVID, these pathogens know no borders. If they are inadvertently or purposely breached or compromised, they will quickly spread all throughout Europe, the United States and the rest of the world, causing untold suffering and death."
Without being knowledgeable about the subject myself, that seems like a fairly rational concern to have fresh off Covid.
So, unless you can find another account, she never actually said anything about bioweapons. Her remarks "bore a resemblance" to a Russian conspiracy theory. And what she said was accurate.
Bro, one of the great lakes literally caught fire. If no regulations are put in place the whole country's drinking water is probably Flint, MI.
You do realize states have the power to regulate that stuff yes? Then people can vote with their feet toward their preferred model and you get competition between models (and so between tradeoffs) and as in the market, competition is what keeps actors away from excess corruption?
The "federalization of everything" is a complete disaster, as it is giving federal agencies decisional power.
You do realize states have the power to regulate that stuff yes? Then people can vote with their feet toward their preferred model and you get competition between models (and so between tradeoffs) and as in the market, competition is what keeps actors away from excess corruption?
The "federalization of everything" is a complete disaster, as it is giving federal agencies decisional power.
There are some things I'd prefer to have blanket coverage, like clean drinking water for future citizens. I'm sure there is overreach we could agree on with the EPA but some basic stuff I'm not leaving to states. Especially rivers that flow into other states and affect their residents.
There are some things I'd prefer to have blanket coverage, like clean drinking water for future citizens. I'm sure there is overreach we could agree on with the EPA but some basic stuff I'm not leaving to states. Especially rivers that flow into other states and affect their residents.
Interstate compacts exist for that purpose.
Anyway there are like 10 agencies if not more with overlapping roles regulating waters.
It's an unmitigated disaster, a bureaucratic hell for that and many other topics.
Interstate compacts exist for that purpose.
Anyway there are like 10 agencies if not more with overlapping roles regulating waters.
It's an unmitigated disaster, a bureaucratic hell for that and many other topics.
Nothing wrong with streamlining it but I'd disagree to completely get rid of federal regulations in regards to the country's wealth (resources).
Nothing wrong with streamlining it but I'd disagree to completely get rid of federal regulations in regards to the country's wealth (resources).
Fact is those are state resources, not federal resources, at most resources shared by more than one state. It's not that i am denying the government can have claims on how some resources have to be managed (within certain limits).
I am saying that in part, it is not constitutional for the federal government to deal with that instead of states, and in part even if legal, it's better to leave it to states anyway.
Because decentralization of power is inherently a big positive for society in general, and because competition among states is what keeps goverment power abuses in check, and those are the source of the biggest troubles of society.
Hello... the United States is a REPUBLIC.
