• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
30,653
Points
74
I think you are spot on with this.

On a related note, how do you think this will play into the election cycle. I know there are people in here who worship at the alter of Biden and think he can walk on water. Personally, I think he is only slightly less of a train wreak than Trump and an increasing percentage of the American people agree. I will admit not all of it is his doing, but how he is handling it is an absolute mess.
Midterm elections are 15 months away. May as well be 15 years. If there's one thing we learned during the previous four years it's that the American public generally has a staggeringly short memory when it comes to events that don't affect them personally. At the end of the day, the American public doesn't give a tinker's damn for foreign affairs issues. This includes Afghanistan.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
Midterm elections are 15 months away. May as well be 15 years. If there's one thing we learned during the previous four years it's that the American public generally has a staggeringly short memory when it comes to events that don't affect them personally. At the end of the day, the American public doesn't give a tinker's damn for foreign affairs issues. This includes Afghanistan.
15 months or 15 years, with Biden at the helm, I don't think it is a good sign for the democrats. Take the 2010 and 2014 elections as an example. He who can't do any wrong Obama lost control and ground of the house to republicans both times. If this is how Biden has handled these situations, I am going to kick back with a bucket of popcorn to see how the rest of this train-wreak movie unfolds. I don't foresee his numbers being awesome come Fall 2022.

As for foreign affairs, I think Hillary Clinton would say otherwise given how often the word Benghazi was on the news. After all, the matriarch of a potential political dynasty looses to an arrogant pompas billionaire TV show host who the media released audio of him discussing abuse and manipulation of women.


Finally, I would be surprised of Biden does not step down before the end of his term and President Harris takes the wheel.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,622
Points
59
15 months or 15 years, with Biden at the helm, I don't think it is a good sign for the democrats. Take the 2010 and 2014 elections as an example. He who can't do any wrong Obama lost control and ground of the house to republicans both times. If this is how Biden has handled these situations, I am going to kick back with a bucket of popcorn to see how the rest of this train-wreak movie unfolds. I don't foresee his numbers being awesome come Fall 2022.

As for foreign affairs, I think Hillary Clinton would say otherwise given how often the word Benghazi was on the news. After all, the matriarch of a potential political dynasty looses to an arrogant pompas billionaire TV show host who the media released audio of him discussing abuse and manipulation of women.


Finally, I would be surprised of Biden does not step down before the end of his term and President Harris takes the wheel.
Yea, but Benghazi was just a talking point for those on the far right. It wasn't actually a thing for the majority of people. It was reviewed, cleared, and everyone (except those who HAD to find another reason to dislike Hillary) moved on.

The midterms aren't going to be pretty, mainly because of COVID. If COVID is under control (reasonably at least) by next November, I think they go well for the D's. If it isn't than the R's will get more than their share. The economy hasn't slowed yet (it certainly could by 2022) and social issues are not exactly at the table this time around so who knows if they play spoiler. I don't think foreign policy will have much of any real impact on the midterms.

Biden isn't stepping down. Harris isn't going to be President.

I don't see our next President anywhere honestly. The Republican field includes: Trump, Desantis, Abbott, Tim Scott, and maybe Sarah Palin (just kidding on that... probably...). The Democrat field has Harris, probably Abrams, Booker, Mayor Pete? At this point I don't think either side has a clear winner. Harris isn't likely to just be the candidate because Joe put her as VP.

Here's to hoping we get a crossover candidate that excites both sides to actually care about the country instead of the party.... ;)
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
Biden isn't stepping down. Harris isn't going to be President.

SNIP

Here's to hoping we get a crossover candidate that excites both sides to actually care about the country instead of the party.... ;)
My God I hope you are correct on both accounts.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
And it looks like things have gone from bad to horrific in Afghanistan. So much for the President's promise to get all the Americans out.

 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
14,516
Points
57
And it looks like things have gone from bad to horrific in Afghanistan. So much for the President's promise to get all the Americans out.


There had been intel warnings about this for about 36 hours.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
There had been intel warnings about this for about 36 hours.
And yet here we are.


BBC said:
Former US National Security Adviser, HR McMaster, has condemned the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and said today's attack was "only the beginning".

Gen McMaster, who served as a senior US officer in Afghanistan, told BBC News the US had prioritised "getting the hell out of there, regardless of what the consequences will be" and that the attack at Kabul airport was "what happens when you surrender to a terrorist organisation".

“Maybe this moment is the time that we can stop our self delusion that these groups are separate from one and other and recognise that they are utterly intertwined and interconnected, and what we are seeing is the establishment of a terrorist, jihadist state in Afghanistan. And all of us will be at much greater risk as a result."

Let's not forget that we just turned a terrorist group into a heavily armed force.

 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
30,653
Points
74
Let's not forget that we just turned a terrorist group into a heavily armed force.

Invading Iraq and Afghanistan were probably the two biggest strategic blunders the US has committed in the 21st century.

I know there are people in here who worship at the alter of Biden and think he can walk on water.
Yeah, sorry, not gonna bite.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,937
Points
60
Let's not forget that we just turned a terrorist group into a heavily armed force.

It's extremely expensive to wage war?

Duh.

It's usually easier and cheaper to just leave stuff in-country?

For sure.

Was all this the most likely foregone conclusion since the first Bush II administration?

Yep.
 

Veloise

Cyburbian
Messages
6,093
Points
38
Good to hear the congressional rep for my district getting ripped a new one for his secret trip to the Kabul airport "for fact-finding." Comments tend to be along the lines of, "but they're VETERANS!! so they KNOW what's going on!!"
Seriously, how much comprehensive intel can be gleaned from an airport visit? Maybe he should ask the relatives of Leo Ryan.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
It's extremely expensive to wage war?

Duh.

It's usually easier and cheaper to just leave stuff in-country?

For sure.

Was all this the most likely foregone conclusion since the first Bush II administration?

Yep.
You missed what I was trying to say. It is one thing to spend this much on weapons and supplies, (which I think we shouldn’t be spending that much on foreign defense) but my point is the Taliban how has those supplies and weapons at their disposal to use as they see fit.
I don’t care if it was Biden, Bush II or George Washington that made that decision. It does not make it a good idea.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,937
Points
60
You missed what I was trying to say. It is one thing to spend this much on weapons and supplies, (which I think we shouldn’t be spending that much on foreign defense) but my point is the Taliban how has those supplies and weapons at their disposal to use as they see fit.
I don’t care if it was Biden, Bush II or George Washington that made that decision. It does not make it a good idea.
Of course not but choices have to be made to not linger and get it done. They can only destroy so many in a limited timeframe. Plus the abject abandonment by the Afghan government deplorable and not much we can do about it.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,622
Points
59
You missed what I was trying to say. It is one thing to spend this much on weapons and supplies, (which I think we shouldn’t be spending that much on foreign defense) but my point is the Taliban how has those supplies and weapons at their disposal to use as they see fit.
I don’t care if it was Biden, Bush II or George Washington that made that decision. It does not make it a good idea.
Do you know how many weapons we sell to other governments? Any idea how much we supply other governments? This is really no different. Our big military complex is real. Let's all just realize that if you are okay with the spending we have on the military, you are okay with situations like this, which are caused by the budget that is permitted to the military.

I can promise you if the military budget was tighter, we wouldn't allow as much waste to occur. If I know I can get another $20million for a weapon without question, why would I care?
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
Do you know how many weapons we sell to other governments? Any idea how much we supply other governments? This is really no different. Our big military complex is real. Let's all just realize that if you are okay with the spending we have on the military, you are okay with situations like this, which are caused by the budget that is permitted to the military.

I can promise you if the military budget was tighter, we wouldn't allow as much waste to occur. If I know I can get another $20million for a weapon without question, why would I care?

Perhaps I have not been clear with the point I am trying to make. In the past couple of weeks, the Taliban has taken possession "2,000 armored vehicles, including U.S. Humvees, and up to 40 aircraft potentially including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones" that were provided by the US military.


You should care because they will be using these weapons against women, children, and those who support the US. Its not about the money, it is about access to some of the most advanced weapon systems on the planet. A few weeks ago, the Taliban had no aircraft now they have Blackhawks, Scouts, and drones. If you don't care about that, then you have a very different value system than I do.

I am all about the military budget (and global occupation) being much smaller, but there is a bigger and more urgent issue at hand here.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
12,008
Points
52
Yeah, I'd like to be there when some Taliban dudes try to fly a Black Hawk.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,622
Points
59
If you don't care about that, then you have a very different value system than I do.
I feel like you seemed to put a lot of words in my mouth there. Especially since I am not the one making those decisions, it was kind of like a rhetorical question.

I get that you care. Understood. You asked a question, and many people responded about why it has occurred. There was not a discussion on whether we should care, just more about why it happened and how we got here.

I don't personally have an opinion on it, as I am smart enough to know that the nuances are too much for my non-military, non-middle east expert, mind to fully understand. I trust our military leaders to do the best they can with the situation they were given. I don't believe that it was ever going to be easy.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
Yeah, I'd like to be there when some Taliban dudes try to fly a Black Hawk.
If they can't figure it out, they will sell it to someone who can...

I feel like you seemed to put a lot of words in my mouth there. Especially since I am not the one making those decisions, it was kind of like a rhetorical question.

I get that you care. Understood. You asked a question, and many people responded about why it has occurred. There was not a discussion on whether we should care, just more about why it happened and how we got here.

I don't personally have an opinion on it, as I am smart enough to know that the nuances are too much for my non-military, non-middle east expert, mind to fully understand. I trust our military leaders to do the best they can with the situation they were given. I don't believe that it was ever going to be easy.
You see, I think this is the difference between you and I. The "top" military leader is the President. I didn't trust the last one and I don't trust this one. As Joe put it, the buck stops with him, and he messed up. Trump messed up when he even entertained the possibility of cooperation from the Taliban.

As for words in your mouth, I believe these are your words:
Hink said:
I can promise you if the military budget was tighter, we wouldn't allow as much waste to occur. If I know I can get another $20million for a weapon without question, why would I care?

Fact is this guy is over his head and I don't think he is really listening to the military leaders on the ground who understand the dynamics of the situation:
1630069222033.png
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
To shift gears, the CDC is providing details regarding several studies that they will be taking on to help reduce gun violence. While these are be opposed by the NRA, everything not only seems logical to me, but also well overdue. It goes back to my previous comments on the topic. Let's get to the root cause of why does gun violence occur.

 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,622
Points
59
I am hopeful that the Republican's begin to weed out the people who are truly bad for the party. People like Jim Jordan.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has suddenly remembered another phone call — or more — that he had with then-President Donald Trump while insurrectionists rampaged through the Capitol on January 6, Politico reported Sunday.

So, he now remembers, after he is told to testify on the January 6 insurrection. Oops! Silly mistake. I would like to find members of congress that have policy positions beyond hatred for the other party. Was John McCain the last politician with a backbone?
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
Good to hear the congressional rep for my district getting ripped a new one for his secret trip to the Kabul airport "for fact-finding." Comments tend to be along the lines of, "but they're VETERANS!! so they KNOW what's going on!!"
Seriously, how much comprehensive intel can be gleaned from an airport visit? Maybe he should ask the relatives of Leo Ryan.
I am wondering what ever happened with this. I agree that they should not have gone and it does not appear to be related to one party or the other as both an R and D were stupid enough to go.

It does sound like neither of them where happy with the way the current administration handled this.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
As a responsible gun owner, and supporter of the Second Amendment, I do not support the new gun law in Texas. I believe that one should be required to go through a background check and some level of training before being permitted to carry a gun in public.

I think that many states have great examples on how this can be done without being prohibitive. For example in my current state, you need to go through a class and submit proof of completion and an application to the County. The County then has a set time period to complete the background check and issue the permit (if the background check comes back without issues). If they don't comply within that time period, then it is automatically issued.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,495
Points
38
As a responsible gun owner, and supporter of the Second Amendment, I do not support the new gun law in Texas. I believe that one should be required to go through a background check and some level of training before being permitted to carry a gun in public.

I think that many states have great examples on how this can be done without being prohibitive. For example in my current state, you need to go through a class and submit proof of completion and an application to the County. The County then has a set time period to complete the background check and issue the permit (if the background check comes back without issues). If they don't comply within that time period, then it is automatically issued.
Texas is fixing an imaginary problem. It was really, really easy to do the background check and access approved training. I'm just waiting for the first dumbass to get himself shot for acting the fool with a gun.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
30,653
Points
74
City personnel had safety training run by the Police Dept. before the long weekend on what to do in an active shooter scenario. Much of the training had to do with how to identify threats early, escape, and seek concealment and cover. At one point some hero stood up angrily and said "why are we spending all this time talking about avoidance? Why aren't you offering training on how to fight back? I have a gun and I think any employees that want to should be able to carry while on the job and if there's one or more shooters ranging around city hall these employees should shoot anyone threatening an employee with violence." To which the officer conducting the training responded, "it's your right to carry a weapon, and while there's a possibility an amateur vigilante might have some success, let me explain the downside of that....when the police arrive in City hall about 90-100 seconds after getting reports of a shooter, our procedure is to immediately neutralize threats. Chances are quite high that responding officers are not going to recognize the vigilante as being one of the 'good guys' and if he's seen brandishing a weapon will likely be shot on sight along with any 'bad guys' that might be present.
 
Last edited:

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,937
Points
60
City personnel had safety training run by the Police Dept. before the long weekend on what to do in an active shooter scenario. Much of the training had to do with how to identify threats early, escape, and seek concealment and cover. At one point some hero stood up angrily and said "why are we spending all this time talking about avoidance? Why aren't you offering training on how to fight back? I have a gun and I think any employees that want to should be able to carry while on the job and if there's one or more shooters ranging around city hall these employees should shoot anyone threatening an employee with violence." To which the officer conducting the training responded, "it's your right to carry a weapon, and while there's a possibility an amateur vigilante might have some success, let me explain the downside of that....when the police arrive in City hall about 90-100 seconds after getting reports of a shooter, our procedure is to immediately neutralize threats. Chances are quite high that responding officers are not going to recognize the vigilante as being one of the 'good guys' and if he's seen brandishing a weapon and will likely be shot on sight along with any 'bad guys' that might be present.
Trust the experts to do their job. Who'd a thunk?
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
30,653
Points
74

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,622
Points
59
Wow, now this angers me. The National Archives labels the Constitution and a few other founding documents as “Harmful Content”. At first I thought it was a joke… but apparently it’s not.

It is blanket language for all archived information.


You do understand we had slavery for a while, and that it was supported by legal documents within the National Archives...I would guess some of the language surrounding those choices is probably... I don't know pretty racist.

This is a pretty silly thing to get worked up about. Who cares so much about the founding documents that a "harmful content" label requires us to get mad? Unless it is the beginning of a longer effort to delegitimize the constitution so we can begin to bring our alien counterparts to earth to help acquire the golden spaghetti strainer and bring war to Narnia? Oh sh!t, I didn't even think about that.... ;)
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
It is blanket language for all archived information.


You do understand we had slavery for a while, and that it was supported by legal documents within the National Archives...I would guess some of the language surrounding those choices is probably... I don't know pretty racist.

This is a pretty silly thing to get worked up about. Who cares so much about the founding documents that a "harmful content" label requires us to get mad? Unless it is the beginning of a longer effort to delegitimize the constitution so we can begin to bring our alien counterparts to earth to help acquire the golden spaghetti strainer and bring war to Narnia? Oh sh!t, I didn't even think about that.... ;)

So based on that, the Declaration of Independence falls into which the the categories?
  • reflect racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes;
  • be discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more;
  • include graphic content of historical events such as violent death, medical procedures, crime, wars/terrorist acts, natural disasters and more;
  • demonstrate bias and exclusion in institutional collecting and digitization policies.
If it is a full blanket statement for all their documents, isn't that just as bad as it not being included at all. It would be comparable to everything on TV being classified as TV-MA. Daniel Tiger would be pissed, and rightfully so.

1631535904145.png



On a different note, I thought that the President's actions and participation in the 9/11 ceremony was very respectful and appropriate. I applaud him for making the focus on the families of those who died and not his administration.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,622
Points
59
So based on that, the Declaration of Independence falls into which the the categories?
  • reflect racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes;
  • be discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more;
  • include graphic content of historical events such as violent death, medical procedures, crime, wars/terrorist acts, natural disasters and more;
  • demonstrate bias and exclusion in institutional collecting and digitization policies.
If it is a full blanket statement for all their documents, isn't that just as bad as it not being included at all. It would be comparable to everything on TV being classified as TV-MA. Daniel Tiger would be pissed, and rightfully so.

View attachment 55071


On a different note, I thought that the President's actions and participation in the 9/11 ceremony was very respectful and appropriate. I applaud him for making the focus on the families of those who died and not his administration.
I agree that it likely isn't the culprit for the need of the language, but it also seems silly to worry about it being included. Should they say we need this for a lot of documents, but NOT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BECAUSE THAT IS STILL GREAT!

It just seems unnecessary. The point is that our country has a pretty rough history on a lot of topics and many of those topics are emotionally sensitive to certain people or populations. Although I am not really in the trigger warning group, I also get that although it doesn't get to me (as honestly not much does), I also understand I am not one of the groups who would likely be offended or who may be hurt by the language in those documents.

Again, it just seems like a silly thing to worry about, when there are SO many other things to be annoyed at with our government. The attack on our founders or the founding documents is not really real. Just like taking guns away, etc. It's just hyperbole that gets at a very niche group.
 

MD Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
3,333
Points
49
This silly "argument" really sums up how I feel about this country most days: We have a lot of honest to goodness problems, but we act like we have time to mess around with the cosmetic ones.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
21,216
Points
61
I agree that it likely isn't the culprit for the need of the language, but it also seems silly to worry about it being included. Should they say we need this for a lot of documents, but NOT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BECAUSE THAT IS STILL GREAT!

It just seems unnecessary. The point is that our country has a pretty rough history on a lot of topics and many of those topics are emotionally sensitive to certain people or populations. Although I am not really in the trigger warning group, I also get that although it doesn't get to me (as honestly not much does), I also understand I am not one of the groups who would likely be offended or who may be hurt by the language in those documents.

Again, it just seems like a silly thing to worry about, when there are SO many other things to be annoyed at with our government. The attack on our founders or the founding documents is not really real. Just like taking guns away, etc. It's just hyperbole that gets at a very niche group.
I think that there are documents in the archive that deserve that label... so label those documents and not a blanket statement.

I think I am going to add this to all the tops of all my posts.
** Please note that posts by M-Skis may contain content intended to piss off Hink... and OSU Sucks. **
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,622
Points
59
I think that there are documents in the archive that deserve that label... so label those documents and not a blanket statement.

I think I am going to add this to all the tops of all my posts.
** Please note that posts by M-Skis may contain content intended to piss off Hink... and OSU Sucks. **
And when you do that, I won't care or complain, because it doesn't really matter... ;)
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
12,008
Points
52
I never thought a lot about Trump would be this frightening, but hearing that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs felt compelled to call his Chinese counterpart - not once but twice! - to advise him America was not about to attack China is unbelievably chilling.

Almost as scary is Dan Quayle talking Pence out of any silliness at the joint session of Congress. Holy smokes! Dan Quayle!!!

Consider - Trump is the frontrunner to be the nominee in '24. :omg:
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
26,972
Points
71
the Republican Party's new campaign against democracy is scoring important victories and gaining momentum. Whether Trump himself believes in the cause is irrelevant:
He is an instinctive fascist and demagogue, with no discernible ideology.
For him, the presidency was a means to an end, an unlimited source of narcissistic fuel and a way to enrich himself (and his inner circle) and accumulate more power and attention.

 
Top