The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Is the evidence that she is a black, tattooed, lesbian, basketball player so of course she had drugs? For the right that is obviously the take.

Uh no? I don't watch Fox so no idea what the extremist right thinks. As an independent that has voted for both parties ... it's not about race, sexual identity etc. Most times its just stupid, entitled Americans that think they can get past other country's laws.

Google on YT Border Security Canada on all our idiots from "I've got medical marijuana so I can bring it over" to "I've got conceal carry so I can bring my gun over" to "NAFTA allows me to work in Canada without a work permit" etc.

What evidence do you or anyone have honest question? I mean they say she had this but I wasn’t there next to her?

There's evidence on the security cam at security Brittney Griner detained: Video shows her going through security at airport in Russia - YouTube

There also her "I did it but didn't mean to" 'Honest mistake': Brittney Griner speaks in Russian court ahead of sentencing | LiveNOW from FOX - YouTube

I get there's always going to be the argument that FSB planted the drugs. That may well be true but there's no evidence that happened, nor was that part of the defense.

Do you believe she was framed and she did not bring the cannabis in her bags?

Let's see what Griner says in the inevitable forthcoming news conferences now that she doesn't need to worry about ramifications. If she says "I was framed", I'll take it back. If she doesn't say that, will you concede that she brought the cannabis in her bag?

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Uh no? I don't watch Fox so no idea what the extremist right thinks. As an independent that has voted for both parties ... it's not about race, sexual identity etc. Most times its just stupid, entitled Americans that think they can get past other country's laws.

Google on YT Border Security Canada on all our idiots from "I've got medical marijuana so I can bring it over" to "I've got conceal carry so I can bring my gun over" to "NAFTA allows me to work in Canada without a work permit" etc.



There's evidence on the security cam at security Brittney Griner detained: Video shows her going through security at airport in Russia - YouTube

There also her "I did it but didn't mean to" 'Honest mistake': Brittney Griner speaks in Russian court ahead of sentencing | LiveNOW from FOX - YouTube

I get there's always going to be the argument that FSB planted the drugs. That may well be true but there's no evidence that happened, nor was that part of the defense.

Do you believe she was framed and she did not bring the cannabis in her bags?

Let's see what Griner says in the inevitable forthcoming news conferences now that she doesn't need to worry about ramifications. If she says "I was framed", I'll take it back. If she doesn't say that, will you concede that she brought the cannabis in her bag?

Ok so that was what I needed the video footage and I missed she pleaded guilty. Also my “right” comment was not directed at you as I remembered you are an independent.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

If the argument is the Griner/Bout trade was a loser for the US according to the prisoner exchange version of the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart, I think there is a certain amount of common ground there and arguements can be made why it should or should not have been made. However, if we are arguing that this trade is lopsided and then arguing that the Reed trade was and potential Whelan(with the provision you stated above) or Fogel trades for Bout would have been winners or at the least fairer value for the US, then no there is no way to have common ground in that case.

I have this funny image in my head of a TV with a split screen with Biden and Putin in their literal war rooms, surrounded by generals. Then Adam Silver comes on the air with the little NBA draft chime and says "For the first pick of the prisoner exchange draft, the country of Russia selects..." Then you have Mel Kiper and George Stephanopoulos debating the relative merits of the person. Silver: "We have a trade to announce. The country of Russia sends Britney Griner to the USA for Viktor Bout". Stephen A. Smith jumps in and is just incredulous.

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

It has been discussed as while not an apples to apples comparison, we have allowed the "Merchant of Death" to go potentially get back to selling illegal guns that will kill Americans for just Britney Griner while not acknowledging that we also allowed 5,000 Taliban prisoners to go back to doing what they do that will kill Americans for well nothing. There is so much more but you get my gist.

Specific to the 5,000. I've seen it used in Dem talking point as a whatabout. No problem with whatabouts (but not the excessive one-after-another) as they are good to make sure we consider both sides. However, IMO the comparison with Griner is not great. That swap, at that time, was a pretty good trade and for good intentions. It didn't turn out well, but we (including majority of GOP & Dems) were looking for excuses to get out of the country and try for a Taliban-Afghan peace talk ... one last time.

Trump admin. agreed to release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners | verifythis.com

“Up to five thousand (5,000) prisoners of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban and up to one thousand (1,000) prisoners of the other side will be released by March 10, 2020,” the agreement said.
:
The release of prisoners paved the way for the beginning of peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. The two sides first met on Sept. 12, 2020, in Doha, Qatar, and met sporadically in the following months, but talks never made substantial progress, according to the Congressional Research Service.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Galaril

What evidence do you or anyone have honest question? I mean they say she had this but I wasn’t there next to her? Is the evidence that she is a black, tattooed, lesbian, basketball player so of course she had drugs? For the right that is obviously the take.

She admitted it?

Brittney stressed that she committed the crime out of carelessness, getting ready to board a plane to Russia in a hurry, not intending to break Russian law," said Griner's attorney, Maria Blagovolina, a partner at Rybalkin, Gortsunyan, Dyakin and Partners law firm.

I'll admit I haven't followed the case closely and have only followed some of the major network's coverage. IE I don't read the bloggers, twitter, or any other social media. To my recollection nobody, not her, her partner, or anyone else has denied the cannabis was there, have they?

Honestly the "I wasn't there" argument sounds like something a former President and his supporters would say when confronted with facts. This type of denial from the right is why I have gone from voting independent to voting straight (D).


Surely she was treated the way she was because of politics. Deportation should have been the result and we all move on. I can only hope all athletes and entertainers took note and will no longer perform there.

Edit: Sorry, was writing this when Edward posted his answer and you replied.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Surely she was treated the way she was because of politics. Deportation should have been the result and we all move on. I can only hope all athletes and entertainers took note and will no longer perform there.

From what I've been able to read, a prison term of a few years is typical for this in Russia. Deportation is not considered sufficient by their legal system. It's almost certainly political that she got a longer sentence, but a slap on the wrist was never on the table really.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

However this has not played out in a vacuum and it has not been something that has been discussed as a matter of policy as you have here. It has been a personal discussion against Britney Griner IMO. It has been discussed as Griner somehow deserves her fate while Whelan, Reed and Marc Fogel do not because the Russians legal system was legit in her case and bogus in the others. It has been discussed that exchanging Bout for a WNBA player is ridiculous while at the same time arguing that the director of global security and investigations for an international automotive parts manufacturer based in Michigan who was in Russia for a wedding should have been the person exchanged for Bout. It has been discussed as while not an apples to apples comparison, we have allowed the "Merchant of Death" to go potentially get back to selling illegal guns that will kill Americans for just Britney Griner while not acknowledging that we also allowed 5,000 Taliban prisoners to go back to doing what they do that will kill Americans for well nothing. There is so much more but you get my gist.

I appreciate this post. Thank you.

At the same time, I am also appalled. Who is it that has been saying these things? I didn't even bring up Whelan/Reed/Fogel and I don't know of anyone on these forums who made the 'deserving their fate' comparison. Or derided releasing a WNBA player. If Griner is guilty of the accused crime - she may have said she was for legal reasons/minimizing sentence etc. so I don't know - that has to matter, and whether these others are guilty of what they are accused of has to matter also, as well as the fact that Bout is indirectly responsible for the deaths of how many thousands of people, but ... this is not at all the conversation that's been brought up. The only way the 5,000 have been brought up on this forum, and not by me, is explicitly as an apples-to-apples comparison.

My main question here is, is this how you view discussions on this forum and how you think others on this forum do it? Is it automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't think the trade is a good idea (or whatever other issue) is carrying water for every dumb thing said in popular culture about it by anyone who might agree with some facet of what they said and not just speaking for themselves? That's certainly not how I go about it. When I read you posting something or whoever else on the forum, I assume you are speaking for yourself and only for yourself in expressing your opinion. I think that's entry-level, fundamental decency in engaging with another human individual and that there's really no way to have productive conversations on pretty much anything without doing that.

If saying 'this was a bad trade' causes someone to be lumped in with what Trump said or McCarthy or whomever else, that's just ... there aren't really words that come to mind to fully express how bad I think that is, but one thing it definitely means is that real discussions can't happen. I.e. I don't think you're 'part of the societal group that disagrees with me on an issue'. You're a person who disagrees with me on an issue. That's it, and that's all, and that's how you deserve to be treated.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Specific to the 5,000. I've seen it used in Dem talking point as a whatabout. No problem with whatabouts (but not the excessive one-after-another) as they are good to make sure we consider both sides. However, IMO the comparison with Griner is not great. That swap, at that time, was a pretty good trade and for good intentions. It didn't turn out well, but we (including majority of GOP & Dems) were looking for excuses to get out of the country and try for a Taliban-Afghan peace talk ... one last time.

Trump admin. agreed to release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners | verifythis.com

As I said it is not an apples to apples comparison. For me, the comparison is based on the assumption of risk to the US. Worse case scenario with Bout is he will recreate his network and sell guns that will kill Americans. Worse case scenario with Taliban prisoners is they will recreate what they had and that recreation will result in the killing of Americans. My guess is the current administration believes that Bout is not enough of a threat to the US to force Griner to remain in a Russian prison. My guess is the administration of the day believed that the released Taliban prisoners were not enough of a threat to prevent the pursuit of peace in Afghanistan. If Bout goes home and becomes a family man and never involves himself in the illegal gun trade, then this is a pretty good trade and for good intentions. If a terrorist attack happens and we find out that some of those former prisoners were a part of that attack or money changed hands to bring about the prisoner release,then that is not a pretty good trade and/or not for good intentions.

Of course none of this addresses why it seems people(besides Brian) would have been ok if the swap was Whelan for Bout as oppose to Griner for Bout.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

From what I've been able to read, a prison term of a few years is typical for this in Russia. Deportation is not considered sufficient by their legal system. It's almost certainly political that she got a longer sentence, but a slap on the wrist was never on the table really.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...nabi-rcna37938

This women actually received a presidential pardon after spending less than a year in prison. Interestingly, the convicted Russian cyber criminal that was associated with her case was released last year which was a year before his time was up.

Russia Fines U.S. Student With Drug Possession Over Medical Marijuana - The Moscow Times

This woman was fined the equivalent of $230.

And then there is this interesting tidbit.

Last year, organizers of the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia had said that foreign football fans would be allowed to bring medical marijuana and cocaine with prescriptions into the country during the championship.

It seems that anything can be on the table if the system wants it to be.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I appreciate this post. Thank you.

At the same time, I am also appalled. Who is it that has been saying these things? I didn't even bring up Whelan/Reed/Fogel and I don't know of anyone on these forums who made the 'deserving their fate' comparison. Or derided releasing a WNBA player. If Griner is guilty of the accused crime - she may have said she was for legal reasons/minimizing sentence etc. so I don't know - that has to matter, and whether these others are guilty of what they are accused of has to matter also, as well as the fact that Bout is indirectly responsible for the deaths of how many thousands of people, but ... this is not at all the conversation that's been brought up. The only way the 5,000 have been brought up on this forum, and not be me, is explicity as an apples-to-apples comparison.

My main question here is, is this how you view discussions on this forum and how you think others on this forum do it? Is it automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't think the trade is a good idea (or whatever other issue) is carrying water for every dumb thing said in popular culture about it by anyone who might agree with some facet of what they said and not just speaking for themselves? That's certainly not how I go about it. When I read you posting something or whoever else on the forum, I assume you are speaking for yourself and only for yourself in expressing your opinion. I think that's entry-level, fundamental decency in engaging with another human individual and that there's really no way to have productive conversations on pretty much anything without doing that.

If saying 'this was a bad trade' causes someone to be lumped in with what Trump said or McCarthy or whomever else, that's just ... there aren't really words that come to mind to fully express how bad I think that is, but one thing it definitely means is that real discussions can't happen. I.e. I don't think you're 'part of the societal group that disagrees with me on an issue'. You're a person who disagrees with me on an issue. That's it, and that's all, and that's how you deserve to be treated.

Come on now Brian what are we doing here? I specifically said YOU were the only one who were discussing this from a different POV than what I had seen from anyone else both here and on the wider internet. I specifically acknowledged that if this was THE discussion point as opposed to exclusively YOUR discussion point, WE as in the royal WE would have more common ground. If the overall discussion remained in that realm.

That is not where the overall discussion has been had. THAT is what I was speaking of in that part of my post. The debate has been about Britney Griner and the merits of whether she should be part of any prison release. You know we traded a basketball player for the Merchant of Death or I am uncomfortable with her getting released and Whelan staying or uh aren't there other American prisoner who could have gone etc. As long as that is the overall framework of the discussion here and elsewhere as opposed to what YOU said, no there can not be common ground.

It was not meant to be an attack on you. If that is the way it was taken, I apologize for that. It was meant as an explainer as to why I think there can't be common ground with the discussion going down that path. Here is what I said in my first post about this.

If the preference is for BG to remain in a Russian prison for the next nine years so Viktor Bout can remain in a US jail for the next seven years, well okay I guess. Even if that has remained the case, I don't that has any bearing on Whelan. I think it is pretty clear that Whelan is not on the trading block for anything less than a top level Russian spy at the very least.

I have no problem with anyone saying it was a bad trade. I have an issue with the idea that among the people who have been spotlighted as worthy of being traded, Britney Griner should not have been one of them.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...nabi-rcna37938

This women actually received a presidential pardon after spending less than a year in prison. Interestingly, the convicted Russian cyber criminal that was associated with her case was released last year which was a year before his time was up.

Russia Fines U.S. Student With Drug Possession Over Medical Marijuana - The Moscow Times

This woman was fined the equivalent of $230.

And then there is this interesting tidbit.



It seems that anything can be on the table if the system wants it to be.

It's whatever serves Russia. Whether it's good will, attention, or something they can gain. They gain by holding a 'spy' and they gain by making a big show out of big USA "western" basketball star. Nobody gives a shit about a random 'student.'

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I specifically said YOU were the only one who were discussing this from a different POV than what I had seen from anyone else both here and on the wider internet. I specifically acknowledged that if this was THE discussion point as opposed to exclusively YOUR discussion point, WE as in the royal WE would have more common ground. If the overall discussion remained in that realm.

You did? Where? What I saw was you quoting me talking about the lack of common ground specifically with another poster on this forum, and then saying we don't have that common ground because the discussion hasn't taken place in a vacuum, etc. So ... I guess it's just a big giant misunderstanding?

By the way, I think your characterization of the wider internet is ... really off. Over half the news I've seen on this has been talking about it in the way I did, same framing although often coming to a different conclusion. Lots of talk about how Biden took the deal that was available, not the ones that weren't, the merits or lack thereof of 'hostage diplomacy', and so on. What I consume is pretty mainstream, so it leaves me wondering what you are seeing about it and where are you getting it from?

I didn't take any of this as a personal attack. But I've read the same thread here as you have. Your quote above equates the discussion here on the forum with what you've read on the wider internet, but again ... who here has said those things about Griner? I haven't read anyone on this forum saying 'shouldn't trade for an NBA player' etc. I mean, by my count on this forum there's more people in favor of the trade than against it. So I'm left honestly having no idea what you're talking about.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You did? Where? What I saw was you quoting me talking about the lack of common ground specifically with another poster on this forum, and then saying we don't have that common ground because the discussion hasn't taken place in a vacuum, etc. So ... I guess it's just a big giant misunderstanding?

By the way, I think your characterization of the wider internet is ... really off. Over half the news I've seen on this has been talking about it in the way I did, same framing although often coming to a different conclusion. Lots of talk about how Biden took the deal that was available, not the ones that weren't, the merits or lack thereof of 'hostage diplomacy', and so on. What I consume is pretty mainstream, so it leaves me wondering what you are seeing about it and where are you getting it from?

I didn't take any of this as a personal attack. But I've read the same thread here as you have. Your quote above equates the discussion here on the forum with what you've read on the wider internet, but again ... who here has said those things about Griner? I haven't read anyone on this forum saying 'shouldn't trade for an NBA player' etc. I mean, by my count on this forum there's more people in favor of the trade than against it. So I'm left honestly having no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

A basketball player for an arms dealer, I guess they have equal value in American society.

I was not the only one who read it as a negative as this was the next poster replied with a "fixed that for you" replacing basketball player with American citizen.

Originally Posted by henry296

Were other American citizens also released from Russian custoday in exchange for Russian Arms Dealers? While not publicized, I'm sure Griner isn't the only American being held in Russian jail.

Originally Posted by Edward64

No mention of others. Paul Whelan has been imprisoned for 3+ years. He's accused of espionage which is more serious vs recreational drugs.

It comes down to how much damage the Russian guy can do now. He's been out of the game for a while, will he resume his activities which (presumably) hurt US interests?

Biden is in a tough spot. Bringing Gringer out without bringing out Whelan (or others) doesn't sit well with me e.g. the LIFO model. But she did get disproportionate sentencing because of Biden's support of Ukraine so there's some justice there.

This reads like why Brittany as opposed to someone else jailed in Russia, no?

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I've struggled with the Griner situation, too. Glad to see others have mixed feelings about it.

On the one hand, it is horrible that she was detained, it was a questionable violation (vape cartridges with cannabis) and it was probably largely due to her celebrity. On the other hand, it is an exceptionally entitled and dumb move to think you can go through airports or customs with anything cannabis related. And it absolutely seems terrible that her celebrity/wealth put her in the front of the line, when there are other folks being detained.

This is not meant as to cast any aspersions on any of the posters I quoted. They are entitled to their opinions. But I don't think I am being unreasonable to read these comments and have the impression that they think BG had less of a case to be traded than the others detained in Russia. I think she does. That is why your comment stood out because you were the one who questioned the trade no matter which of the candidates would have been selected.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I have this funny image in my head of a TV with a split screen with Biden and Putin in their literal war rooms, surrounded by generals. Then Adam Silver comes on the air with the little NBA draft chime and says "For the first pick of the prisoner exchange draft, the country of Russia selects..." Then you have Mel Kiper and George Stephanopoulos debating the relative merits of the person. Silver: "We have a trade to announce. The country of Russia sends Britney Griner to the USA for Viktor Bout". Stephen A. Smith jumps in and is just incredulous.

SI

I was looking for the like button on that post,

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

This reads like why Brittany as opposed to someone else jailed in Russia, no?

This is specific to above quotes as I was mentioned in and not to the broader conversation (because I don't want to be that guy who jumps in without fully understanding the discussion). Just want to clarify my specific position on the Griner trade.

I can see why one believes that I preferred Paul Whelan to be released first based on my first paragraph. But note that was in response to a question that Henry296 asked if there were any other prisoners. I just answered him and was not meant to imply I preferred Whelan over Griner.

My second and third paragraphs show that I am conflicted. It is primarily because I don't know if Bout would continue his escapades. If he is able to help Putin substantially (beyond just pure propaganda) with his old contacts, the havoc he would cause to the Ukrainians in deaths, prolonging the war etc. would far outweigh a Griner or Whelan release. In other words, if you can tell me for sure that Bout will ramp up again, neither Griner or Whelan or Tom Brady or LeBron James would be worth the trade.

I don't know the answer to that question and hence my internal struggle on whether this trade was worth it (regardless of Griner or Whelan).

[Brian Swartz]

I think for me to type another involved response would just get unproductively devolved into semantics. I'd rather not contribute to another such trainwreck.

I'll summarize thusly:

- Some posts I missed somehow even after re-reading multiple times.
- Others I think could be taken multiple ways, and I think there are some unwarranted conclusions being drawn.
- I still think this issue is being discussed in a very slanted manner, but I don't think there's any useful way I can make clear the how & why without doing more harm than good and further exasperating people.

[JPhillips]

I really think DeSantis going full anti-vax probably kills him in the general election.

[Edward64]

Article on how China dominates rare earth elements and what the US is doing

China Dominates the Rare Earths Market. This U.S. Mine Is Trying to Change That. - POLITICO

China could easily decide to restrict access to rare earths again with disastrous consequences. As of today, China accounts for 63 percent of the world’s rare earth mining, 85 percent of rare earth processing, and 92 percent of rare earth magnet production.

Rare earth alloys and magnets that China controls are critical components in missiles, firearms, radars and stealth aircraft.

Beijing once blocked Japan’s access to rare earth elements during a 2010 dispute over Tokyo’s detention of a Chinese fishing trawler captain. Then in 2019, China threatened to include certain products using rare earths in Beijing’s technology-export restrictions, a response to the Trump administration’s pressure on telecom giant Huawei.

US company mining in the US. Have to read up on the stock

MP Materials wants to be the solution to America’s rare earths challenge. MP’s goal is to restore the full supply chain to the United States, becoming the world’s sole “vertically integrated” rare earth magnetics producer that performs all stages of the process.

The Mountain Pass mine, which resumed operations in 2012 after years of dormancy, today supplies around 15 percent of the world’s production of rare earths, a group of 17 minerals used to make the magnets in America’s most advanced commercial and military technology, from electric vehicles to Virginia-class attack submarines.

That 15 percent figure is significant, especially given that just 11 years ago the mine was producing nothing, but still a small fraction of a global market that has for decades been dominated by China.

And will be bringing some/all of the processing back to the US.

In November, MP announced that it had begun commissioning assets for the second stage of production, which is currently done primarily in China: separation and purification. The company has also begun building a new manufacturing facility in Fort Worth, Texas, that will convert the refined minerals from Mountain Pass into metals, alloys and magnets.

Good move by Trump & Biden Admin to support

the Pentagon has designated millions of dollars to fund rare earths projects in an attempt to move the entire rare earth supply chain to the U.S. Mountain Pass has received some of the funding, along with other companies trying to mine or manufacture rare earths products.

And not worry as much about environmental impacts (right now, at least)

The issue is a tricky one for the Biden administration, which has prioritized green energy. Rare earths are key components in electric car batteries. But some climate advocates have opposed increased spending on mining certain metals, including on a proposed lithium mine in Nevada, because of the potential environmental impact.

So far, Biden has continued Trump’s approach to rare earths mining, a rare instance of bipartisan agreement

Apparently earlier versions of this company failed because wasn't profitable enough. Seems like $10M is a small investment to help reduce our reliance on China for these strategic materials. Shoot, give them $1B to expand

MP Mine Operations LLC, now MP Materials, was formed in 2017 for a second attempt at reviving the Mountain Pass mine. It acquired the site out of bankruptcy in July of that year. Boosted by millions of dollars of capital — plus a $10 million 2020 investment from the Pentagon — the company is now profitable. In the third quarter of 2022, it beat expectations with a revenue of $124.4 million.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really think DeSantis going full anti-vax probably kills him in the general election.

It's going to come down to whether dems fear a DeSantis term as much as they feared a 2nd trump term. He'll get GOP turnout.

[Lathum]

I think DeSantis is our next president.

The anti Trump voters will stay home, all republicans will vote him and he will appeal to a lot of independents. Factor in the contrast between a young polished guy and a rapidly aging Biden and I think he wins easily.

[JPhillips]

I think things like the measles outbreak in OH and DeSantis's really vocal anti-vax stance will kill him with the suburban voters he needs to win back. I'm for putting diseases closer to your children is toxic.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think things like the measles outbreak in OH and DeSantis's really vocal anti-vax stance will kill him with the suburban voters he needs to win back. I'm for putting diseases closer to your children is toxic.

I wouldn't underestimate the number of suburban people who are either anti-vax or vax hesitant. I also think that will be a blip on the radar compared to other issues such as immigration, economy, etc...

[JPhillips]

Immigration doesn't matter much to persuadable voters. The GOP has tried to make several elections about immigration and it never works. It pleases the base, but doesn't change much in the way of voting.

Who knows what the economy will look like in 2024.

The number of people pro-vax, even pro-Covid vax is much much higher than those opposed. Being anti-vax is about as popular as being pro-Social Security cuts.

I think DeSantis is the latest in a long line of popular governors that doesn't play well on the national stage.

[Lathum]

I hope you are right. I just think when you put him side by side with Biden it is a stark contrast that people won't be able to shake.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The number of people pro-vax, even pro-Covid vax is much much higher than those opposed. Being anti-vax is about as popular as being pro-Social Security cuts.

I agree with that, but I also think there's a near-zero chance of most pro-vax people voting for DeSantis anyway on other grounds. How many of the pro-vax people are in the persuadable category is the question, and there's a non-trivial amount of independents who think the government has lied to them about covid/the vaccine.

I also think DeSantis vs. current Biden is another absolutely horrible choice. Please someone stop this from actually being the general election matchup.

[GrantDawg]

I think Biden is likely to lose to almost anybody not named Trump.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think Biden is likely to lose to almost anybody not named Trump.

Funny enough I was reading through the thread ready to say the exact same thing.

Put me in the camp that vaccines will be about 30th in the list of things voters care about in a general election, and as posted the people who feel strongly about it the other way aren't voting for DeSantis (or a generic R) in the first place.

[JPhillips]

We just watched an election turn on whether or not the GOP candidate was nuts and being anti-vax, not just for Covid but in general, is a clear indication of crazy for I bet 70% of the population. It's absolutely baffling why he's making such a big deal out of this. Either he's a true believer or someone giving him lots of money is.

[miked]

We also watched an absolutely horrid, unqualified person get nearly 49% of the vote in GA in a statewide election. If that were Desantis he would have gotten 60% of the vote.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think Biden is likely to lose to almost anybody not named Trump.

My default position.

However, Trump can (arguably) beat any Dem not named Biden.

With Trump seemingly committed, I'm thinking Joe has to run (unless there are some major health, cognitive decline issues). His backroom pitch to the Dem leadership should be "I've beaten him once, I'll beat him again. Who else do you think can do it? Do you really want to risk it?"

But yeah, with a Biden vs DeSantis, I think the age disparity will work against Biden.

[flere-imsaho]

In 2020, the 7 states with a margin under 5% were (closest first) Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, Florida.

Whichever candidate can win some good number of those states is the candidate you want.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think DeSantis is our next president.

The anti Trump voters will stay home, all republicans will vote him and he will appeal to a lot of independents. Factor in the contrast between a young polished guy and a rapidly aging Biden and I think he wins easily.

This is probably oversimplifying, but I agree with those above who feel like if Trump runs, Biden is a good nominee. If DeSantis runs, he's a bad matchup and the Dems need someone younger.

It feels like it's destined to be Biden vs DeSantis but this time before 2008, it was a lock that it was going to be Giuliani vs Clinton and instead we had Obama over McCain.

SI

[Ryche]

I don't think Trump beats anyone but a really horrible candidate. Put a young veteran up against him and he would get crushed. Just about anyone under 60 beats him in my opinion.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It feels like it's destined to be Biden vs DeSantis but this time before 2008, it was a lock that it was going to be Giuliani vs Clinton and instead we had Obama over McCain.

I can see DeSantis not winning the nomination. Big difference with 2008 of course is that Biden is the sitting president. If the sitting president runs again, they don't lose their party's nomination.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ryche

I don't think Trump beats anyone but a really horrible candidate. Put a young veteran up against him and he would get crushed. Just about anyone under 60 beats him in my opinion.

I agree

I think the dems could run just about anyone against Trump and win. Yet at the same time leave it to the dems to find the candidate that would lose to Trump.

[PilotMan]

Kentucky is such a weird state. I have underestimated the extent that people 'feel Libertarian' here. They say KY has an unusually high amount, but it's not really Libertarian. Instead it's a state that loves govt support, has some strong unions, hates the government telling them to do anything at all, and is socially conservative. That's not libertarian at all. But I do think it says how the state has been swayed by the culture wars. It used to be about the unions and dems (when the dems were socially conservative), but it's flipped totally with the culture wars taking center stage in any race.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I can see DeSantis not winning the nomination.

I'll agree on that point.

I will say that if he's not the nominee -- barring someone not currently on the horizon -- then Biden wins.

I'm not saying DeSantis would be a lock to win in November, I'm just saying that no other (R) currently in the discussion has any chance of winning in November. (None of them could motivate starving dogs toward fresh meat)

[PilotMan]

Biden shouldn't win, because he shouldn't run.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Biden shouldn't win, because he shouldn't run.

He is going to run.

I think the DeSantis/Trump battle comes down to how many other people get involved. If it is a crowded primary Trump wins it. If guys like Pence, Pompeo, etc...drop out and it is 1-1 Desantis wins.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

He is going to run.

I think the DeSantis/Trump battle comes down to how many other people get involved. If it is a crowded primary Trump wins it. If guys like Pence, Pompeo, etc...drop out and it is 1-1 Desantis wins.

Is there really any support for Pence, Pompeo or anyone other than Trump or Desantis? Nikki Haley maybe, but she has gone too pro-Trump to really turn to challenge him at this point.

The Religious Right is not returning to Pence, and there aren't enough Neocons left in the GOP for Pompeo. It is going to be Trump or a Trump-lite like Desantis or Abbott.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

iden shouldn't win, because he shouldn't run.

100% agree, but he's also made it clear that he's going to run, so it is what it is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think the dems could run just about anyone against Trump and win.

The phrase I've used in the past 12-24 months is "Trump is the GOP version of Hillary at this point"

edit to clarify: as in, the one person guaranteed to mobilize the opposition all the way to the polls

[GrantDawg]

You are not wrong. He has also burned too many bridges for independents to ever vote for him again.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[PilotMan]

I just wonder why it took the GOP this long to accept it when they could have tossed him under the bus, and gotten much stronger by this point without him.

Just like with the Impeachment. They had a perfect chance to bury him, run with Pence, and keep the exact same concepts alive. Instead they just couldn't help themselves slathering all over trumps dick.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The phrase I've used in the past 12-24 months is "Trump is the GOP version of Hillary at this point"

Oh, I like this. I absolutely hadn't thought about it this way, but I think you're right.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I just wonder why it took the GOP this long to accept it when they could have tossed him under the bus, and gotten much stronger by this point without him.

Just like with the Impeachment. They had a perfect chance to bury him, run with Pence, and keep the exact same concepts alive. Instead they just couldn't help themselves slathering all over trumps dick.

Because no one was going to be excited about supporting a milquetoast dilweed like Pence - certainly not Trump's base, least of all - and the impeachment for J6 was a problem because of how deep into the events leading up to J6 some prominent GOPers were. If you convict Trump it's fair to ask for a full accounting and then the same questions are asked about likely at least a dozen or more elected officials - all from their party.

[GrantDawg]

The GOP still can't cast him out. The rank and file still love him. They still have the flags flying. Still have the bumper stickers on their trucks. The elites of the party have long wanted to move away from him. They can't because it is still his party.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

With Trump seemingly committed, I'm thinking Joe has to run (unless there are some major health, cognitive decline issues). His backroom pitch to the Dem leadership should be "I've beaten him once, I'll beat him again. Who else do you think can do it? Do you really want to risk it?".

I guess the pitch worked

'I don't think we should talk about him while we're eating': Pelosi reacts to Trump run | CNN Politics

Pelosi and Schumer say Biden should run for re-election in 2024

[Brian Swartz]

A lot of it is that people still make what I think is a bad mistake; thinking of Trump in ideological terms. A lot of his appeal is 'post-policy'. His attitude of never apologizing for anything, of always being on the attack against the perceived enemies of everything but the kitchen sink, and so on. That's just as terrible an appeal, but it's also not something you just take an establishment politician to pick up and carry - being not-establishment is a big part of Trumpism. Pence et al. can't carry that torch.

[Edward64]

Love it.

(But assume Biden doesn't know how to tweet and this was done by staff)

Biden mocks Trump’s ‘major announcement’ of digital trading cards | The Hill

President Biden on Thursday mocked former President Trump for teasing a “major announcement” that turned out to be a new line of digital Trump trading cards.

“I had some MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENTS the last couple of weeks, too…” Biden tweeted from his personal account.

The president listed a consumer price report that showed inflation easing in recent weeks, the signing of legislation to protect same-sex marriage, a prisoner swap that brought home WNBA star Brittney Griner after months of being imprisoned in Russia and falling gas prices as notable achievements for the White House in recent days.