Because they cannot put forth an honest argument and most of the public knows the difference:
- If you are against vaccine mandates, then you are an anti-vaxxer
- If you listen to more than one scientist, you are anti-science
- If you support voter ID laws, then you back Jim Crow
- If you support the filibuster, then you are akin to a slaveholder
- If you are against BBB, then you hate the poor
- If you want to slow crime, then you are a white supremacist
- If you want to secure the southern border, then you are a racist
The problem here is that Democrats cannot argue the concept of federal mandates, voter ID laws, the filibuster, their excessive spending plans, or border security, crime or anything else without trying to redefine the argument before it starts. Keep in mind that the argument is the argument is the argument and by nature if you refuse to engage, well then you lost.
If someone states that they do not approve of a medical mandate for Americans, you've already lost the argument if you start talking about the medical merits of the vaccination. If someone suggests that they saw alternate data on a subject, you've already lost the argument if all you come up with is attacking the source. If you reduce any argument into telling someone that they are racist or a white supremacist, then you not only lost that argument, but you lost it badly.
The general swing voter out there can recognize the difference between a logical argument and political rhetoric. The Democrats, their minions in the media, and their hardline supporters are virtual rhetoric machines. It's only a matter of time (a couple of minutes generally) for them to be reduced to name calling and hyperbole.
This is why the President has an approval hovering around 40%. This is why for the first time in years, Republicans lead in the generic Congressional vote polling. This is why you see a massive amounts of Democrats in Congress stepping down and deciding to not run for reelection.
Perhaps those who say Democrats have to clean up their messaging to get back on track are correct. Only the answer of being honest and having a tangible fact filled logical arguments about the issues of today is not one any Democrat right now is willing to accept. They are just looking for whatever rhetoric and hyperbole might work better than the rhetoric and hyperbole they are using today.
Makes you wonder why they won't address the facts and make those arguments?
27 comments:
I'm not in favor of masking mandates.
The rest of your bullshit is the red scare of the 21st century.
Russia Russia, probably won't invade Ukraine because they can't afford it.
For Russia, what it sees as Western encroachment into Ukraine is a very big part of how the West has been weakening Russia, and infringing on a security interest for all of this time,” said Olga Oliker, program director for Europe and Central Asia at the International Crisis Group.
All of this makes it difficult to see a diplomatic way out, especially when 100,000 troops are posted along the Ukrainian border. Russia has denied that it has plans to invade, and few believe Putin has fully made up his mind on what he wants to do. But with all the threats and ultimatums, Putin may still have to do something if he cannot wrest concessions from the West.
“In a certain way, [he] has put himself in a corner,” said Natia Seskuria, associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. “Because he can only do this once.”
Diplomacy isn’t totally dead. But it’s not going great.
Russia presented the United States with its demands last month. It requested “legally binding security guarantees,” including a stop to eastward NATO expansion, which would exclude Ukraine from ever joining, and that NATO would not deploy troops or conduct military activities in countries that joined the alliance after 1997, which includes Poland and former Soviet states in the Baltics.
Kyiv and NATO have grown closer over the last decade-plus, and actively cooperate. But Ukraine is nowhere close to officially joining NATO, something the US openly admits, and something Russia also knows. Still, NATO says Ukrainian future membership is a possibility because of its open-door policy, which says each country can freely choose its own security arrangements. To bar Ukrainian ascension would effectively give Russia a veto on NATO membership and cooperation. Removing NATO’s military presence on the alliance’s eastern flank would restore Russia’s influence over European security, remaking it into something a bit more Cold War-esque.
Russia almost certainly knew that the US and NATO would never go for this. The question is what Putin thought he had to gain by making an impossible opening bid. Some see it as a way to justify invasion, blaming the United States for the implosion of any talks. “This is a tried-and-true Russian tactic of using diplomacy to say that they’re the good guys, in spite of their maximalist demands, that [they’re] able to go to their people and say, ‘look, we tried everything. The West is a security threat, and so this is why we’re taking these actions,’” said David Salvo, deputy director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy and a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund.
On the other hand, Russia’s hardline requests — alongside its aggressive military buildup — may be intended to get the West to move on something. “I don’t think that this was intended by Putin to fail, as some think. I think it was intended to extract concessions,” said Anatol Lieven, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “And the question, of course, would be just how many concessions would satisfy the Russian government and obviously allow Putin to build up his domestic prestige.”
And that really is the question, especially since, so far, nothing seems to have really worked. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, a seasoned negotiator, met with Russian counterparts in Geneva earlier in January but made little progress. Blinken and Lavrov met Friday for 90 minutes; the meeting yielded no breakthroughs but Russia and the US agreed to potentially keep at it, after the US delivers written answers to Russia’s demands next week. “I can’t say whether or not we are on the right path,” Lavrov told reporters, according to the New York Times. “We will understand this when we get the American response on paper to all the points in our proposals.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left, and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov shake hands ahead of security talks at the Hotel President Wilson in Geneva, Switzerland, on January 21. Russian Foreign Ministry/TASS via Getty Images
Russia might not like the responses on NATO, but there are spaces where the US and NATO could offer concessions, such as greater transparency about military maneuvers and exercises, or more discussions on arms control, including reviving a version of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or even scaling back some US naval exercises in places like the Black Sea, which Russia sees as a provocation. “There is still potentially room on those fronts,” said Alyssa Demus, senior policy analyst at the Rand Corporation. “That’s entirely possible that the US and Russia or NATO and Russia could negotiate on those — and then maybe table the other issues for a later date.”
A full-on invasion to seize all of Ukraine would be something like Europe hasn’t seen in decades. It could involve urban warfare, including on the streets of Kyiv, and airstrikes on urban centers. It would cause astounding humanitarian consequences, including a refugee crisis. Konaev noted that all urban warfare is harsh, but the specifics of how Russia fights in urban settings — witnessed in places like Syria — has been “particularly devastating, with very little regard for civilian protection.”
The colossal scale of such an offensive also makes it the least likely, experts say, and it would carry tremendous costs for Russia. “I think Putin himself knows that the stakes are really high,” Seskuria, of RUSI, said. “That’s why I think a full-scale invasion is a riskier option for Moscow in terms of potential political and economic causes — but also due to the number of casualties. Because if we compare Ukraine in 2014 to the Ukrainian army and its capabilities right now, they are much more capable.” (Western training and arms sales have something to do with those increased capabilities, to be sure.)
Such an invasion would force Russia to move into areas that are bitterly hostile toward it. That increases the likelihood of a prolonged resistance (possibly even one backed by the US) — and an invasion could turn into an occupation. “The sad reality is that Russia could take as much of Ukraine as it wants, but it can’t hold it,” said Melinda Haring, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.
Still, Russia could launch an invasion into parts of Ukraine — moving to secure more of the east, or south to the Black Sea. That would still be a dramatic escalation, but the fallout will depend on what it looks like and what Russia seeks to achieve. The United States and its allies have said that a large-scale invasion will be met with aggressive political and economic consequences, including potentially cutting Russia off from the global financial system to nixing the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Although his message was not great but he said the sanctions would cost even more than the invasion into Ukraine
https://www.vox.com/22894163/russia-ukraine-putin-biden-nato
Show your work
GO OUTSIDE
If you are against vaccine mandates, then you are an anti-vaxxer. Bs
If you listen to more than one scientist, you are anti-science. It depends upon their qualifications.
If you support voter ID laws, then you back Jim Crow. Modern vote suppression is Jim Crow 3.0. Turnout reduced guaranteed white suppression.
If you support the filibuster, then you are akin to a slaveholder. Nixon strategy. 1967
If you are against BBB, then you hate the poor. It's actually against a huge government.
If you want to slow crime, then you are a white supremacist. George Floyd was just a drug addicted black man.
If you want to secure the southern border, then you are a racist. Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers.
Trumpism stage four brain cancer in incurable.
Biden's Build Back Broker policies are winning.
"Pandemic worry is the “highest it has been since last winter, before COVID-19 vaccines were readily available to the general public,” according to a Gallup poll released on Thursday"
"Overdelivering " on his promise of "Winter of Death
Why are Bidenomics failing the country.
Easy = they are founded in Socialism.
Well Roger....
You covered all the arguments with the correct liberal hyperbole like a good little sheeple. It's alway why you are as big of a laughingstock as the President is right now.
The day you actually factually argued any of these subjects would be the day people would fall over and die of shock. I mean who gets to pick what the "qualifications" of a scientist is? You, a person who have been following the science of the hockey stick graph, the ice caps would be gone twenty years ago science, the we can stop Covid but now everyone will catch is science, or any number of scientific theories that have already been proven false?
Are you willing to make an argument that the 300 plus times Democrats used the filibuster to stop GOP laws during the Trump administration were all akin to Democrats being slaveholders and backing it up with some solid evidence? Because that would be interesting?
Are you going to explain how it is that Black voter percentage has gone up in every instance of a Voter ID law being established and yet can be considered voter suppression?
Because it seems to me that you are just repeating rhetoric and hyperbole, Roger. That is not an argument.
One week before Jan. 6, Fox News host Sean Hannity was trying to make the White House see reason.
“We can’t lose the entire WH counsels office,” he wrote in a Dec. 31 text to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, released by the Jan. 6 Committee. “I do NOT see January 6 happening the way he is being told. After the 6 th He should announce will lead the nationwide effort to reform voting integrity.”
Privately, Hannity urged calm. Publicly, he fanned the flames of the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen as much as anyone else, lending his show that night to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who further stoked claims that not only was the election stolen, but that Trump still had a viable path to hold on to power.
Hannity sent the text as Trump’s efforts to stay in power didn’t quite crystallize, but instead reached a repetitive crescendo: the DOJ, Congress, the state of Georgia, and Mike Pence all faced attempts to reach beyond their authorities to keep Trump in power.
The Jan. 6 Committee’s investigation remains very much ongoing, and the information about its findings that has been released so far has been piecemeal, often coming in letters and subpoenas demanding information from a growing list of potential witnesses.
But the combination of texts, notes, and other records cited by the committee in these scattered revelations shed light on how Trump and those true believers around him grasped at anything they could that would legitimate objections to the count on Jan. 6.
When those efforts ended in catastrophe, some of the same people who had been boosting them found themselves struggling to rein Trump in.
The week in the run-up to the 6th was an insane one by any standard. On Jan. 2, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brian Raffensperger, telling him, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.”
That bid failed.
It was followed by another effort to replace the acting attorney general with Jeffrey Clark, an assistant attorney general who wanted to have the DOJ intervene on Trump’s behalf in the election results.
“I heard Jeff Clark is getting put in on Monday. That’s amazing. It will make a lot of patriots happy,” wrote an unnamed person to Meadows on Jan. 3. “And I’m personally so proud that you are at the tip of the spear and I could call you a friend.”
That evening, senior DOJ officials and Trump’s White House counsel threatened to resign if Clark were appointed during an angry meeting in the Oval Office, defeating the DOJ gambit.
Two days later, it was the eve of Jan. 6.
Again, Hannity knew that something bad was coming.
“Im very worried about the next 48 hours,” he texted Meadows on the evening of Jan. 5. “Pence pressure. WH counsel will leave.”
The same evening, as the Georgia Senate results rolled in showing a good night for Democrats, Hannity interviewed Eric Trump on his show, where the two speculated about election fraud in Georgia and discussed the rally planned for Jan. 6.
“The thing that has flabbergasted me is: no curiosity,” Hannity said, describing the claims of election fraud.
“Supposedly whistleblowers and eyewitnesses were important — but only if they’re anonymous, and hearsay, and against your dad,” he joked to the President’s son. “We had hundreds of them who signed affidavits under penalty of perjury, but no one wanted to hear.”
“You see the Stop the Steal rally tomorrow,” Eric Trump replied. “You literally have hundreds of thousands of Americans that are descending on Washington D.C. because they know exactly what happened.”
‘Not enough’
Flash forward to the next day. As Trump finished speaking, a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol.
Trump’s first public reaction, at 2:24 p.m., was to issue a tweet condemning Pence for not having “the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution.”
The White House released Trump’s video from the Rose Garden at 4:17 p.m., in which the President sympathized with the protesters’ “pain” and “hurt” following a “stolen election,” but urged them to “go home now.”
More texts released by the Jan. 6 Committee show that in the hours before that video, his staff and his family furiously tried to get the President to say or do something.
“He’s got to condemn this s—t ASAP,” Trump Jr. wrote to Meadows during the insurrection. “The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.”
Hannity, who had promoted the rally on the Ellipse the night before, texted an unnamed senior White House official: “Can he make a statement. I saw the tweet. Ask people to peacefully leave the [Capitol].”
Staff tried to find a way for someone to reach him.
“Is someone getting to potus? He has to tell protestors to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed,” read one text to an unnamed White House staffer.
“Is someone getting to potus? He has to tell protestors to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed,” read one text to an unnamed White House staffer.
That staffer replied: “I’ve been trying for the last 30 minutes. Literally stormed in outer oval to get him to put out the first one. It’s completely insane.”
It was Ivanka Trump who, according to testimony from Pence security adviser Gen. Keith Kellogg, got through, repeatedly speaking to her father.
Aftermath
In the days that followed the attack, texts released by the committee show, those in Trump’s orbit seemed to fear most of all that he might do something worse.
On Jan. 7, Hannity texted McEnany a five-point plan for speaking with the President. The final three points haven’t been released, but the first two include “no more stolen election talk” and a reminder that, “yes, impeachment and 25 th amendment are real.”
“Love that. Thank you. That is the playbook,” McEnany replied.
Hannity added that “no more crazy people” was “key now.”
Yet some potential candidates for “crazy people” did appear at the White House in the following days. MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell arrived on Jan. 15 with a sheaf of papers that had “martial law” written on them, for example.
Again, on Jan. 10, Hannity texted Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), expressing some anxiety over a conversation he had had with Trump that day.
“He can’t mention the election again. Ever. I did not have a good call with him today,” Hannity wrote. “And worse, I’m not sure what is left to do or say, and I don’t like knowing if it’s truly understood. Ideas?”
One fear that circulated at the time was of further attacks at state capitols around the country. Jan. 6. investigators are still working to determine the extent of White House communications with those behind the attack on the Capitol, though a text from Fox News host Laura Ingraham suggests that people were afraid of a repeat scenario, perhaps involving Trump, at the state level.
“Remarks on camera discouraging protest at state capit[o]ls esp with weapons will be well advised given how hot the situation is,” she wrote on Jan. 12 to Meadows. “[E]veryone needs to calm down and pray for our country and for those who lost their lives last week.”
Berkeley...
Going back more than 50 years, Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush all sought to galvanize white votes with attacks on people of color — often, though, in subtly coded communication. This year, however, is different. Not only are the racial attacks explicit, as Ross and Schickler say, but they come at time when communities of color are particularly vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic and vulnerable, as well, to persistent episodes of police violence — often committed with impunity. And, they add, Republicans are attempting to use those vulnerabilities to their advantage.
While vote suppression targeting people of color is a grim tradition in U.S. elections, this year the election process itself has become a central campaign issue. Trump has warned repeatedly, and without evidence, of Democratic efforts to rig the vote, and the allegations implicitly justify vote suppression. Democrats fear that built-in bias in the Electoral College already puts them millions of votes in the hole, and that purged voter rolls, disinformation campaigns and long voting lines could literally cost them the election.
Already, that’s setting up a historic fight over the legitimacy of the election results. Berkeley political scientist Susan D. Hyde, a specialist in “democracy backsliding,” said these efforts raise fundamental questions about the health of America’s political system.
“The assault on the right to vote is always troubling,” Hyde said, “and it is definitely on my long list of worries for the 2020 U.S. election.”
The legitimacy of our Republic depends upon the faith of our people in the legitimacy of our election.
I believe Roger when he said he is going to buy a home , get married and buy his dream car and do it all by July, 2022.
Does anyone doubt his Financial Ability and Credit Score to pull this off?
Voter ID Laws. Since 2000, at least 25 states have imposed new or stricter rules requiring voters to show identification at the polls. But Henry Brady, dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley, said an estimated 20 million or more voting-age Americans lack proper government identification, and most are people of color, young people or low-income people.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/09/29/stacking-the-deck-how-the-gop-works-to-suppress-minority-voting/
CHT, it is amazing that Roger, who has admitted to be intellectually vapid, drug and alcohol addicted (* in the past), suicidal and domestically abusive believes he has the moral high ground.
ACLU's
Voter ID Laws Deprive Many Americans of the Right to VoteMillions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification.1Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID.Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.3Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points,4 which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.5Voter ID Laws Are DiscriminatoryMinority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.7Voter ID laws reduce turnout among minority voters. Several studies, including a 2014 GAO study, have found that photo ID laws have a particularly depressive effect on turnout among racial minorities and other vulnerable groups, worsening the participation gap between voters of color and whites.8Voter ID Requirements are a Solution in Search of a ProblemIn-person fraud is vanishingly rare. A recent study found that, since 2000, there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation – the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent – during a period of time in which over 1 billion ballots were cast.9Identified instances of “fraud” are honest mistakes. So-called cases of in-person impersonation voter “fraud” are almost always the product of an elections worker or a voter making an honest mistake, and that even these mistakes are extremely infrequent.10Voter ID laws are a waste of taxpayer dollars. States incur sizeable costs when implementing voter ID laws, including the cost of educating the public, training poll workers, and providing IDs to voters.Texas spent nearly $2 million on voter education and outreach efforts following passage of its Voter ID law.11Indiana spent over $10 million to produce free ID cards between 2007 and 2010.12
The ACLU has led the charge against Voter ID in several states, challenging voter ID laws in in states such as Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. For more information, please contact Robert Hoffman at rhoffman@aclu.org or visit https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/fighting-voter-id-requirements to learn more.
Why is Biden being mocked by NBC?
Russia-Ukraine tensions need a unified NATO response. But Biden shook the alliance.
AS THEY see it.
"Jan. 22, 2022, 1:19 PM EST
By Brett Bruen, former director of global engagement in the Obama White House
Russian President Vladimir Putin won a major victory this past week, and it didn’t require him to move a single soldier or weapon into Ukraine. During a news conference at the White House Wednesday, President Joe Biden made several considerable concessions. These rhetorical retreats would not only damage and further destabilize the government in Kyiv. They also reverberated in capitals across eastern and central Europe, leaving leaders there feeling even more vulnerable to Moscow’s meddling."
Some liberal Berkeley prof says son and Roger sucks it in and swallows. Lol.
If you listen to more than one scientist, you are anti-science
Falsehoods and half-truths have consequences. Publishing flawed science to raise irrational fear, making false statements about the efficacy of treatments, and extrapolating data from one vaccine to another all constitute bad scientific practice. In normal times, scientists would not tolerate such behavior. Yet, repeatedly, federal agencies and respected organizations push recommendations that are deeply uncertain, rely on fearmongering, or provide hollow reassurances. The right answer would be to acknowledge the massive residual uncertainty surrounding these issues and embark on studies to reduce it.
We need public-health institutions in times of crisis. But if they won’t tell the truth, they don’t deserve the public’s trust. If we meet future health threats as a more polarized society, these institutions will deserve their share of the blame.
Sewing doubt in our institutions is anti science.
You listen to right wing media websites
Ballsless sucks it in and swallows. Lol.
Berkeley is one of the finest Universities in America.
But objectively thinking is beyond your abilities.
If Trump said that word is flat you would agree
https://www.city-journal.org/public-healths-truth-problem
Right wing propaganda
There it is, the daily salad.
"If Trump said that word is flat you would agree"
Election 2022
Illegitimate, Biden cast National Doubt.
Voter ID Laws. Since 2000, at least 25 states have imposed new or stricter rules requiring voters to show identification at the polls. But Henry Brady, dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley, said an estimated 20 million or more voting-age Americans lack proper government identification, and most are people of color, young people or low-income people.
And...
Does that prove anything? Nope.
Intuitively speaking someone who lives without Identification is not someone who has likely registered to vote anyways. We also have the obvious, which is that this research is an "estimate" and has no actual tangible evidence that any of it affects voting.
The reality and the only statistic that matters is simple Roger.
When these voter ID laws went into place, did minority voting go down?
Unless you can prove that minority voting went down after these voter ID laws were enacted you cannot argue that they suppress voters.
Why is it Roger... when there are REAL STATISTICS very specific to how minorities vote, are those statistics IGNORED and replaced with other "estimates" that actually do not prove what they are suggesting.
It's a simple problem Roger. If someone came to you and told you that they could change something and make it better. Would you want evidence of how these changes worked previously? Would you want to look at the other examples of how this change worked in the real world?
Or would you look for someone providing "estimates" on some data that doesn't actually prove anything specific to what is being suggested.
There is real data. The data does not show that minorities voting goes down because of voter ID Laws. End of subject.
The ACLU study reports are large on rhetoric and short on real data. They claim that voter ID laws suppress the vote by 2-3 percent but those numbers are not actually taken from the actual vote counts (which continue to go up even after voter ID laws are in effect). Those (again) are suggestions that voter turnout would have been higher if not for Voter ID (they do not represent actual voter turnout results, but rather models).
The last half dozen or so states that have added voter ID laws have still had higher turnouts that previous elections. That has been a fact almost across the board. Nationally the black turnout has increase in pretty much every election in spite of more and more state voter ID laws.
The ACLU can convince you of whatever they want.
The other 75% of American adults want voter ID laws and safer elections.
Post a Comment