Total posts: 934
Posted in:
Airmax1227: "Hey guys"
My ass thats been temp banned i think 8 times before i lost count: "Oh SHIT"
jk welcome!
Created:
Posted in:
Another update: Biden leads Warren by 15 points in FUCKIN CALIFORNIA:
The first state primary poll to come out of that state in a month (I somehow missed it until now, it came out about a week ago) has Biden listed at 33% of the vote with Warren at 18% and Sanders at 17%.... Harris, her home state being California, is only at 8%
Given how much of a liberal state California is (It's a favorite target of Trump and just about everyone who is conservative and views the state as a representation of liberal policies), for Biden to be leading at almost TWICE what Warren or Sanders has should be a massive warning to anyone who thinks that Warren is the front runner (which a lot of candidates in the most recent debate seemed to believe).
Its been established in the past that Biden has the South on lockdown (he still does, check almost any poll for southern states), so for him to have such a massive lead in California could mean Biden clinches the nomination almost from the get go. Remember, California is 5th in line for the primary season, and its massive size makes it worth almost more then the 4 previous contests combined in terms of delegate count (Iowa, NH, South Carolina, and Nevada)
For those suspicious about the poll, theres a surprise in the numbers. Polls that favor Biden tend to have responses more from older people than younger people, because older people are more likely to vote, and younger people tend to not favor Biden. In this poll though, a majority of respondents were NOT old people.
If you jump down to result Poll 8, 33% of respondents were 18 to 34, which is far and away the biggest age group of all respondents. In fact, the group that Biden does the best with (65 and up) was the SMALLEST faction of voters in the poll at just 17% of all respondents.
This larger sample of responses from younger voters compared to older voters should have indicated that Warren or Sanders would have sizable leads over Biden, but its the exact OPPOSITE. Biden has double digit leads over Warren and Sanders DESPITE the fact that the polled group of respondents would favor Warren and Sanders more. Poll 5 shows that among the amount of people who would vote for Biden, a mere 15% of people aged 18-34 would vote for him, compared to 21% for Warren and 29% for Sanders..... With Middle Aged voters Biden breaks even with Warren and Sanders (26% to 22% to 24%) and he makes up ground with voters older than 50 (40% to 50% of all voters over 50 or 65 would support Biden, compared to 15% to 17% for Warren and 12% to 2% for Sanders
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Im a Democrat and even I dont believe half the shit some of these candidates try to campaign on. To pass some of these grand proposals such as Medicare for All or free College Tuition at public universities, you need to have at least some GOP support in order to enact those policies. A lot of candidates though are simply acting like that wont be an issue, that they'll be walking into office with super majorities in the House and Senate to carry out their will at a moments notice, and thats just not the case.... While things look iffy for Trump in terms of being re-elected, the senate map heavily favors the GOP since they can easily hang on to a lot of states they currently have power in
Because of the Senate races in 2020, any policy proposal by a Dem president would need bipartisan support, and a fuckton of policies that some candidates currently campaign on will not achieve that. Beto's Assault Weapons confiscation is the easiest example I can think of that the GOP would never support, Universal Healthcare or Medicare for All is a close second.
MAYBE a Public Option can get passed. Maybe... Giving poor people decent healthcare while others can hold on to theirs all while lowering monthly costs across the board that mainly preserves the system as it currently is, I could see the GOP being willing to bite on that and go with it. I think the GOP is starting to make peace with Obamacare due to the vicious defense of it by voters that led to the GOP getting walloped during Midterms, especially compared to some of the other proposed overhauls being campaigned on.
Pete Buttigieg famously said in the first debate "I think we have to stop worrying about what Republicans will think about us". The GOP are still going to fuckin be around in 2020, thats something that will have to be reconciled and a good number of Dem candidates simply havent accepted that.
Created:
Posted in:
It's certainly possible. While the GOP have never received more than 48% of the vote in the state in this century, the Dems slipped down to 46.5% in the most recent election which certainly places the state in a 'toss up' category had this been a normal election:
The issue though is whether Trump will be playing offense or defense. A lot of Dem initiatives to try to flip states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc have merit behind the new campaigns which could force the GOP to set funds aside to defending its traditional territory, rather then go balls-to-the-wall in swing states and states that lean slightly blue. It ultimately depends on the nominee for the Dems but its certainly not out of the realm of impossibility for the GOP to get the state.
Created:
I think the big reason why Turkey has been relatively undisciplined by EU or NATO is because there are so many other bad actors in the situation that Turkey looks like the good guys.... Syria is ruled by a dictator who has gassed his own people, a fair amount of the rebels fighting against Assad are former ISIS members or Jihadi sympathizers who want to use Syria as a base for launching new operations in other countries, and both Assad and the rebels are being propped up by other nations with very worrying agendas and goals such as the Russians, Iranians, Saudis, Israelis, etc.
Turkey may be a D student, but in a class where they are surrounded by students who get F's and eat glue, they look like the responsible one, which is why I think everyone else is letting them off the hook at the moment since everything else is on fire while Turkey is just smoldering/smoking
Created:
Posted in:
I actually held out some hope for him as well, from the outset, despite how much of a negative opinion I had of him before he even took office.
I hoped that, in an effort to try to beat Obama at every possible metric, Trump would stuff his cabinet and administration with only the most highly qualified and non partisan officials who all had decades of experience in their fields. That these people would not only be the best people for their jobs, they would curtail Trumps many bad qualities and keep the country functioning, on the right path.
Instead he has done almost the exact opposite. Hes put idiots like Steve Munchin, Besty DeVos, and Rick Perry in charge of administrations they have no business being in charge of, and other picks like Tillerson or Mattis or even Nikki Haley who had some respectability about them ended up being forced out because they werent yes-men who would cater to his every order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You seem to be unable to figure out the difference between people hoping in on an inside joke and when people are being genuinely serious.
Always a shame when people such have no ability to divide reality from satire, though it is the natural result of people who have poor understanding of language or such infantile concepts such as 'context' and 'sarcasm'. Hopefully you will one day be on par with everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Doesn't RM have like every medal on the site? Why is a vote even necessary?
I thought something similar.... Early on in the site RM was far and away one of the more prolific and high profile posters, both in the forums and on debates, to the point that when medals were first introduced he racked them up within no time at all. Anything that had his name on it or in it immediately became must-see content, for better or worse, especially since for a while there wasnt a lot of activity on the site.
To rig a nomination for someone who probably had the best odds of being inducted anyways? Its like rigging a car race between a Prius, a Dodge charger, a Polish tank from WW2 without its main turret, and a horse with a busted leg in favor of the Charger. Like no shit was it going to win, rigging it in their favor is just a monumental waste of effort.
Created:
Posted in:
SUBSTANTIAL UPDATE:
While AOC's favorability among Bernie supporters was only around 50% or so, her support among Warren supporters was up in the 60 percentile range, making her defection to Bernie that much more noticable.
"Ocasio-Cortez's favorability shoots up among Sanders' supporters, 55% of whom have a favorable view of the lawmaker.
But the 30-year-old Bronx native is most popular among voters who support Warren — 63% have a favorable opinion of AOC, which makes her endorsement of Sanders particularly harmful to the Massachusetts lawmaker."
But the 30-year-old Bronx native is most popular among voters who support Warren — 63% have a favorable opinion of AOC, which makes her endorsement of Sanders particularly harmful to the Massachusetts lawmaker."
It gets worse (or better, depending on who you are supporting in the Dem Primary) Based on polls taken way the hell back in July,
Now while I dont buy for a second that Hillary Clinton is somehow less powerful of an endorsement than AOC, or that fuckin Jimmy Carter's endorsement somehow carries more weight than either of them, the fact that AOC is effectively on the same tier as those two is important to note, particularly for Sanders since her endorsement holds the most importance among Warren supporters, who Warren and Sanders are currently in competition over.
The polling does indicate that 45% of Biden's supporters also view AOC in a favorable light, but given the ideological gap between the two and the assumption that she would not have endorsed Biden under almost any circumstance, her endorsement of Sanders will not have nearly as big of a sway on Biden's numbers as it will for Warren
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I dont know if its referring to Bill Clinton's anus, Hillary Clinton's mouth, an orifice on Monica Lewinsky, or a mysterious self inflicted gunshot wound on someone who is barely related to any of the other three
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
They are entirely unofficial.
God dammit i WANT a title. 'Politics Forum Overseer', "Political Fuckery-Hole Monitor', "Queen Bench of Arendelle" I WANT A TITLE
Created:
For those of you who dont know but want something hilarious to laugh at, Billionaire Dem candidate Bob Steyer, who recently entered the crowded Dem field later than anyone else, has been using his massive personal wealth to fund his political campaign, doing so at such a crazy ass degree that he has outspent every other Dem candidate COMBINED on tv ads in the first four primary states, which do not begin voting for another four months.
Steyer has spent approximately $48 million of his own wealth on about 53,000 tv ads in the first four primary states. 20,000 have those aired in just the state of Iowa alone. This is about 8 times as many TV ads as the rest of the field COMBINED, but theres an interesting detail to this story that could easily be overlooked.
Steyer's financial fuckery aside, the Wall Street Journal article (first link) also includes a table showing the Dem candidates who have purchased the most ads on television. In first place by an almost retardedly large margin is Steyer with over 53,300 tv ads, compared to Buttigieg in second place at just under 1,700.... Where the list gets interesting though is the noticable LACKING of big name candidates who are polling incredibly well.... Of the candidates with the most ads purchased on television, none of the top 5 have regularly polled above 7% (Buttigieg), and a majority have never polled higher than 3% (Steyer, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, and Michael Bennett)
Biden comes in at 6th place with almost 900 tv ads (remember, Steyer has purchased 53 THOUSAND), while Bernie comes in at 8th at 730. Elizabeth Warren is not even on the list, and you can tell she didnt release any ads because the list does include Joe Sestak, who only has 10.
With Biden, Warren, and Sanders far and away being the leaders of the race with what must be 75% of all votes, all three of them put together have aired fewer tv ads in early states combined (about 1,600) then Buttigieg and Steyer, and the big 3 almost aired fewer ads combined then Tulsi Gabbard or John Delaney (1,400 + 1,300 respectively)
With Steyer polling less than 4% in a majority of early states that he has spent a literal fuckton of money on, and with the hyper-big candidates combined being outspent on tv ads by political nobodies, all evidence indicates that (at least for primary elections) tv advertising is just a giant money pit that doesnt improve performance. Candidates who have spent massive amount of money on tv advertising are still at the bottom of the barrel in polling, while big candidates have hardly spent any money on ads and still get 20% or more percent of the vote.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There's still the Senate that has to greenlight the proposal which skews more heavily in the GOP's favor, but even if they do pass it then its on Congress that we are still stuck in Syria rather then pulling out of the region. Specifically maybe Mitch McConnell if he isnt able to keep the GOP from voting with Dems to condemn the move
Created:
Posted in:
I thought the same thing as well but If you dont count that one poll from The Hill/HarrisX that puts Warren way down at 15% (she clearly is at at least 20%) then her average margin is about 25% instead of 23.4%..... I Know RCP cant just blatantly ignore certain polls that have obviously inaccurate results, otherwise be accused of massive bias, but it does distort things a bit when some polls are clearly off the mark yet are taken into account anyways
Looking at just HarrisX polls they actually seem to repeatedly post numbers with Warren doing noticeably worse compared to other polls. Last couple of polls from Harris theyve conducted have Warren at 15%, 17%, 14%, 12%, and 13% dating back to the end of August, which have consistently been the lowest numbers for Warren out of any regular poll taking group
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I was personally leaning more towards renaming it 'Overseer of the Political Fuckery Hole" But I think one of the Clintons had that copyrighted in reference to an anus, so the name is off limits
Created:
Posted in:
This thread is a teaser to formally announce that I intend to run for Secretary of the Politics forum. Platform to follow. I hope that many of you join me on this journey
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I can't fathom how or why or what motivated AOC to back an old white male when AOC is the flag banner carrier of the SJW movement for intersectional equality. I'm literally speechless.
I did a little digging and while Bernie didn't endorse her for the US House when she was campaigning against the Dem incumbent at the time, she did work as an organizer for Bernie in 2016 during his first run: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Early_career.
It doesnt really solidify the reason for her allegiance, at the time it was Bernie or Hillary so there was only one leftist candidate in the race, but apparently she sees a lot in Bernie she simply doesnt see in Warren, despite the fact that Warren literally penned AOC's entry for the Time 100 most influential people edition.
Created:
Posted in:
Only Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore (Maybe Chuck Schumer) are the other big name people that have substantial weight behind their endorsement that could be won at this stage and shake up the race apart from AOC and members of the Squad. By endorsing Bernie and being the first big names to do so, Sanders gets a big win out of this and Warren is back to square 1 in trying to put distance between her and Bernie
Created:
Posted in:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the freshman representative from NY more commonly known as the bane of existence to Republican politicians and republican supporters despite the fact that she is essentially irrelevant and holds no actual power, might have just done the exact thing Biden needed to happen that Warren was trying to avoid at all cost: Endorse Sanders and bring new life to his campaign.
Just when it seemed that Warren was finally coalescing the left wing part of the Dem base around her candidacy, AOC as well as other members of 'The Squad', which also consists of freshmen house representatives with no actual power but somehow have influence simply because the right wing vilifies them so much, have thrown their support behind Bernie Sanders in the Dem primary. This is a big development because, despite how little AOC and 'the Squad' matter, they are perhaps the highest profile endorsement that was up for grabs as of right now.
- Barack Obama wont endorse anyone until the general election begins (As he did last time when it was Hillary vs Bernie)
- Hillary herself has remained VERY quiet and almost certainly wont give an endorsement until much later in the nomination race, if she doesnt wait until the general election to endorse someone as well
- Bill Clinton would almost be a liability as an endorsement and because Hillary's endorsement carries more weight he will stay quiet
- Jimmy Carter is basically irrelevant since a good chunk of voters werent even alive when Carter was president
- The far left senators in Congress that hold the most influence are themselves running for president and not available to endorse anyone
There basically was not a high profile endorsement that could be won at this point in the race outside of AOC and members of the Squad, and their endorsement of Sanders is a big deal.
Just about anyone could have figured out that Biden would not have received their endorsement, nor any of the other candidates who poll below 6% apart from maybe Harris (a fellow woman of color), leaving Warren and Sanders as the ones most likely to get their endorsement. Given the fear that left wing voters have that Warren and Sanders splitting the base could hand Biden the nomination, and also the facts that Warren has done better than Sanders for a good chunk of the race now and is even rivaling Biden as the frontrunner, this endorsement for Sanders is a substantial problem for Warren and her camp.... Sanders was on the verge of slipping out of contention since just recently he was at risk of not winning any delegates in 3 of the first 4 primaries (his numbers have since improved, and will continue to do so). With this endorsement though, Bernie has fresh ammunition to argue that he is the flag-bearer of ultra-liberal policies, which will surely lure voters from the Warren camp over to his side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Common mistake, I recently lost 350 pounds
by cutting my ex girlfriend out of my life.
Created:
Posted in:
3 - Black and Hispanic voters still up for grabs
Between the two Dem candidates polling the best, Biden and Warren, the percentage of black voters and hispanic voters who are undecided in how they feel over Biden and Warren are still at very high numbers.
For Biden, 17% of black voters and 18% of hispanic voters dont know how they feel about him yet:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf = PG 107
For Warren, 27% of black voters and 22% of hispanic voters dont know how they feel about her for right now:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf = PG 139
With Warren and Biden being as close in the polls as they are, and with everyone else in the race desperate for any electorate still up for grabs to add to their base, the fact that there is still such a large chunk of minority voters up for grabs is surprising, and whichever candidates can capitalize on this can extend their campaign for months or propel themselves into the outright lead. For Warren as an example, Hispanic favorability for her is 39% in favor and 38% against, while black support is 61% in her favor and only 12% against. If Warren could swing her campaign in a way to make hispanics view her campaign as favorably as black voters do, it could leapfrog her past Biden well into the lead, and help her in states with hispanic populations such as Nevada, California, and Texas which have early primaries.
Biden, for the sake of comparison, is in almost the same situation as Warren when it comes to minority support. 41% of Hispanics support him while 40% are against him, but for black voters Biden enjoys 68% overall approval while only 15% disapprove of him.
To really illustrate how much minority voters are up for grabs, candidates who are the same race as minority voters overall are still unknown by minority voters themselves.
Corey Booker, who is black, has 39% of black voters not have an opinion on him, and those that do only support him 43% to 18%, a worse margin than either Biden or Warren: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf = PG 109
Kamala Harris, who is black, does a bit better with only 28% of black voters undecided on her, but again, only 49% of black voters who do have an opinion on her support her while 24% do not. Again a ratio that Biden and Warren beat https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf = PG 121
Julian Castro, the most hispanic of all candidates in the race, is unknown by 34% of hispanics, and those that do know him dont favor him, by a margin of 27% favorable to 39% unfavorable https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf = PG 115
With minority candidates struggling this much to lure minority voters to their base, anyone who does manage to win over those who are still undecided could boost their campaign out of the dead zone into relevancy, from the lower tier up to the high tier, or from the high tier into the outright lead. Whether these voters will back someone before primary contests start taking place remains to be seen, as these voters could very well be willing to back anyone over Donald Trump at this point, and are sitting out the primary cycle since they will support that candidate regardless of who ultimately emerges as the nominee.
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry I havent posted in here in a while, there was a good week or so without any solid poll updates and the main poll I do like to use (Economist/YouGov) has been rather erratic recently with 6 point swings for Biden and Warren on a weekly basis. Now that we've got a new batch we can dissect things a bit:
1 - Warren now regularly polling in the 20% range
Apart from one poll on 10/7 that has Warren at 15% (Which is almost certainly horse shit and I'm not even a big Warren fan) Warren now regularly is polling in the 20% range averaging 23% to 27%. RCP has her average at 23.4% but thats because the bs 15% poll is warping the numbers lower then what they are. With Biden polling back and forth between 25% and 31%, Warren's stronger polling places her within spitting distance of Biden at second place. Bernie meanwhile is lagging at a now distant third place, polling between 13% and 16% a full 10 points behind Warren now.
A quick glance at the overall trends show that when Harris bit off a lot of Biden's support following the first debate performance, those former Biden supporters have since gravitated towards Warren's camp rather then back to Biden. This is evidenced by Harris's decline since the debate (exactly 10.0% since July 4th) while Biden's numbers have been about the same since the same date (27% to 29%).... That 10% Harris lost that Biden never regained can clearly be seen being absorbed by Warren, who since July 4th has seen her numbers increase by almost that exact margin (+9.9% since July 4th).
2 - It's possible that Biden's remaining supporters are his core base that will be difficult for him to lose
The transition of the voter bloc that went from Biden to Harris following the first debate, and then from Harris to Warren ever since lends credence to a theory that those voters were wavering Biden supporters who were waiting to jump ship to a different candidate the first chance they got. Harris following her strong performance in the first debate, began to rival both Warren and Sanders in polling where all candidates were around 13% to 15%. With Harris not being as far to the left as Warren or Sanders though, Biden voters who were itching for another more moderate candidate to back switched from Biden to Harris and then migrated over to the Warren camp rather then back to Biden
This all entirely theoretical though. It's equally possible that there are still wavering Biden supporters who are willing to jump ship but just werent impressed with Kamala Harris following her performance in the first debate. Maybe they would back Buttigieg or Beto O'Rourke if they suddenly surged in the polls or had strong debate performances. It's worth noting though that even if this were the case, the distance between Biden and the rest of the more moderate candidates still in the race is oceanic in size..... Buttigieg and Harris are around 5% in support well outside of the top tier of candidates in the race, while others like Beto or even Andrew Yang poll closer to 3% and are in even worse shape. Booker, Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, and Castro all struggle to get north of 1% in the same. This means that the chances of one of these more moderate candidates surging in polls by a large enough margin to make Biden supporters completely reconsider their support is almost impossible, indicating the remaining 25% or so that supports Biden will likely remain with him through the remainder of the race, or even grow once the lesser moderate/centrist candidates begin to drop out.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The entire existence of these terrorist groups though is to wage jihad against 'enemies of Islam' though, and the groups that carry out the most attacks in the name of Islam are usually the ones that convince the most recruits to join them since that group appears to the one actually fighting the jihad the most. if we were to pull out of the Middle east we would be doing so acknowledging that these groups are going to continue to be massive dicks, and that we will have to play defense against them. I believe though that is what we should do since constant intervention into every conflict that bubbles up is just as fruitless, but approx 5 times as costly.We make peace deals with the terrorists that we will stop all operations on them. All they have to do is not attack us
But the Kurds may become the next Taliban
I think thats a bit of a stretch. The Kurds have their own ethnic identity and are interested in maintaining that culture despite being spread out across numerous countries. Spreading religious beliefs to foreign areas by force isnt really one of their priorities, especially in comparison to some of the other groups fighting in Syria against Assad at the moment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Kind of missed the point there by not reading all the way through it, but the point is using your example that you would be trading in a pricey gun for numerous lesser but still fairly decent guns, at a good price that benefits you and also is optional and not forced
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I would support stricter rules on handguns and less stringent ones on 'scary' weapons.
I do to a degree as well, but the problem is that the GOP will fiercely object to stricter handgun rules while the Democrats will fiercely object to laxer rules on guns that have arbitrarily been deemed 'scary'.... The whole point of this proposal is to try to circumvent the asinine levels of political objection that both parties raise over gun law proposals and make a bit of progress in resolving differences both sides have over gun laws in the country.
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry Im late, was busy doing other stuff that isnt at all productive to the betterment of my life nor anyone else's
PPL:
RationalMadman
Virtuoso
Bsh
DEBATES:
Firing Squad is the best form of the Death Penalty
FORUMS:
Gonna do a little self promotion here and nominate my 'Running Primary Poll Thread' ( https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2321/running-primary-poll-thread) because 1) I have a massive ego, 2) It is one of the longer threads in one of the busiest forums on the site that I do try to update regularly with content that adds to the discussion, and 3) Ive put a lot of research and effort into that thing, its not just a spam thread
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The +15% credit in addition to what you get for the value of the gun your turning in can only be used for purchasing other guns, you dont get it all back in straight cash
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It is a pathetic state of affairs when all those bleeding heart liberals.... are now demanding that the President should attack Iran
Ive literally never heard a single Democrat claim that the US should attack Iran. I don't know where you get your information from, but you need to find some new ones because right now you sound stupid as shit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Its mainly to pacify Dems who want to continue their crusade against the AR 15 and other weapons that have been deemed 'unnecessary' while still preserving 2nd amendment rights and actually incentivizing AR 15 owners to make the exchange since they would be getting good market value for it in exchange that can be used to purchase other guns, ammo, accessories, etc.. I'm assuming the intent is to switch out semi-automatics for semi-automatics that just look different?
But you may as well shovel money in a bonfire otherwise.
It wouldnt be nearly that expensive.... Gun buyback programs that have been tried in major cities usually only cost a couple hundred thousand dollars depending on the scope of the buybacks and whatnot, a nationwide program that targets mainly AR15's and the more controversial weapons that can be legally purchased would hypothetically only run a cost of $10 million or so at the most. That cost could be lowered if the guns offered in exchange came from excess armaments held by the US military as well
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Would this plan also involve a ban on selling more AR-15's? It seems like it would have to.
I actually don't think it would have to because a restriction on additional manufacturing of more AR15's could start to get entangled in the legality of the 2nd Amendment, and avoiding a question over legality that could be inflamed by personal political stances was what this proposal is meant to avoid in the first place.
Also, would this be market value at the time the gun buyback is started? Because this would inevitably raise the price of an AR-15.
DredPirates mentioned good info that most guns turned in for buyback programs are often busted or damaged, so the price offered in exchange for the devices would be whatever they are worth + 15% added on, not the original $1500 flat price +15% I initially proposed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Solid details. Thanks for the insight, my knowledge of what usually transpires with gun buyback programs is effectively nothing.
In light that most guns traded in are already busted, the '$1500' mark I initially went with at first could instead be replaced with whatever value the gun is worth depending on condition, with the 15% added on top of that, rather then a flat $1500 benchmark to start with.....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well naturally this idea wouldnt fly with 100% of people, especially those who care about gun control/gun rights as one of their top issues.
The overall goal was a middle-of-the-road idea that could be [potentially supported by people on different sides of the political spectrum, rather then continue the current discourse of 'Take All Guns' vs 'Guns For Everyone' which so far is leading us nowhere and just turns every mass shooting event into a politicized shitfest
Created:
Posted in:
Ever since Beto O'Rourke announced his intention to have a forced gun buyback for Assault weapons and Ak 47's (An idea I dont think will even have any effect, let alone be legal) there's this other idea that I've been weighing around in my head that might be something Dems and the GOP could actually go with. The overall idea is that rather then having a gun buyback program, where the government gives cash for guns they want to see off the streets and offer market value for them, to instead use a gun exchange program. In this program, people who own guns that the US or the public has, for whatever reason, decided they dont want out on the streets, can bring in those guns and trade them for different guns and ammunition, where the exchange is in their favor and is still optional.
Here's what im basing this off of
1 - Democrats seem to have it out for AR15's and any weapon that looks like it could be used by the military
2 - Democrats are overall very okay with the idea of citizens owning pistols and handguns
3 - Republicans are very against any program that forces citizens to give up or exchange weapons that were legally purchased
4 - Republicans are against any program that would seemingly be in violation of the broad rights defended by the 2nd Amendment
5 - Republicans are wary of what the government would decide is 'fair value' compensation for the guns they want out of private ownership.
A gun buyback program, especially one that is forced and not optional for gun owners to decline, would run into a literal fuckton of problems in terms of becoming law, staying legal, and being enforced and carried out. A gun exchange program on the other hand could incentivize owners of AR15's and other 'scary' weapons to trade in those guns in exchange for more socially acceptable guns, and do so at a rate that financially is more in their favor. An AR-15 goes for about $700 to $2500 depending on options/upgrades that go with the gun. The average rifle goes for $600 to $1000, while shotguns go for $500 to $800. (based on a quick google search and admittedly not much deeper research). Pistols and handguns come in at the cheapest, ranging from $250 to $400
In a hypothetical Gun Exchange Program where sellers get 15% more credit than the market value of their gun (to incentivize AR15 owners to sell their guns for a good deal), An owner of an AR-15 that is worth $1500 could trade that in for ANY of the following options: ($1500 +15% = $1725 to spend)
- 2 Hunting Rifles priced at $850 each
- 1 Hunting Rifle, 1 Shotgun, and 1 Pistol (Priced $800, $600, and $300 respectively)
- 2 Shotguns at $650 each and a very high quality pistol for $400
- 4 high quality handguns at $400 each with $125 left over for ammo
- 6 basic handguns at $250 each with $225 left over for ammo
- $1725 worth of ammunition for other guns that the gun owner also owns besides the AR15
Not only would this help get the 'bad guns' that Dems seems to have a huge issue with off the streets, it would not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights since it does not force people to make the exchange, and also allows sellers to exchange those guns for other guns as part of their 2nd Amendment right. The rifles and shotguns and pistols could come from leftover military supplies not being used (mainly handguns for this one) or weapons that local law enforcement took as part of criminal proceedings they do all the time (Rifles and other shotguns). A 15% bonus would incentivize gun owners to consider making the exchange since the exchange is considerably designed in their favor where they could trade in an AR-15 for anywhere from 2 to 6 other guns + ammo with cash left over.
This is still something Im really toying with because there doesnt seem to be a lot of instances of this being tried in the US. All the research I can find only points to gun buyback programs where gun owners turn in weapons for straight cash rather then exchanging them for other firearms. Just from the details that I have described about this though, would you guys support an idea along these lines? If so or not, please explain why and list your political ideology with it, I kind of want to see where people with different views would stand on an idea like this
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I agree with you that Syria is screwed as long as the war continues and that Turkey can go fuck a duck, but with both the Iranians and the Russians willing to prop up Assad at all costs (Assad is close friends with Iran and Russia's number 1 weapons buyer is Syria) there's not much we can do to resolve the situation short of a full on intervention which a vast majority of Americans just dont want to commit to.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Sorry
TLDR = The whole region is unstable as fuck, and long term we would be far better off exiting the region completely like we're now doing with Syria, rather then keep trying to ally with every group in the region that is willing to just to preserve what temporary stability can be found
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I just don't want this to be a message to any future groups that are thinking about helping the US: that we will use them to help with our goals, and then immediately leave them to die.
That goes both ways though, a lot of groups that the US has allied with in the past have done that just for their own material benefit rather then because its the right thing to do. The most obvious example of this is how Pakistan accepted fucktons of aid following 9/11 to help with the war in Afghanistan, and most of that money instead has gone to beefing up its military against India.... They may have had some slight interest in knocking out the taliban regime next door, but they would have said yes to anything if it meant about $600 billion in aide from the US. Even the Kurds themselves are guilty of this to some degree, you could argue that the reason they bore the brunt of the fight against ISIS was because they hoped to be granted independence and be given their own lands to govern after the conflict ended.
With the Middle East in particular, there's no guarantee that the groups of people we would want to ally with now will still be our allies a few years down the road, or even exist at all. Kings and rulers who have held power for 40 years in powerful countries are swept aside in weeks, and if rulers with modern air forces and mechanized vehicles cant stay stable, groups of 'freedom fighters' that pop up into existence when a new conflict breaks out don't face much better odds.
I understand the message your concerned about sending if it were to countries in regions that are more stable. South America, Asia, Latin America, and Europe all have nations that the US can ally with for decades at a time. In the Middle East though everything is so volatile and temporary that there's a chance kicking allied groups to the curb has no effect 5 years down the line
Created:
Posted in:
Super minor update: Another poll from North Carolina conducted about a week ago has been released and it holds tremendous news for Biden as a candidate.
Previously in the state (Mid September) it was Biden 31%, Sanders 20%, and Warren 15%.... Now the numbers have improved in Biden's favor, he currently leads the state with 39% while Warren has 22% and Sanders caved in to 6%... (Buttigieg pulled in 9%) https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6874.html#polls
The 8% gain by Biden and 7% gain by Warren both appear to came from the 14% that Bernie lost, which now puts him well below the 15% requirement needed to actually win delegates from a state contest in the primary (as discussed in one of my other threads)
This strongly reinforces the perception that Biden effectively has the southern United States on complete lockdown, and a handful of surprise victories in other states like Ohio or Illinois would likely be enough to propel Biden into the general election as the Dem nominee
Created:
For the life of me I don't understand why people hold decades old mistakes politicians made in office against them when it comes to supporting certain policy proposals.... Circumstances change, more evidence is brought to light, results dont pan out... It's okay to shift your policy stance on an issue after taking into account effects of such policies or new information that alters perception. Gay Marriage for example wasn't legal in any state until Massachusetts allowed it in 2004, now there are supreme court cases arguing that the rights of gay people have full constitutional protection.People change and what happens a decade ago isn't a representation of them now or at the very least unfair to criticize when they haven't tried to implement that currently
The Iraq War was another good example, where people were led to believe the war would go fairly quickly, order would be restored after Saddam was ousted with ease, and the region as a whole would be better off for it, since we had a pretty similar success story with the First Gulf War when the US and its allies pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.... After the clusterfuck that happened this time around though, people are naturally far more hesitant to green light massive intervention and less interventionist primarily because the Second Gulf War turned into such a shitshow that nobody really saw coming.... Even initially supporting the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2 as a precaution I could understand due to the surprise attack of Pearl Harbor and deep cultural roots and mythology that Japanese people have, WW2 literally changed everything so its forgivable if people altered their beliefs before and after the conflict occurred.
Now if a politician previously supported something truly heinous, THAT is worth considering and taking into account. Thinking lynchings are okay for example would be flat out unacceptable. Believing journalists should be killed if they report bad stories, whites the superior race, use nukes in warfare without restraint.... Only super unacceptable beliefs like that should disqualify candidates from consideration even if they've shifted their stances since then, just because their extremist beliefs on those issues almost certainly match other extremist beliefs that the person may be concealing.
But stances on drug enforcement bills from 20+ years ago? Not being in favor of Gay Marriage when it didnt even start becoming legal in the US until around 2004? It's understandable to see why candidates leaned towards a certain kind of thinking at a certain time in history but have changed their minds since then. Thats just being aware that the world is not static and is always changing and revealing new details
Created:
Worst case scenario is that multiple government collapse, mass exoduses take place, and sporadic wars break out between different groups that have bitten off a chunk of territory from a nation that otherwise cant hold itself together... How is that any different from what we have already though? Read the list I mentioned before and this time keep in mind that all this happened DESPITE widespread US intervention in these countries either financially, through military operations, or both.
By pulling out of Syria we pretty much fuck the Kurds. Yes it's unfortunate, they've been good allies for us in the past and we should be thankful to them for fucking ISIS for us.... But every time the US tries to ally itself with a group in the Middle East the same thing happens, a specific enemy is eliminated or reduced to irrelevancy, the allegiances of all groups and forces involved in the conflict get reshuffled, and some groups we previously funded and provided weapons to begins to view us as the enemy deserving of some Jihad (See the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980's) causing another round of infighting and instability. Short term this leads to considerable instability, but its necessary to completing the long term goal of leaving keeping the region somewhat stable by letting the cards fall the way they inevitably will rather then spend trillions over time to try to make things fall in a way that is better for our short term desires.
Created:
For those who dont know, Trump recently announced a withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria as part of an agreement where Turkish forces to the north will swoop in and handle the areas themselves. This would most negatively impact the Kurds, a religious minority located in Northern Iraq and parts of neighboring countries along the northern Iraqi border, who have long been the subject of persecution and attacks by Turkish forces. The fact that Turkey has grown far more authoritarian over a very short period of time also does not bode well for the well being of the Kurds, who played a key role in rolling back ISIS out of Iraq since Iraqi forces themselves are laughably inept.
Basically, the pull out out of Syria leaves maybe the one decent ally the US has in the Middle East at the complete mercy of a corrupt authoritarian regime after they did us a massive favor in beating the shit out of ISIS for us while we relied on drone warfare.
Democrats and Republicans alike have condemned the move, even Pentagon officials commented that they were not consulted about the decision before Trump went ahead with it, but I am in favor of the move... My personal belief is that the Middle East is an overall shitshow where a complete withdrawal from the region would be in the US's best interest. No country in the Middle East is worth allying with at the moment and havent been for at least 10 to 20 years now, either because of instability, inherent corruption, or both.
- Egypt at one point was governed by the Muslim Brotherhood and is now basically under military occupation after multiple regime changes made by force took place all within this decade.
- Syria has triggered the biggest migration crisis in the world and is ruled by a man who has used chemical weapons against his own people and is being propped up by Iran and Russia
- Yemen is in the middle of a Civil War themselves as part of a proxy war being fought between the Saudis and Iranians
- Iran is funding factions in Syria and Yemen that have intensified ongoing conflicts there already, as well as funding hyper religious groups like Hezbollah actively attempting to destabilize Israel and other countries in the region
- Saudi Arabia is an oppressive oil kingdom that is using its military might to bend neighboring countries to their own will rather than being a stabilizing force in the region.
- Israel is ruled by a religious fundamentalist who has been itching to go to war with Iran for a decade now while repeatedly trampling the rights of Muslims within the country to turn Israel into a truly Jewish state, all while spying on the US at rates that almost rival China.
- Qatar is using its wealth based off of natural gas to try to muscle its way into the power struggle, and is actively trying to interfere with the goals and ambitions of both Iran and Saudi Arabia rather then use their wealth to focus on themselves.
- Iraq is basically an Iranian satellite state since the Shia minority government we put in power have effectively ceded authority of the area to the Iranians in exchange for bribes and/or religious beliefs
- Jordan is teetering on collapse because of rampant austerity cuts made by their king that bludgeoned the lower and middle classes while also disproportionally funding any initiative that undermines Israel.
- Afghanistan is once again being swallowed up by Taliban forces because they still rank near the bottom of the world in every economic quality despite nearly 20 years of occupational security by US forces
- Pakistan has used the wealth granted to it by the US to beef up its faceoff with India rather then be a security safezone in the eastern part of the region
The only countries that have at least not contributed to regional instability are Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, though each has a number of concerning human rights abuses and disproportionate wealth gap between the very rich and the middle class.
The point is, I dont see any country in the Middle East that is worth risking region wide instability or accepting the risk of future terrorism attacks just to prop up. The entire region is basically the grounds for a three way religious holy war between Jewish Israel, Sunni Saudi Arabia, and Shi'ite Iran where any country the US sets up shop in just becomes another target for either regimes or terrorist radicals to potentially target. Our newfound oil wealth thanks to fracking has also reduced our national energy dependence on the region, so we can afford to get out of the entanglement now more than ever.
By pulling out of Syria, and effectively saying 'you know what, fuck it', we take that first step towards getting out of the mess. The next steps are to pull out troops from Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. The smaller of a footprint the US leaves in the Middle East, the smaller of a chance that the US or its citizens and allies becomes from targeted by forces that could attack us, or inspire those within our borders to launch attacks of their own.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why are you surprised?
Well I figured that either Warren or Sanders would be setting themselves up to fail by one of them not being able to be the perceived representation of the far-liberal part of the party, I just didn't realize how badly that failure could actually be. If you cant win a single delegate in 3 of the first 4 primaries then shit, that candidate is no stronger than Booker or Castro or any of the candidates who arent Biden or Warren.
For Sanders to be at substantial risk of not winning a single delegate in 3 of the first 4 primaries after trailing Warren and Biden for a good chunk of the race, its the equivalent of going into the 4th quarter down 43 to 7, and then somehow losing points before the game ends. Like shit it didnt look good going in, but I didnt expect THIS kind of a faceplant.
Created:
Here's the thing..... It's not all doom and gloom as of right now. Sanders is doing fairly terrible in the early states, but he still hits 15% in other polls for somewhat important states.... https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
While Bernie whiffs on three of the first four primaries, he has still stayed north of 15% in other states like Wisconsin (17%), California (21%), Ohio (27%), and North Carolina (20%). If his support doesn't collapse following his performance in the first 4 states, he could still do well enough to get delegates in later contests and keep his campaign relevant.... It is pure speculation though if Sanders will be able to maintain his support or lose it to other candidates though. While Sanders may arguably have the most loyal and stubborn base of supporters of any candidate, bad performances in the first primaries can ruin once promising candidates.
Regardless of what happens, whether it be his support bottoming out completely, holding still but failing to hit 15% at key moments (He polls 14.3% nationally), or some sort of middle ground between the two, the main takeaway from all this is that the 15% requirement rule is going to turbofuck Bernie in the early primaries, and have potential ripple effects on the rest of his campaign, barring a substantial turnaround before the primary states start voting.
Created:
Quick crash course on Dem primaries: While GOP primaries occasionally utilized a 'Winner Take All' system as they did in 2016 that awards all delegates to whoever wins the state overall in a primary, Dem's always use a 'Proportional Allocation' system in primary contests. In this system, the number of delegates that are up for grabs for a state are divided among candidates based on how well they poll in the state during the time of the vote. If the top candidates get 28%, 22%, and 17% of the vote from voters, then they get 28%, 22%, and 17% of delegates in the state accordingly..... Both systems have advantages and disadvantages, but the key detail for Proportional Allocation is the cut-off line. After a certain percentage, any candidate who falls below that line and fails to get a certain percentage of the vote fails to qualify for ANY delegates, due to general irrelevancy.
Up to this point, I was under the assumption that the cutoff line for the Dem Primaries was around 10% at most due to the number of candidates in the field. It turns out though that the cutoff is at 15% https://www.270towin.com/content/thresholds-for-delegate-allocation-2020-democratic-primary-and-caucus
This is a MASSIVE fucking problem for Sanders, and it considerably fucks Warren as well...... Warren and Biden can hit 15% in just about any state in their sleep, but Sanders on the other hand has struggled in many early contests to get past 15% based on polling. Of the first four primaries in the Dem presidential primary (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina), Sanders only hits north of 15% in ONE of those states, and its not even the state you think it would be.
In Iowa, 3 polls had Sanders at an average of 12%, with one poll putting Sanders at 16% max, a hair above the 15% threshold needed to get delegates: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
In New Hampshire, the two most recent polls indicate Sanders has hemorrhaged half of his entire support in the state to Warren, and is now down to about 11.5% support if both recent polls prove to be accurate: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html
In South Carolina, Sanders can barely hit 10% total, let alone 15%, making is almost assured he will walk out of the state empty-handed: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6824.html
Only in Nevada does Sanders poll north of the 15% threshold needed to win delegates within the state. Recent polls put him at 14% and 22%, with an earlier poll from a month ago having him near 29%... Regardless of where his support truly lies, its safe to assume its somewhere in the high teens above 15% for now: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nv/nevada_democratic_presidential_caucus-6866.html
-----
Because you need 15% to win delegates in a Dem Primary, and because Sanders only regularly polls above 15% in Nevada due to the recent downslides he's suffering, it's quite possible that Sanders does not win a single delegate from 3 of the first 4 presidential primaries in the contest.
If he stays below 15% early on, it could effect his level of turnout later on, (Sanders supporters might begin to reconsider their support if it appears that Sanders cant even win delegates, let alone the entire primary, and flip their support elsewhere) but it could effect Warren in a massively negative fashion as well
Prevailing belief up to this point, which included myself, was that if there was a contested nomination where no Dem candidate gets an outright majority, Sanders as the likely 3rd place finisher would choose to support Warren over Biden, and give her enough votes to make her the nominee. This assumption though was based off the idea that Sanders would have a good chunk of delegates he won from the primaries to transfer in the first place.... But because primary rules require a hefty 15% support in a state to win delegates though, Sanders may not have a large enough faction to swing a contested primary at the very end to begin with, or even get enough delegates to force a contested election and someone instead wins an outright majority.
That effects Warrens odds in the long term, Here's where it impacts Warren in the short term though.... Warren and Sanders share a lot of the same base, the more leftist wing of the democratic party. Up to this point, it was believed that any voters Sanders siphons away from Warren would cause her to lose delegates to Sanders. If they split enough of of the liberal wing, then Biden could walk away with the primary. That was the prevailing theory a lot of people bought into.
But now, if Sanders isn't even GETTING delegates, then that means that left wing voters are not just splitting delegates between Warren and Sanders. Instead they're actively throwing away their votes since every vote in support of Sanders equates to zero delegates won because of the requirement is 15% to win delegates of a state. For every state primary where Sanders keeps left-wing voters from Warren, and also fails to hit 15%, thats free delegates that goes to Biden without him even having to do anything. Naturally, this MASSIVELY benefits Biden, because now delegates that could be won by Sanders or Warren are essentially disappearing into thin air, rather than being split between the candidates to possibly be combined later on.
Created:
The attacks against your intelligence are made because you lack it to a substantial degree, as evidenced by how with every post you concede half the points made in relation to the actual topic, utterly fail to understand the other half you do try to respond to, and spend disproportionate amounts of time playing the victim card simply because I am not nice to you in the face of your blatant stupidity.
So go ahead and cry harder, If you take pride in being a polite dipshit rather then someone who knows what theyre discussing then that's your prerogative, not mine.
Created:
No matter what I say you will active try to spin it, straw man me, or just devolve to petty insults.
Pointing out important context you deliberately ignore and citing important facts you yourself try to spin to an asinine degree is not spinning things or trying to strawman you, but it makes sense that you would label anything that doesnt fit into your worldview as a personal attack.
Focus on your high school classes a little more before you try to participate in discussions on these kinds of things. Hopefully one day you will learn enough to not be a retard, but by my approximations it wont be anytime within the next 28 years for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Just wanted to make sure you were held a consistent non-bias on the matter. A lot of people are unaware of that hypocrisy and fall right into it, not realizing things until after someone has pointed it out.If I were to ban unions from donating to political campaigns, I would obviously have to ban it for corporations. I would be hypocritical af if I didn't do that.
Unionization is perhaps the one issue I am the most neutral and apathetic on in terms of issues in politics. The golden age for unions was when they were fighting for an 8 hour workday, 5 day work week, wages that could support families, and other achievements during the Gilded Age/Dark Age of American society where the middle class flat out did not exist while a few wealthy tycoons had unacceptably large amounts of power over everyone else.... Now that things have balanced out where the biggest issues are in-company pension plans, health insurance options, and other misc benefits, that are society wide concerns that the national government tends to address rather than handled within corporations, I don't see the need to continue to arbitrarily hold unions higher than corporations like other democrats do....
Granted, the greed of corporations can have far more devastating effects on the general population than the greed of unions, but the desires of both need to be kept in balance for the good of everyone at this point, not tipped in favor of one over the other for arbitrary reasons.
Created:
would you at least try to pretend like you are willing debate on what I am actually saying?
Frankly you dont even seem to have any remote idea what you want to say.
Let me break things down for you and your paltry little mind
1 - You issue me a challenge to defend the assertion that its not looking good for the Biden campaign based -SOLELY- on Q3 fundraising that you fail to provide a link for (Post 3)
2 - I point out that not only is he doing better than a vast majority of other campaigns money wise, but that he is doing very solid in the polls, and the candidates who performed better than him this quarter are not as strong as they would like to appear. (Post 4 and 5)
3 - You follow up my counter arguments based on a wealth of facts and sources with your regular dribble where you miss the point entirely, try to spin things back in favor of candidates you prefer since your bias controls your perception of reality with minimal resistance, or have some sort of brain aneurysm that causes you to forget what you said in the thread or what you were even arguing to begin with. (Post 6 onwards)
It was a list. I was not making any point about who was doing well and badly in that particular point. I was just listing what the numbers were.
And then immediately after listing the numbers you tried to spin them to claim that Biden was doing poorly, that other campaigns were doing well, and challenged me specifically to dispute things.... You hould really get your memory checked if you only remember posting numbers of Q3 and dont remember anything from posts 2 or 3.
I have remained calm this entire time and you have personally attacked me in every response. do really think that it is me that is the problem?
Yes for the following reasons:
1) You deserve it
2) You made this thread with the intent to cling to your biased viewpoints against Biden with a direct call out to me specifically to defend his campaign rather then actually have a fair discussion about the topic like you try to claim for some pitiful reason
3) You get your panties in a twist when I do not show you the courtesy you demand and feel entitled to just because people dont regard your opinions as facts, and in fact ridicule you for wasting my time as much as you have.
And 4) I dont grant civility to every dingus on the internet with an opinion. For me, you have to earn it, and you havent gotten there yet due to your inability to drop your bias and look at objective facts.
Created:
Posted in:
Regarding #2 I have a question I want to ask to sort of get an idea of things of where you stand on the issue
You argue that "Union members don't get a vote as to who gets this money, so people may be supporting a candidate that they don't like just because they joined the union. The concentration of power in these few top union leaders to manipulate politics should not be allowed. "
Since you dont support unions making political donations to candidates because their views and goals may differ from that of their own employees, are you also against corporations themselves making political donations as well since their views and goals may differ from that of their own employees too?
Created: