| DISCUSSION | [View Previous Page] | |||
 |
An associated question is how to refer to people whose name on the ballot was either misspelled or wrong in some way. This happens more than one might think. In these cases, I use the candidate's real name for the main name and explain in the bio about the different way the name appeared on the ballot. Also in the early 20th century a lot of candidates went by their initials. For example, a man named Charles J. Harris ran for NC Governor in 1904, but he appeared on the ballot as C.J. Harris. I think either can be okay and probably haven't been consistent in how I handled these cases. | |||
 |
| |||
Chronicler: We had a discussion about how to handle this about 10 years ago. I prefer just what DylanSH99 suggested, but the decision then was to use the short nickname, with the full name in the biography.
I often consider that an mistake on my part. We need the info to distinguish between candidates as the candidate database gets larger. | ||||
 |
| |||
| |
| |||
 |
WSNJ: Job approval at 60%, it helps to have a media that treats you like a King.
A honeymoon period is normal for any president who is not an a******. (Yes, even Republicans: [Link] | |||
| |
| |||
WSNJ: "Sorry Xi I have to speak out against your genocide because that's the right thing to do, have a nice day!"
There are plenty of critiques of Biden'a foreign policy, but this is factually incorrect. "No president can be taken seriously" if they don't challenge Chinese actions. He took issue with "the idea that I'm not going to speak out against what he is doing" in Hong Kong and with the Uigher genocide. "There will be repercussions." We shouldn't be making up what Joe Biden's statements and positions are. | ||||
| |
| |||
 |
| |||
| |
| |||
| ||||
| |
RP: I didn't remove it, but I don't think we need a new picture every year. I agree. I think we shouldn't have had two pictures of him from 2019. Thanks for the clarification. | |||
| |
| |||
DylanSH99: Anyone know of a way to add any pictures to a comment? I found some cool photos of Biden with Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford that I'd love to share.
Do you mean in discussion? You can put in the URL link and replace https with image | ||||
| |
RP: Do you mean in discussion? You can put in the URL link and replace https with image
Well I have it saved on my laptop because it was sent to me. Is there any way to upload pictures to a discussion? | |||
DylanSH99: Well I have it saved on my laptop because it was sent to me. Is there any way to upload pictures to a discussion?
No. I try and limit uploads as they are a significant hacking vector. The candidate images are all resized and passed through a security filter to try and limit this. | ||||
 |
?s=20 | |||
| |
| |||
First week of the Biden presidency I wish I had written in someone, rather than voting for him. Absolutely maddening decisions. | ||||
| |
Lol, our purpose in this region was to prevent Al-Qaeda a base of operations. They are basically a footnote in the geopolitical sphere at this point. We have no purpose to remain there when it has been TWENNTY YEARS | |||
E Pluribus Unum: "Isolationist lies"
Lol, our purpose in this region was to prevent Al-Qaeda a base of operations. They are basically a footnote in the geopolitical sphere at this point. We have no purpose to remain there when it has been TWENNTY YEARS The same thing was said about the terror threat in Iraq. Our withdrawal of minimal troops led to the creation of ISIS. Our military presence has prevented vast swaths of terrorist networks from connecting and perpetrating 9/11 style attacks for two decades. The mission has been wildly successful with minimal cost to the United States. We have moore troops in Japan, Germany, France, the UK, and Bahrain than in Afghanistan. More troops died in California than Afghanistan last year! Our troops there serve in an entirely advisory and training capacity (outside of special ops missions, like killing Osama bin Laden)&continue to protect the homeland. 2,500 advisory troops, with casualties less than in California, to protect the homeland from another 9/11 is such a de minimis cost and withdrawal (on 9/11 nonetheless) is based upon the isolationist lie that we are "nation building." Everyone can be an isolationist and peddle the cheap talking points, until another terror attack strikes. The Biden administration should know better. Once again, the judgment of Lloyd Austin in the middle east is sorely lacking. | ||||
| |
Our purpose in Afghanistan is done, we have no reason to remain outside of keeping Raytheon CEO's well fed, no war should take my whole lifetime to finish. | |||
E Pluribus Unum: ISIS traces its roots back to 1999, it was initially a part of Al Qaeda that broke away as the US basically wiped them out. And ISIS was only able to form such a large following because of the continued US involvement in the Middle East, which yes included nation building after our 2003 invasion of Iraq. Remember we were there to "spread Democracy" (After Al-Qaeda and WMD's didn't stick), how else do you do it without trying to influence the region to be more yo your liking after killing their leader (under false pretenses). The reason these groups are on a rise us not PURELY due to Islamic Jihadism, it is a factor that is squeezed in with the legitimate anger. Keep drone striking a nations hospitals, ur gonna get a lot of people hating ur nation.
Our purpose in Afghanistan is done, we have no reason to remain outside of keeping Raytheon CEO's well fed, no war should take my whole lifetime to finish. This "Blame America" foreign policy simply does not comport with the facts. Drone strikes kill about 15 Afghan civilians annually. The Taliban and other terrorist groups kill and brutalize thousands each year. Saying the US is equally to blame as the Taliban and Al Queda is shameful. The purpose of our presence is to ensure that terrorists do not regain a foothold in Afghanistan. That purpose is not over. A continuing presence costs 0.004% of the federal budget each year, with almost zero troop casualties. Michael Moore conspiracy theorizing should have no basis in US Foreign Policy decision making. | ||||
| |
The US giving money and weapons to the Afghan Mujahideen rebelling against the Soviet influence in the region due to the hawkish nature of Ronald Regean. This is not a theory, it is a fact. We legitimized these groups, when they started saying things we did not like, we fund the next group. Rinse and repeat, and NEWSFLASH. Things have not gotten better. If we did not want terrorists having a foothold in the region, giving them guns was a ****ty idea. Our presence in the region is only legitimizing their efforts evenmoreso because 38,480 civilian casualties and remaining their long after the SPECIFIC terrotist group we said we were hunting for is basically nonexistent is an easy recruitment tool for radical groupsq. Look at the terror attacks motives and one of the prime ones are "US occupation", and you need not look far to see the propaganda they push to make sure their kids are ready to be the next gen of America Haters. Terrorist groups are stronger than ever cause we keep figuratively and literally giving them more ammunition. U say our presence is to stop "terrorists" from getting a foothold in Afghanistan: 1. How do you do that outside of a full on 2nd invasion? And 2. If 20 years is too short of a time to do it, when can we say "Mission accomplished". When I'm 30? 50? 70? | |||
| [View Next Page] | ||||