While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.
I wish Republicans would negotiate. They seem to have forgotten how in the past 12 years.
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.
I wish Republicans would negotiate. They seem to have forgotten how in the past 12 years.
While I like free money (got my $600 yesterday) I hate the dems using reconceliation to push this through.
I wish Republicans would negotiate. They seem to have forgotten how in the past 12 years.
10 republicans went to the WH to negotiate. I'd call that a good thing.
And did y'all read the republican proposal? Sheesh.
Reconciliation it is, then.
Reconciliation it is, then.
Biden mentioned more targeted stimulus checks was a good idea. Was that part of this bill or is it intended for the $1,400 checks?
Reconciliation it is, then.
Biden mentioned more targeted stimulus checks was a good idea. Was that part of this bill or is it intended for the $1,400 checks?
Thats something the republicans wanted. They also wanted to drop it to $1,000.
And more targeted is a good idea. Unemployed/child? $1,000. Employed? $500.
They got the $15 minimum wage in the relief bill. That’s pretty huge. Biden seems intent on maximizing his likely two years of productive time before mid-terms grind the country to a halt again.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/stimulus-check-gop-proposal/index.html
I don't see why it's so bad to NOT limit payments to people who are financially screwed? Like if you have a job and you're earning enough money to support your family, you don't need a stimulus check. Unless you want the economy to get a sudden sugar rush to help keep it going.
They got the $15 minimum wage in the relief bill. That’s pretty huge. Biden seems intent on maximizing his likely two years of productive time before mid-terms grind the country to a halt again.
Thats.... Ugh.
I mean, $15 is alot in some parts of America. Like ALOT. $10 sure but $15 for places like Kentucky or North Carolina? Not good.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/stimulus-check-gop-proposal/index.html
I don't see why it's so bad to NOT limit payments to people who are financially screwed? Like if you have a job and you're earning enough money to support your family, you don't need a stimulus check. Unless you want the economy to get a sudden sugar rush to help keep it going.
They got the $15 minimum wage in the relief bill. That’s pretty huge. Biden seems intent on maximizing his likely two years of productive time before mid-terms grind the country to a halt again.Won't need to wait until midterms to grind the country to a halt. Companies - "Be a pleasure to pay 15 an hour to you Jimmy. Simmons and Jethro, we need to let you go."
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.
This is a new one to me.
How exactly do you think companies get any work done without any employees? Robots?
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.
This is a new one to me.
How exactly do you think companies get any work done without any employees? Robots?
Or outsourcing. Why hire people when you can just pay someone to hire people for you?
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.
This is a new one to me.
How exactly do you think companies get any work done without any employees? Robots?
Or outsourcing. Why hire people when you can just pay someone to hire people for you?
I suppose it depends on how pedantic you're feeling. Still... is there ANY corporation that is 100% outsourced? Even the CEO? I have to imagine you need at least ONE person to actually sign the paperwork somewhere.
A $15 minimum wage won't work in the US. It will just inflate prices for people who had the initiative to do something with their lives, and poor people will have the same spending power or worse. The entire culture here runs almost entirely on insatiable consumerism since we don't have much else to fill our lives with. If you don't like it, then stop feeding megacorps.
No one in their right mind would eat this kind of filthy fast food. Any wonder our society is all obese and lazy? Get in the drive thru fat fks, were gonna clog your arteries. Just slide your welfare card here. Vote for me, more fries on your plate. The Dem way.
No one in their right mind would eat this kind of filthy fast food. Any wonder our society is all obese and lazy? Get in the drive thru fat fks, were gonna clog your arteries. Just slide your welfare card here. Vote for me, more fries on your plate. The Dem way.
A $15 minimum wage won't work in the US. It will just inflate prices for people who had the initiative to do something with their lives, and poor people will have the same spending power or worse. The entire culture here runs almost entirely on insatiable consumerism since we don't have much else to fill our lives with. If you don't like it, then stop feeding megacorps.
Also:
The prices at Taco Bell in DC (which has a $15 min. wage) and Pittsburgh,(which has $7.50) is the same.
https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/washington-d-c/washington/164741/
https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/pennsylvania/pittsburgh/161146/
No one in their right mind would eat this kind of filthy fast food. Any wonder our society is all obese and lazy? Get in the drive thru fat fks, were gonna clog your arteries. Just slide your welfare card here. Vote for me, more fries on your plate. The Dem way.
Don’t worry. No one got fat eating crow.
I just wanted to show an example that prices did not shift in any measurable way. Would you like me to choose a different industry? Look at GDP per state?A $15 minimum wage won't work in the US. It will just inflate prices for people who had the initiative to do something with their lives, and poor people will have the same spending power or worse. The entire culture here runs almost entirely on insatiable consumerism since we don't have much else to fill our lives with. If you don't like it, then stop feeding megacorps.
Also:
The prices at Taco Bell in DC (which has a $15 min. wage) and Pittsburgh,(which has $7.50) is the same.
https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/washington-d-c/washington/164741/
https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/taco-bell/pennsylvania/pittsburgh/161146/
Comparing a nationwide $15 minimum wage with the prices of food at one retailer in two cities is a bit silly, even for you.
Australian news on dementia joe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nhm6VAIc90&ab_channel=SkyNewsAustralia
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?
This is absolute nonsense. America is an absolute laughing stock now. They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech and could legitimately worry rivals such as China and replaced him with a man who can't even remember what he had for breakfast. Just because the media isn't making a deal out of it (biased), doesn't mean regular people just accept the narrative that joe is somehow a good President. He's going to be the worst President America has ever known. Imagine how embarrassing gaff prone idiot George Bush was. Biden is going to be worse. We've got 4 years of him achieving nothing and sticking his foot in his mouth every time he opens it to come.What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.
What does his essay have to do with the fact that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden embarrassment?
They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech
I dont think Biden was the right guy for the Dems to nominate. I dont think hes a very good speaker. I think hes another old white dude.
But my god is he ever a better example of presidential material than the Donald. Misspoke on vaccines, but hes increased vaccination rates and delivered a coherent plan for rollout. Misquoted grossly on talk against racism in China. The praise hes getting for doing the bare minimum in quickly delivering aid to Texas 'even though they didnt vote for him' is embarrassing...but it's somehow a notable contrast from 2016-2020.
why does literally every thread have to be about trump
This is absolute nonsense.You obviously talk to different people than I do. Most people I know are relieved there’s a grown up in the White House
They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech
Yes, there are sycophants like AATW who will cosy up to absolutely anyone as long as its not Trump, so blinded by mainstream media outlets as he has been.
Biden can actually write and deliver a speech that is more complex than repeating a few lies and telling everyone how smart he is.You think Biden writes his own speeches? And as for delivery ... this week he likes children more than people. The guy is out to lunch.
Most people I know are relieved there’s a grown up in the White HouseWhat is grown up about Biden? He lets progressives run his administration for him? Is that grown up? Is playing Mario Kart all day grown up? Is sniffing little girls hair grown up. Is inviting voters to a push up contest to show them how fit you are grown up? Is challenging the then President of the USA to a fist fight behind a gym grown up? How about calling voters a lying dog-faced pony soldier ... grown up?
Biden can actually write and deliver a speech that is more complex than repeating a few lies and telling everyone how smart he is.You think Biden writes his own speeches? And as for delivery ... this week he likes children more than people. The guy is out to lunch.Most people I know are relieved there’s a grown up in the White HouseWhat is grown up about Biden? He lets progressives run his administration for him? Is that grown up? Is playing Mario Kart all day grown up? Is sniffing little girls hair grown up. Is inviting voters to a push up contest to show them how fit you are grown up? Is challenging the then President of the USA to a fist fight behind a gym grown up? How about calling voters a lying dog-faced pony soldier ... grown up?
You seem to have a very short and very selective memory. Biden is an utter asshat. Corrupt to the core. Mad as a box of frogs.
I'm no Biden apologist. Nor am I a fan of whataboutism... but jesus it's like you've deleted the shitshow of the last 5 years from your memory entirely.Trump is gone.
Biden can actually write and deliver a speech that is more complex than repeating a few lies and telling everyone how smart he is.You think Biden writes his own speeches? And as for delivery ... this week he likes children more than people. The guy is out to lunch.Most people I know are relieved there’s a grown up in the White HouseWhat is grown up about Biden? He lets progressives run his administration for him? Is that grown up? Is playing Mario Kart all day grown up? Is sniffing little girls hair grown up. Is inviting voters to a push up contest to show them how fit you are grown up? Is challenging the then President of the USA to a fist fight behind a gym grown up? How about calling voters a lying dog-faced pony soldier ... grown up?
You seem to have a very short and very selective memory. Biden is an utter asshat. Corrupt to the core. Mad as a box of frogs.
You seem to have a very short and very selective memory. Biden is an utter asshat. Corrupt to the core. Mad as a box of frogs.
No America. You don't get to walk away from this and celebrate it with a "better than Trump". You picked a cockwomble for a President. One who I am sure will prove to be far WORSE than the Trump boogieman.
Its not even close. Trump's gonna walk the election, despite what the Liberal media in the US tell you.
Trump is gone.
This thread is about Biden.
America chose Biden and all I see is apologists for Biden.
Trump got nothing done, his every path blocked.
America chose Biden because the alternative was Trump.No ... alternatives included Yang, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobachar and many many others who weren't suffering from mental incapacity. America chose Biden.
Trump never even tried to get anything done, outside of one or two dumb vanity projects like the unnecessary border wall. Trump had no real interest in or knowledge of governing or policy to begin with. His presidency was simply an ego trip and experiment in branding for himself, and it's embarrassing to think that millions of Americans voted for it.He grabbed China by the pussy. He certainly wasn't out there patting them on the back for committing genocide. Trump's record is actually very good. Considering what he was up against and no president has ever had such an awful ride from the media and US institutions, he did a great job. Biden on the other hand has had nothing but backslapping and praise showered on him for doing nothing other than Presiding over the vaccine rollout that Trump put in place. And despite what Biden says (because he is telling lies), a vaccine was already available by the time he got into office.
This is technically inaccurate. Only a small subset of voters are allowed to choose the party nominee. Which vary by state. Some states have open primaries so anyone can vote (like republicans can choose a democrat candidate) while others are limited to only party members. America as a whole had two choices: Trump or Biden. Democrats has many.America chose Biden because the alternative was Trump.No ... alternatives included Yang, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobachar and many many others who weren't suffering from mental incapacity. America chose Biden.
So grabbing by the pussy is harmful? And you like Trump doing it to women? Sheesh...Trump never even tried to get anything done, outside of one or two dumb vanity projects like the unnecessary border wall. Trump had no real interest in or knowledge of governing or policy to begin with. His presidency was simply an ego trip and experiment in branding for himself, and it's embarrassing to think that millions of Americans voted for it.He grabbed China by the pussy. He certainly wasn't out there patting them on the back for committing genocide. Trump's record is actually very good. Considering what he was up against and no president has ever had such an awful ride from the media and US institutions, he did a great job. Biden on the other hand has had nothing but backslapping and praise showered on him for doing nothing other than Presiding over the vaccine rollout that Trump put in place. And despite what Biden says (because he is telling lies), a vaccine was already available by the time he got into office.
The embarrassment is that you think Biden is a good President and that he is in someway going to improve America over what Trump was doing. We'll see about that when he borrows that $1.9 trillion.
I'm no Biden apologist. Nor am I a fan of whataboutism... but jesus it's like you've deleted the shitshow of the last 5 years from your memory entirely.Indeed.
He grabbed China by the pussy.
As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.I'm not sure citizens of Brexitville are the best judges of character out there. Indeed, I'd take the UK's opinion as a great bellwether for what not to believe.
I don't talk to stupids.As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.I'm not sure citizens of Brexitville are the best judges of character out there. Indeed, I'd take the UK's opinion as a great bellwether for what not to believe.
You are free to go home any time you like. ::)As a non American, I assure you that the rest of the world is laughing at you far less now there’s a grown up in the White House.I'm not sure citizens of Brexitville are the best judges of character out there. Indeed, I'd take the UK's opinion as a great bellwether for what not to believe.
America is an absolute laughing stock now.
They got rid of a man who could at least deliver a rousing speech and ... replaced him ...
We've got 4 years of him ... sticking his foot in his mouth every time he opens it to come.
Why should the favorability of foreign countries factor into it? If someone were to suggest that America or China should decide on how British laws are made or how British public monies are spent they would be called a dunce.
Why should the favorability of foreign countries factor into it? If someone were to suggest that America or China should decide on how British laws are made or how British public monies are spent they would be called a dunce.Yes, they would be called a dunce, but you are conflating two things. I don’t want other countries telling us how to do things, but I’d rather not have a leader who is an international laughing stock. Trump was openly laughed at by the other leaders at the UN when he started spouting his usual bullshit.
Why should the favorability of foreign countries factor into it? If someone were to suggest that America or China should decide on how British laws are made or how British public monies are spent they would be called a dunce.
One World, to borrow a song title.
America should work with the rest of the world, not against it. Yes, it's difficult to apply this to Russia, China, et al, but America is an ally to the UK, Europe, Canada, etc, and should not be removing itself from climate accords, and other international agreements.
America is making a lot of money off of the pollution they create, which is substantial Obviously they should be one of the biggest contributors to any fund of this nature.
America is paying a lot more than "developing" countries like China and other countries in the Paris Climate Accord. Your argument is that foreigners want America in the agreement to take advantage of America.
Why should the wants of other countries be what is best for America?
You're right, actually. I've been to Beijing and while it comes and goes a bit, at times it's pretty horrible there.America is making a lot of money off of the pollution they create, which is substantial Obviously they should be one of the biggest contributors to any fund of this nature.
Maybe you should try breathing the air in a large city in the US versus a large city in China before making such an atrocious statement.
You're right, actually. I've been to Beijing and while it comes and goes a bit, at times it's pretty horrible there.America is making a lot of money off of the pollution they create, which is substantial Obviously they should be one of the biggest contributors to any fund of this nature.
Maybe you should try breathing the air in a large city in the US versus a large city in China before making such an atrocious statement.
Not has bad as Delhi though.
From the data I saw, China pollutes twice as much as you guys in terms of CO2 emissions.
But...they have what, 3 or 4 times as many people. So per capita you are leading the way.
Why should the US pay more than the largest polluter on earth?I didn't say you should. But you're the second worst in the world and per capita you are the highest.
America is putting in more than you too. The argument revolving around the world's desire to loot America isn't a good one to prove that the world knows what's best for America.I don’t know who you’re arguing with here.
America is putting in more than you too. The argument revolving around the world's desire to loot America isn't a good one to prove that the world knows what's best for America.
No. China is the biggest polluter regardless of whether they had 1 person in their country or 3 billion.
Why should the US pay more than the largest polluter on earth?
America is putting in more than you too. The argument revolving around the world's desire to loot America isn't a good one to prove that the world knows what's best for America.
Looting America?
We out consume every country on this planet per capita.
“With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world's paper, a quarter of the world's oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/
But I'm guessing that's all liberal lies...
If I go to Costco more often than you to buy home cleaning supplies am I therefore responsible for your maid service because you live like a pig and are unwilling to clean your own house?You understand we all live on the same street, right? So you guys throwing garbage around blows all over the street and we all suffer.
In a Home Owner's Association everyone is responsible for maintaining the exterior of their own homes under the same regulation. Why should the regulation between the US and China be any different?
If I go to Costco more often than you to buy home cleaning supplies am I therefore responsible for your maid service because you live like a pig and are unwilling to clean your own house?You understand we all live on the same street, right? So you guys throwing garbage around blows all over the street and we all suffer.
In a Home Owner's Association everyone is responsible for maintaining the exterior of their own homes under the same regulation. Why should the regulation between the US and China be any different?
The fact that there are other jerks on the street making it less nice doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do your bit. Maybe, as you like to think of yourself as the “Best Country on Earth” you should be setting an example.
If I am tossing garbage into the streets why should it be your responsibility to follow me around and clean up for me? It's my responsibility to appropriately dispose of my own garbage, obviously.
People should be responsible for themselves and operate under the same regulation. Your own example says that the US is not responsible for China.
There might be one person on the street who doesn't want to join in, and still casts their garbage, but don't you think the street would be a better place if the decent folks got together and cleaned up what they can?
America is making a lot of money off of the pollution they create, which is substantial Obviously they should be one of the biggest contributors to any fund of this nature.
Maybe you should try breathing the air in a large city in the US versus a large city in China before making such an atrocious statement.
Your examples say that countries should be responsible for themselves.I never said the US is responsible for China.
If I am tossing garbage into the streets why should it be your responsibility to follow me around and clean up for me? It's my responsibility to appropriately dispose of my own garbage, obviously.
People should be responsible for themselves and operate under the same regulation. Your own example says that the US is not responsible for China.
If the person doesn't want to join in then they get fined for littering. That's usually how it works.
Decent folks are already taking care of themselves and their own environment. It would be unfair to extend that responsibility to others when they are already responsible for themselves.
The President of the United States can’t even pull 435 viewers on the official White House YouTube channel.
IMG
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.
In that same event Biden .... stumbled for his name, came up empty and said:
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump wasNo. Because I don’t believe that someone stumbling over words is in itself embarrassing.
Biden is not Trump. That is like arguing that is okay for someone to commit murder because you think, rightly or wrongly, that another person committed murder. That is not a valid justification. Anyone who commits murder is still a murderer and Biden is still an embarrassment.
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was.
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was.
Not what is being argued at all. Nobody is accepting that Biden is as bad as Trump, but I/we are stating that you are trying to imbibe Biden with qualities and acts that Trump has already shown in abundance. That is not acceptance of Biden showing those qualities, that is criticism of you for trying to make the equivalence.
Are you going next going justify your pedophile prince with the same tactic?Without a conviction, that's just libel.
The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden.
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump was.
Not what is being argued at all. Nobody is accepting that Biden is as bad as Trump, but I/we are stating that you are trying to imbibe Biden with qualities and acts that Trump has already shown in abundance. That is not acceptance of Biden showing those qualities, that is criticism of you for trying to make the equivalence.
The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden. He's an embarrassment. Trying to talk about other people does nothing to take away from Joe Biden's embarrassing behavior.
Are you next going to justify your pedophile prince with the same tactic?
Biden is still an embarrassment.This is subjective. All you're doing is stating something as an objective fact when it's simply a subjective opinion.
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.Since when?
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states.Biden is not Trump. That is like arguing that is okay for someone to commit murder because you think, rightly or wrongly, that another person committed murder. That is not a valid justification. Anyone who commits murder is still a murderer and Biden is still an embarrassment.
“Biden is an embarrassment because I said so”
Another vapid argument from Tom.
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states.Biden is not Trump. That is like arguing that is okay for someone to commit murder because you think, rightly or wrongly, that another person committed murder. That is not a valid justification. Anyone who commits murder is still a murderer and Biden is still an embarrassment.
“Biden is an embarrassment because I said so”
Another vapid argument from Tom.
The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states. The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.
Biden is an embarrassment, regardless of what Tom states. The mental degenerate cannot even hold a news conference.
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.Since when?
The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden. He's an embarrassment. Trying to talk about other people does nothing to take away from Joe Biden's embarrassing behavior.
Crown Prince of Whataboutism
... need to try to hide that fact by accusing someone else of something.
It is almost as if you are conceding that Joe Biden is an embarrassment
Nope. You guys are the ones here desperate to try to talk about Trump when Joe Biden embarrasses himself.
It is almost as if you are conceding that Joe Biden is an embarrassment and need to try to hide that fact by accusing someone else of something. It is a pretty pathetic defense if you have to implicitly concede that Joe Biden is an embarrassment in your argument.
Several people have said his speech gaffes aren't an embarrassment
Are you doing this deliberately? You're turning into a Life of Brian sketchSeveral people have said his speech gaffes aren't an embarrassment
Why would someone need to justify Biden's behavior if they didn't think it was embarrassing? Whenever you justify a bad or embarrassing behavior you are conceding that it is bad or embarrassing.
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.
If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you did, or that it looks like you did. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.
If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you did, or that it looks like you did. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.
Or the accuser is incorrect.
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.
If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you did, or that it looks like you did. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.
Or the accuser is incorrect.
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did. The argument was "But Trump." ::)
Several people have said his speech gaffes aren't an embarrassment, but that you treat those gaffes as such while you defended Trump for his. The argument isn't "Biden's embarrassing, but so was Trump", it's "why do you consider Biden's gaffes embarrassing but defended Trump's?"
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.
That's literally what many of us have been saying.
That they aren't embarrassing. Nobody is conceding that.
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.Quote from: СнупсThat's literally what many of us have been saying.
Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?
If you guys didn't think that it was embarrassing enough to justify with "But Trump" then you would not have done a "But Trump," as there would be nothing embarrassing to try and justify.
The next time Biden does something embarrassing you will also "But Trump", simply because Joe Biden is an embarrassment and you have no good defense.
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.Quote from: СнупсThat's literally what many of us have been saying.
Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?QuoteThat they aren't embarrassing. Nobody is conceding that.
If you guys didn't think that it was embarrassing enough to justify with "But Trump" then you would not have done a "But Trump," as there would be nothing embarrassing to try and justify.
The next time Biden does something embarrassing you will also "But Trump", simply because Joe Biden is an embarrassment and you have no good defense.
I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him?
It's painfully clear you have simply ignored what anyone has written. And you should be embarrassed.
What basically everyone has been saying over and over again is, "I don't find that embarrassing, period."
I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him? And you think having a stutter and stumbling over a word or forgetting a General's name is "embarrassing"? We obviously have different criteria for the application of the word.
It's painfully clear you have simply ignored what anyone has written. And you should be embarrassed.
What basically everyone has been saying over and over again is, "I don't find that embarrassing, period."
Actions speak louder than words. If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.QuoteI mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him? And you think having a stutter and stumbling over a word or forgetting a General's name is "embarrassing"? We obviously have different criteria for the application of the word.
If I were arguing this I wouldn't argue "But Biden". That would be conceding that there might be something to be embarrassed about. I would probably call into question your competency in determining context, because it was "There is clearly significant evidence of fraud. You only need to legally establish xx number of votes. You must be either incompetent or compromised because you are not doing your job."
Actions speak louder than words.
If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit.
If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.
If you have to argue "But Trump" you are conceding that your opponent's accusations have merit. No one justifies anything if they didn't think there was merit of the opposite.
Why are you ignoring my post where I clearly explained this? There are two separate points.
The first is that none of us find Biden an embarrassment.
The second "but Trump" point exposes your hypocrisy.
This is not difficult to understand.
Me: Biden BadNo. Once more for the hard of thinking:
You: You are a hypocrite because something about Trump Bad.
If Biden Bad had no merit you would have countered that I was wrong about what what he actually said, misinterpreted context, etc. This was not even attempted.Liar
By arguing "but Trump" you are telling us that you believe that Biden is as embarrassing like you believe Trump wasNo. Because I don’t believe that someone stumbling over words is in itself embarrassing..
Me: Biden BadNo. Once more for the hard of thinking:
You: You are a hypocrite because something about Trump Bad.
You: Biden Bad
Me: 1) Biden not bad. 2) You are a hypocrite saying Biden Bad when you have spent 4 years saying Trump Good when he does the exact same things and worse.
See? Two separate points. I don't know how to make this clearer.
In a discussion on Prince Andrew you don't need to justify Prince Andrew's alleged pedophilia by pointing out the famous pedophiles and criminal child abusers you think exist in America and the 'hyprocracy' of criticizing Prince Andrew.
Whenever you justify a bad or embarrassing behavior you are conceding that it is bad or embarrassing.
Actually, there were no threats. Fake news diet can be bad for your reputation.I mean c'mon, what's more cringe-worthy embarrassing than the leader of the free world begging a State official in Georgia to find 11k+ votes for him?
How about the leader of the Free World threatening those same state officials because they wouldn't lie for him?
Actually, maybe that's not embarrassing so much as frightening.
This video clip seems greenscreened, clearly demonstrating such at one prominent point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ml7lhL3yw0
Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.This video clip seems greenscreened, clearly demonstrating such at one prominent point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ml7lhL3yw0
Yeah that’s weird.
Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.
Whichever consortium (obviously NOT INCLUSIVE of Hairy Legged Uncle Joe) is now in control of the US evidently sees fit to be right out in the open with all of it.
What did you look into?Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.
Whichever consortium (obviously NOT INCLUSIVE of Hairy Legged Uncle Joe) is now in control of the US evidently sees fit to be right out in the open with all of it.
After having looked in to a bit, it doesn't really seem obvious it's a green screen. This guy recreates the effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&t). Combined with other videos and photos from the event, along with the eye witnesses it seems more likely that our ape brains have had a hard time processing visual information.
What did you look into?Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.
Whichever consortium (obviously NOT INCLUSIVE of Hairy Legged Uncle Joe) is now in control of the US evidently sees fit to be right out in the open with all of it.
After having looked in to a bit, it doesn't really seem obvious it's a green screen. This guy recreates the effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&t). Combined with other videos and photos from the event, along with the eye witnesses it seems more likely that our ape brains have had a hard time processing visual information.
He didn't recreate this parade. He simply showed the original.
The image presented is clearly green screened.
I cannot watch the video you linked.What did you look into?Crazy the PTB would allow such a thing to be aired, don't you think.
Whichever consortium (obviously NOT INCLUSIVE of Hairy Legged Uncle Joe) is now in control of the US evidently sees fit to be right out in the open with all of it.
After having looked in to a bit, it doesn't really seem obvious it's a green screen. This guy recreates the effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&t). Combined with other videos and photos from the event, along with the eye witnesses it seems more likely that our ape brains have had a hard time processing visual information.
He didn't recreate this parade. He simply showed the original.
The image presented is clearly green screened.
No it’s not clearly green screened. The video I linked to shows the same “green screen” effect being recreated. An optical illusion seems very possible and also seems more likely. If you want convince me, I will need more evidence than “hand in front of microphone”.
I cannot watch the video you linked.
I posted a video for everyone to see.
You can see the video I posted.
You didn't post anything but a link to what you purport to be a recreation.
The video I posted is a green screen news conference aired by the MSM.
Whether you want to admit or not is of no consequence.
Truth is truth.
Nice try.I cannot watch the video you linked.
I posted a video for everyone to see.
You can see the video I posted.
YouTube doesn’t work for you now? Maybe just ask for it to be embedded? I wanted to clean up the post a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QQ2xj-nwQ&tQuoteYou didn't post anything but a link to what you purport to be a recreation.
The video I posted is a green screen news conference aired by the MSM.
You posted a video to what you purport to be a green screen news conference.QuoteWhether you want to admit or not is of no consequence.
I admitted it looked weird and then did some research. Currently I’ve seen more evidence of an optical illusion than a green screen. Can you explain why a green screen is the only explanation?QuoteTruth is truth.
Brings a tear to the eye.
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.I don't understand this one. On initial view it looks a bit weird but it's well explained by the other video.
And why on earth would they green screen this? To what end?
VID
Your President is a complete and utter tool.
VID
Your President is a complete and utter tool.
I refuse to take this seriously.
VID
Your President is a complete and utter tool.
I refuse to take this seriously.
It’s pretty sad that Tom and Thork have only been making fun of him being old. One day they might have something of substance to say.
"Trump is so embarrassing" ... hahahaha!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Mwc12LtRY
Your President is a complete and utter tool.
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571
I don't know what Biden's problem is.
Maybe people shouldn't be voting for a clumsy old fool for president.
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571
Maybe people shouldn't be voting for a clumsy old fool for president.Maybe people should vote for someone whose policies they agree with and who they trust rather than looking at trivial bullshit like this.
This is apparently one of the few idiots who can manage to fall UP the stairs. ::)
Wrong.
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news:Of course.
I honestly do think Biden has cognitive issues, but also people trip. Even geniuses trip! Embarrassing, for sure but I've tripped in front of people before!
Mr Biden's latest medical report showed no signs of any degenerative disease.
Despite this, a new poll shows the number of Americans who approve of Mr Biden has grown steadily since he took office, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling released on Friday, driven by concrete steps his administration has taken to address the public health and economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
The March 17-18 national opinion poll found that 59 per cent of adults in the US approved of Biden’s overall job performance, while 35 per cent disapproved and 6 per cent said they were not sure.
The number of adults who approve of Mr Biden is up by about 4 percentage points since a poll that ran in late January, and the increase is largely due to a rise in Mr Biden's popularity among independents.
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news
Wrong. Biden's stumbles and clumsiness is being reported all over by the MSM as news:But what am I wrong about, exactly?
Trump could walk up the steps to Air Force One just fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1372964618495213571
You DID look at all the comments, and the videos they included, in response to that tweet, didn't you?
You didn't?
Maybe you should.
I saw this video in the comments. Why do you want to bring it to light?
How DO you manage to arrive at a plane, having been taken there in a car, and STILL get out of the car with toilet paper sticking to your shoe? How DO you even manage to exit the toilet, carrying some paper on your shoe?
Did you just reply to yourself to add on to your own joke? Why?
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.
I'd have assumed that it was a hoax video made by some no talent dick to make Biden look like he was faking a press conference. I mean, it probably was, but at least I can be fairly sure he didn't alter the video aside from lowering the quality.Yes, it was all a hoax video.
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.
The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.
Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.
The MSM are proven liars.He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.
The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.
Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.
So you think that the simplest explanation is that they shot multiple videos from several angles on a green screen sound stage along with dozens if not hundreds of photographs and audio recordings and then used large amounts of CGI to create Biden walking, talking and interviewing outside and somehow getting dozens of people to agree to lie about being there including the guy holding the mic and the secret service and everyone else involved and all the witnesses and got this all done in record time... instead of just... filming him standing and talking outside.
You really think THAT is the simplest explanation?
Makes me wonder what you imagine a complex conspiracy would involve if this one is so simple. ???
The MSM are proven liars.He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.
The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.
Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.
So you think that the simplest explanation is that they shot multiple videos from several angles on a green screen sound stage along with dozens if not hundreds of photographs and audio recordings and then used large amounts of CGI to create Biden walking, talking and interviewing outside and somehow getting dozens of people to agree to lie about being there including the guy holding the mic and the secret service and everyone else involved and all the witnesses and got this all done in record time... instead of just... filming him standing and talking outside.
You really think THAT is the simplest explanation?
Makes me wonder what you imagine a complex conspiracy would involve if this one is so simple. ???
Period.
How many examples do you need?
Of course it is the simplest explanation.
There is no conspiracy here.
They are doing it right out in the open, putting it right in front of everyone's face.
He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.
The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.
Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.
Of course it is the simplest explanation.
There is no conspiracy here.
The same motive as they always have.The MSM are proven liars.He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.
The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.
Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.
So you think that the simplest explanation is that they shot multiple videos from several angles on a green screen sound stage along with dozens if not hundreds of photographs and audio recordings and then used large amounts of CGI to create Biden walking, talking and interviewing outside and somehow getting dozens of people to agree to lie about being there including the guy holding the mic and the secret service and everyone else involved and all the witnesses and got this all done in record time... instead of just... filming him standing and talking outside.
You really think THAT is the simplest explanation?
Makes me wonder what you imagine a complex conspiracy would involve if this one is so simple. ???
Period.
How many examples do you need?
Of course it is the simplest explanation.
There is no conspiracy here.
They are doing it right out in the open, putting it right in front of everyone's face.
And their movtive for this one is? Why greenscreen it?
Too late for that.He literally recreates the angles in the press conference. The mic sock has many small hairs so of course it looks blurry. How do you know he wasn’t near the front of the mic socks? Can you post a picture from an angle that allows for better depth perception and shows he was not close to them? The lower angle shot in the video I posted seems to disagree with you. You talking about what you think is credible isn’t evidence and your xenophobia towards Canada doesn’t help either.Xenophobia for a country that sees fit to lock up pastors and attack their citizenry in their own homes seems a good stance to take.
I’m not sure what specifically you are referring to but the USA has the largest number of imprisoned citizens in the world. They prosecute 6 year olds for picking tulips. So physician heal thyself.
The mic sock looks blurry simply because the entire thing was shot in front of a green screen.
Simplest explanation, which you all like to chime so frequently.
Too late for that.
You are cool with all of it.
You have got what you wanted all along.
Of course it's simple.
All the gaslighting can be dropped off prior to your typing.
Like I wrote, the sky is blue and this is a greenscreened video.
QuoteAnd their movtive for this one is? Why greenscreen it?The same motive as they always have.
Wow, Biden isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets. VID
Wow, Biden isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets.
Wow, Biden isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets.
So now that a democrat is in the WH, it's time to support whistleblowers and publicly decry the terrible conditions created at border detention centers?
I just want to know where it's safe to direct my moral outrage according to the current political winds. /s
Seeing kids detained and huddled sleeping on the floor is a travesty. Full stop. Who is to blame?
Wow, Biden isn't even spacing the children and immigrants six feet apart when he makes them sleep on the floor in thermal blankets. VID
Wow, Biden has been in office 50 days or so, and someone else was there for the previous four years (1,460 days).
Eager to avoid a rush on the border, Biden aides signaled that it will take time to unwind some of Trump’s border policies, which include making asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court. Homeland Security said that on Thursday it would stop sending asylum-seekers back to Mexico to wait for hearings but that people already returned should stay put for now.
The Biden-made border crisis
There is a crisis at our southern border, and President Biden’s immigration policies are responsible. Biden has halted border wall construction, released illegal immigrants into our communities, and promised amnesty for millions more. These are disastrous policies that have contributed to the surge in illegal immigration, the spread of COVID-19, and the humanitarian crisis at the border.
What’s happening on the southern border is the most preventable emergency in years. And Joe Biden created it. No matter how often he tells asylum-seekers that now is not the time to enter the United States, migrants won’t listen. That’s because the policies he put into place incentivize the dangerous trek.
Yes, It’s a Joe Biden-Created “Crisis” at the Southern Border
The crisis at the border is a direct result of the Biden administration’s radical immigration agenda. It has been created for the purposes of increasing immigration to the United States through illegal means. This is part of the left’s agenda to take over elections and get as many illegal aliens as possible voting or on the path to voting. It’s a purely political play at the expense of American sovereignty, security, and well-being.
Biden made drastic changes to immigration. This problem is all on him.
The question is about the border crisis. “what more can be done sir?”
BIDEN: “A lot more. We are in the process of doing it now. Including making sure that we reestablish what existed before; which was, they should stay in place and make their case from their home countries. Thank you”
You are cool with it.Too late for that.
You are cool with all of it.
You have got what you wanted all along.
I am cool with what? I never said I was "cool" with anything. I said you were xenophobic. Don't lie.
So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened? That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.Yes.
Seeing kids detained and huddled sleeping on the floor is a travesty. Full stop. Who is to blame?Yes, of course. The kids should be kicked outside to find food and shelter on their own.
So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened? That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.Yes.
I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.
You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.
Sure. It was all working SO WELL before Biden's inauguration, wasn't it?Is "b-but the other guy!!!1!" the best defence of Biden's policy there? I thought this thread was meant to discuss President™️ Joe Biden.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened? That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.Yes.
I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.
You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.
He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.
You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
You are cool with it.Too late for that.
You are cool with all of it.
You have got what you wanted all along.
I am cool with what? I never said I was "cool" with anything. I said you were xenophobic. Don't lie.
I brought up the pastor being jailed, and rather than condemn that, you wrote, "USA TERRIBLE."
Millions of people want to come to our terrible shithole, whereas no one wants to get close to yours.
Yes.
I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.
You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.
Sure. It was all working SO WELL before Biden's inauguration, wasn't it?Is "b-but the other guy!!!1!" the best defence of Biden's policy there? I thought this thread was meant to discuss President™️ Joe Biden.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened? That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.Yes.
I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.
You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.
He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.
You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
Having seen numerous examples of green screen effects and what happens when it goes wrong leads to the simple conclusion it was all a green screened TV production, aired a lot of the 5 o'clock news feeds.
No conspiracy necessary when they are all complicit.
I realize that doesn't sit too well with you.
Wouldn't be mentioned had Tom not spent 4+ years espousing the supposed merits of the other guy.So your response to that criticism is also "b-but the other guy!!1!"
Wouldn't be mentioned had Tom not spent 4+ years espousing the supposed merits of the other guy.So your response to that criticism is also "b-but the other guy!!1!"
Huh.
Given that this thread is about President Joe Biden, and not Trump or Tom, I guess that means you just don't have a line of defence for his policy?
the messaging around it makes it seem like he is fine with continuing the isolationist and xenophobic trends in American border policy.To be fair, he probably is, and that shouldn't be surprising. It's not like America stopped being a xenophobic country the moment Biden got elected - it's been decades in the making, and is probably not getting undone anytime soon.
You essentially wrote, "USA TERRIBLE," and are now trying to back out of it.You are cool with it.Too late for that.
You are cool with all of it.
You have got what you wanted all along.
I am cool with what? I never said I was "cool" with anything. I said you were xenophobic. Don't lie.
I brought up the pastor being jailed, and rather than condemn that, you wrote, "USA TERRIBLE."
That’s a lie. I said I wasn’t aware what you were talking about. I can’t condemn something out of ignorance.
EDIT: Are you talking about this?
https://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2020/5/25/criminal-charges-dropped-against-toronto-street-preacher
If so, I’m happy the charges were dropped and he probably shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place.
QuoteMillions of people want to come to our terrible shithole, whereas no one wants to get close to yours.
300,000/year is no one? I’m starting to understand how much you struggle day to day.
EDIT: The US let’s in about 850,000/year so hardly millionsQuote300,000 no ones going to your country is correct.
Millions want to come to our country and your hero Joe will just let them in. Even people like you.If you think unnecessarily green screening something is simpler than not green screening at all, then you obviously don’t. Even if they were staging a fake presser, it would be simpler to just have them together. I’m sorry that’s difficult for you to grasp.Introducing the word "unnecessarily," when it was obviously necessary to do so doesn't help your argument.I just figured you were either having those recurring delusions of being royalty, took up having a mouse in your pocket, or referring to your alts. I went with the latter.QuoteYou can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.
I suppose I can’t expect you to realize that several people in this thread disagree with you. Shame on me for that.
You essentially wrote, "USA TERRIBLE," and are now trying to back out of it.
As usual.
300,000 no ones going to your country is correct.
Millions want to come to our country and your hero Joe will just let them in. Even people like you.
Introducing the word "unnecessarily," when it was obviously necessary to do so doesn't help your argument.
I just figured you were either having those recurring delusions of being royalty, took up having a mouse in your pocket, or referring to your alts. I went with the latter.
The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened? That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.Yes.
I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.
You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.
He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.
You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
In detail? What kind of detail?The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened? That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.Yes.
I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.
You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.
He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.
You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
If the mics were real, and Biden was real, how did a mic clip through his hand? Just curious: can you explain how a green screen works? Like in detail? No copy/paste. In your own words, please.
No people like me would want to stay in Canada with our higher standard of living, good education and overall happier people, thanks.Yeah, keep preaching your BS.Introducing the word "unnecessarily," when it was obviously necessary to do so doesn't help your argument.
It wasn’t obviously necessary to green screen at all. You have a bunch of reporters in on The ConspiracyTM, and a president who is in on it. It would be easier in every way to just put them together, on the Whitehouse lawn and do an interview. Cheaper, faster, requiring less people involved and doing it for real takes away the pesky problem of having to dupe anyone. Unless there is some circumstance that you are privy to? Like did Q tell you he is under house arrest and this is the only way to keep it quiet?I just figured you were either having those recurring delusions of being royalty, took up having a mouse in your pocket, or referring to your alts. I went with the latter.
Ah so you needlessly complicate everything in your life, not just politics. Makes sense. Well I’m happy I could clear one part up for you.
No people like me would want to stay in Canada with our higher standard of living, good education and overall happier people, thanks.Yeah, keep preaching your BS.Introducing the word "unnecessarily," when it was obviously necessary to do so doesn't help your argument.
It wasn’t obviously necessary to green screen at all. You have a bunch of reporters in on The ConspiracyTM, and a president who is in on it. It would be easier in every way to just put them together, on the Whitehouse lawn and do an interview. Cheaper, faster, requiring less people involved and doing it for real takes away the pesky problem of having to dupe anyone. Unless there is some circumstance that you are privy to? Like did Q tell you he is under house arrest and this is the only way to keep it quiet?I just figured you were either having those recurring delusions of being royalty, took up having a mouse in your pocket, or referring to your alts. I went with the latter.
Ah so you needlessly complicate everything in your life, not just politics. Makes sense. Well I’m happy I could clear one part up for you.
Quality of life in the US - 15
Quality of life in Canada - 21
It was necessary to green screen the presser. If it wasn't then the people putting on the show would not have done it.
So to sum up, it was necessary because it supports the conspiracy you believe in. Well, not everyone needs critical thinking skills. I am sure you are good at something else.No, it was necessary because that was the only way it could be aired.
So to sum up, it was necessary because it supports the conspiracy you believe in. Well, not everyone needs critical thinking skills. I am sure you are good at something else.No, it was necessary because that was the only way it could be aired.
No conspiracy.
Just the MSM continuing the lie.
Amazing, the MSM lies all the time and "us," support it.
Like I wrote.So to sum up, it was necessary because it supports the conspiracy you believe in. Well, not everyone needs critical thinking skills. I am sure you are good at something else.No, it was necessary because that was the only way it could be aired.
The ONLY way. That's right. ONLY.QuoteNo conspiracy.
Definition of conspiracy.QuoteJust the MSM continuing the lie.
Which lie? Is Biden not real?QuoteAmazing, the MSM lies all the time and "us," support it.
Obviously it's just you and a select few others that "have your eyes open". It has nothing to do with delusion. Nothin at all.
In detail? What kind of detail?The reporters were standing in front of him and their mics were in front of him also.So it's easier to hire reporters to give a Biden stand in, then film Biden responding to that interview, then compositing it, then releasing it and having the fake reporter say it all happened? That is simpler than actually doing the interview? Perhaps the word "simpler" means something different to you than the rest of us.Yes.
I have a firm grasp on its meaning, whereas you do not.
You can stop referring to yourself as "us," unless of course you have numerous alts, which wouldn't be surprising.
He is likely referring to "us" as the group of people here who think that it's not simple to film and photograph an interview from multiple angles and green-screen it all together with a separate group of fake reporters, and it is simple to just stand in front of real reporters and answer questions.
You may think involving dozens of people in a conspiracy to fake an interview for no good reason is simple, many of us do not.
If the mics were real, and Biden was real, how did a mic clip through his hand? Just curious: can you explain how a green screen works? Like in detail? No copy/paste. In your own words, please.
The kind you are going to copy/paste to "fact check," my reply?
Look it up yourself.
The entire episode was a green screen production.
So to sum up, it was necessary because it supports the conspiracy you believe in. Well, not everyone needs critical thinking skills. I am sure you are good at something else.No, it was necessary because that was the only way it could be aired.
Like I wrote.
A proven liar supporting other proven liars.
"Tell a lie often enough and they will eventually believe it."
Still waiting for the "us" liberals to reply to this.Seeing kids detained and huddled sleeping on the floor is a travesty. Full stop. Who is to blame?Yes, of course. The kids should be kicked outside to find food and shelter on their own.
Never mind the fact they were unaccompanied and being sexually assaulted on the trip here and never mind the medical treatment and meals they are receiving.
You're so dumb.
Damnit, Joe - it's supposed to be America's gameTM and you can't even go out and throw the first pitch?*
https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2143999
*Inb4 the claims of poor health and puppet president
From NPR News
Biden Unveils What He Calls A 'Once-In-A-Generation' Infrastructure Proposal https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982666869/watch-live-president-biden-unveils-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan?sc=18&f=1001
So while I'm all for alot of it, I think the bit about electric cars can be taken out. That should be a separate bill. You can't promite e-cars until you fix your power grid.
Holy shit, are we going to have 4 years of this BDS?
President Joe Biden thinks it is appropriate to make some migrants sleep on a dirt floor under a bridge. Terrible. - https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1377624299427729409
President Joe Biden thinks it is appropriate to make some migrants sleep on a dirt floor under a bridge. Terrible. - https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1377624299427729409
There's nothing there that tweet that says Biden "thinks it is appropriate" ...
From NPR News
Biden Unveils What He Calls A 'Once-In-A-Generation' Infrastructure Proposal https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982666869/watch-live-president-biden-unveils-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan?sc=18&f=1001
So while I'm all for alot of it, I think the bit about electric cars can be taken out. That should be a separate bill. You can't promite e-cars until you fix your power grid.
From NPR News
Biden Unveils What He Calls A 'Once-In-A-Generation' Infrastructure Proposal https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982666869/watch-live-president-biden-unveils-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan?sc=18&f=1001
So while I'm all for alot of it, I think the bit about electric cars can be taken out. That should be a separate bill. You can't promite e-cars until you fix your power grid.
Isn’t it just Texas’ power grid that’s screwed?
So Biden is doing what is not appropriate? That is much worse.
So Biden is doing what is not appropriate? That is much worse.
Is there any evidence of any affirmative action by Biden which has specifically caused these events? What do you reckon Biden is "doing" here?
Would it do any good to suggest that, with the best will in the world, undoing what The Former Guy did in his four years might, just might, take a bit longer than the 60 or so days Biden has had in office thus far....?
I assume he's trying to say "y'all are hypocrites, Biden does same as Trump", which is ironic since he failed so hard to understand that when we were saying the same to him. Also, I think most of us are actually willing to criticize Biden. If he has any part of that, that's shitty af.
It’s a pretty pathetic and simplistic way of looking at the world
Sounds more like the self realization and admission of wrongness from someone who has spent years here ranting and repeating the leftist tripe against Trump.
nb4 kamala vetoes https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/03/schumer-senate-marijuana-legalization-478963
nb4 kamala vetoes
nb4 kamala vetoes
Didn't she sponsor a bill supporting legalization not that long ago?
Politicians and narcissism is pretty iconic.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/04/echoing-trump-biden-sends-letter-stimulus-check-recipients/4929873001/
::)
Just as lame and self-serving as when Trump did it. I fucking cringed when I saw this letter in the mail.
I think there's an appreciable difference between the president including a self-congratulatory letter with the check and insisting that his own signature be on the check itself. The letter is ethically dubious, but putting Trump's signature directly onto the checks as if he was personally paying for the bailouts was fundamentally dishonest.Could you elaborate on that? I fail to see the difference - both carry the exact same implication, and were done with the same intention. The main difference, it seems, is that orange man bad. Other than that, we only have the small difference of Trump trying to get his name on the cheques, and Biden trying to publicly announce how much he doesn't want his name on the cheques because he's so much better and purer than Trump.
I think there's an appreciable difference between the president including a self-congratulatory letter with the check and insisting that his own signature be on the check itself.
Could you elaborate on that? I fail to see the difference - both carry the exact same implication, and were done with the same intention. The main difference, it seems, is that orange man bad. Other than that, we only have the small difference of Trump trying to get his name on the cheques, and Biden trying to publicly announce how much he doesn't want his name on the cheques because he's so much better and purer than Trump.
Could you elaborate on that? I fail to see the difference - both carry the exact same implication, and were done with the same intention. The main difference, it seems, is that orange man bad. Other than that, we only have the small difference of Trump trying to get his name on the cheques, and Biden trying to publicly announce how much he doesn't want his name on the cheques because he's so much better and purer than Trump.
Biden's letter contains information that is clear, correct, and relevant, but inappropriate to include in that context. Trump's signature, however, doesn't communicate any information, and so feels manipulative, like a psychological trick to try and make people associate their check with Trump without actually making a logical case for why Trump deserves credit for the check. To put it another way, both presidents took advantage of sending out these checks for their own political gain, but Biden was upfront about it while Trump did it in an underhanded way.
Biden's letter contains information that is clear, correct, and relevant, but inappropriate to include in that context.Whether you consider "wow look at how cool I am!" to be clear, correct, or relevant is very subjective.
Trump's signature, however, doesn't communicate any information, and so feels manipulative, like a psychological trick to try and make people associate their check with Trump without actually making a logical case for why Trump deserves credit for the check.Right, so we're discussing your feelings. Fair enough. Can you explain why it "feels" that way?
To put it another way, both presidents took advantage of sending out these checks for their own political gain, but Biden was upfront about it while Trump did it in an underhanded way.Really? What's more "upfront" about writing a letter and grandstanding about how it's totally cool that you didn't try to put your signature on the cheques for political gain, versus trying to put your signature on the cheques for political gain? If anything, the former adds a step to the process, making it less straight-forward.
As the audit continues in AZ, we now know Biden stole all the battle ground states and in fact lost the election to Trump. Regardless, sleepy Joe won't make it to the end of term and probably end of year as his dementia is really kicking in. Joe ain't my President, Obama in the basement is...LMAO What a train wreak !!!
As the audit continues in AZ, we now know Biden stole all the battle ground states and in fact lost the election to Trump. Regardless, sleepy Joe won't make it to the end of term and probably end of year as his dementia is really kicking in. Joe ain't my President, Obama in the basement is...LMAO What a train wreak !!!
Why should we trust the audit?
The main auditor appears to be someone who has never audited an election before now, and whose CEO is a rabid conspiracy theorist.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/05/arizona-recount-cyber-ninjas-doug-logan-explained.html
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-saysWhen a couple can make twice the median income by not working, why work?
So let this sink in:
The jobs report was lower than expected. The reason being that employers are finding it hard to find workers. (So labor shortage)
The republicans are arguing that the stimulus bills are the cause of this; That people make more on unemployment than they do working. Which is probably true for alot of jobs like waite staff and baristas.
So republicans are saying "These jobs suck and it's Biden's fault for giving you a better option!"
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-saysWhen a couple can make twice the median income by not working, why work?
So let this sink in:
The jobs report was lower than expected. The reason being that employers are finding it hard to find workers. (So labor shortage)
The republicans are arguing that the stimulus bills are the cause of this; That people make more on unemployment than they do working. Which is probably true for alot of jobs like waite staff and baristas.
So republicans are saying "These jobs suck and it's Biden's fault for giving you a better option!"
Labor shortage is not an accurate descriptor.
Everyone wants to be pampered is more accurate.https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995518597/americans-will-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-turn-down-jobs-biden-saysWhen a couple can make twice the median income by not working, why work?
So let this sink in:
The jobs report was lower than expected. The reason being that employers are finding it hard to find workers. (So labor shortage)
The republicans are arguing that the stimulus bills are the cause of this; That people make more on unemployment than they do working. Which is probably true for alot of jobs like waite staff and baristas.
So republicans are saying "These jobs suck and it's Biden's fault for giving you a better option!"
Labor shortage is not an accurate descriptor.
How about :Shit pay keeps all but illegals from wanting to work?
EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
Why would anyone with a kid go back to work to make a couple hundred bucks more a month, but then have to pay hundreds more for childcare, when they could stay at home, make more net income and spend time with their family? The fact that people are spinning this as 'lazy workers' instead of 'corporate greed and an unlivable minimum wage' is kind of amazing to watch
They wouldn't.EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
Why would anyone with a kid go back to work to make a couple hundred bucks more a month, but then have to pay hundreds more for childcare, when they could stay at home, make more net income and spend time with their family? The fact that people are spinning this as 'lazy workers' instead of 'corporate greed and an unlivable minimum wage' is kind of amazing to watch
>capitalism works because everyone is greedyIt is possible to be extremely greedy and extremely lazy all that same time.
>also social welfare is bad because everyone is lazy
i fucking hate this country
False. Most people want to work. Why do you think most retired people find hobbies or community service? Boredom is a thing.They wouldn't.EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
Why would anyone with a kid go back to work to make a couple hundred bucks more a month, but then have to pay hundreds more for childcare, when they could stay at home, make more net income and spend time with their family? The fact that people are spinning this as 'lazy workers' instead of 'corporate greed and an unlivable minimum wage' is kind of amazing to watch
They would rather be pampered and taken care of by somebody else.
As long as I have enough to live, I am generally satisfied, as would 80 percent of all people.Yep. Tho 'living' is a relative term. Like if you had enough to live in a 1 bedroom apartment in the middle of a gang infested part of the city and eat nothing but junk food... Is that enough? Would you want more to save? Maybe buy a house? Start a family? Go to school?
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.Don't project your own desires on humanity, dude.
People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
It is true that boredom is a thing. I never claimed it was not a thing.False. Most people want to work. Why do you think most retired people find hobbies or community service? Boredom is a thing.They wouldn't.EveryoneFTFYwants to be pamperedthinks they deserve a living wage is more accurate.
Why would anyone with a kid go back to work to make a couple hundred bucks more a month, but then have to pay hundreds more for childcare, when they could stay at home, make more net income and spend time with their family? The fact that people are spinning this as 'lazy workers' instead of 'corporate greed and an unlivable minimum wage' is kind of amazing to watch
They would rather be pampered and taken care of by somebody else.
If you want those things, you should put in the work required to get those things.QuoteAs long as I have enough to live, I am generally satisfied, as would 80 percent of all people.Yep. Tho 'living' is a relative term. Like if you had enough to live in a 1 bedroom apartment in the middle of a gang infested part of the city and eat nothing but junk food... Is that enough? Would you want more to save? Maybe buy a house? Start a family? Go to school?
Tell me: what is 'enough to live' for you?
Not my desires at all.QuoteIf the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.Don't project your own desires on humanity, dude.
People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.
I think you are totally missing the point.If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.
Yep, there's the problem.
I believe you that you're lazy. It doesn't surprise me really. But most people have aspirations for more than the bare minimum to survive. Indeed, that's why capitalism is supposed to work in the first place.
Exactly. A government should pay people enough to live. A company should pay employees enough to have a life.Who wants a minimum wage job?
Minimum wage should reflect the ability for someone to have a life, just as it did back when America was 'great'. Currently theres little motivation for someone to go get a minimum wage job, and very little capacity for people to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' to reuse the old trope.
I think you are totally missing the point.If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.
Yep, there's the problem.
I believe you that you're lazy. It doesn't surprise me really. But most people have aspirations for more than the bare minimum to survive. Indeed, that's why capitalism is supposed to work in the first place.
I am not most people.
I work every day.
Nobody is paying me to stay home and not work.
But most people are not, because as I pointed out earlier, a couple making twice the median income in the US by not working will not work for less.
I get paid about the median income in the US.
I have a house, two cars, a few Thork-like sport bikes, a couple of guitars, and riding mower to take care of the grounds.
But I work for it because I want those things.
When I don't want them anymore, I will work enough to get what I want.
I don't believe anyone owes me a goddamn thing, unlike you.
Most people do not want to work.This is you projecting. It is not reality. Unemployed people want to work. But if unemployment is higher than the the shitty job you had, why would you want to go back to it?
Hobbies and community service is not viewed as work by people who perform such things.My hobbies include computer stuff.
Playing the guitar =/= work for me.
I am not good enough to get paid doing it though.
For most people work = slavery.So what you're saying is that its only "real work" if you are over worked and paid so badly that you can barely survive, let alone live. Good to know. Guess you don't "work", do you?
Great in theory but ya gotta spend money to make money. School costs money. Food costs money. And if you want either, you need a job. But only an unskilled job since you have no education or experience. Which pays too low to really go to school. Not without outside support. And thats the issue at heart: if your life sucks before your an adult, its very hard to get it not to suck as an adult.If you want those things, you should put in the work required to get those things.QuoteAs long as I have enough to live, I am generally satisfied, as would 80 percent of all people.Yep. Tho 'living' is a relative term. Like if you had enough to live in a 1 bedroom apartment in the middle of a gang infested part of the city and eat nothing but junk food... Is that enough? Would you want more to save? Maybe buy a house? Start a family? Go to school?
Tell me: what is 'enough to live' for you?
You cannot blame some other entity for not doing the work required to get those things.
Nope. The government isn't taking care of me. I make too much money. Nor do I want them to care for me, I don't need it. (Tho the national health care is nice, even if I haven't used it yet)Not my desires at all.QuoteIf the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.Don't project your own desires on humanity, dude.
People are fucking lazy whether you like the fact or not.
I know damn well the government is not inclined to take care of me.
People like you they will take care of.
Actually, in the past year and one-half, I would be able to afford to live much the same as I do now, due to Covid. The reason I did not is due to the fact that type of government support would be all dried up now.I think you are totally missing the point.If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.
Yep, there's the problem.
I believe you that you're lazy. It doesn't surprise me really. But most people have aspirations for more than the bare minimum to survive. Indeed, that's why capitalism is supposed to work in the first place.
I am not most people.
I work every day.
Nobody is paying me to stay home and not work.
But most people are not, because as I pointed out earlier, a couple making twice the median income in the US by not working will not work for less.
I get paid about the median income in the US.
I have a house, two cars, a few Thork-like sport bikes, a couple of guitars, and riding mower to take care of the grounds.
But I work for it because I want those things.
When I don't want them anymore, I will work enough to get what I want.
I don't believe anyone owes me a goddamn thing, unlike you.
Hmm. I'm trying to square this away with your claim that you wouldn't work if the government paid you to do nothing. I assume you recognize that you wouldn't be able to afford all those things on the government till.
So you felt it important to work hard to get those things, but if the government was paying you the bare minimum to survive you wouldn't have and would have just been content sitting home, doing nothing and owning nothing of value? ???See, I don't view the things I have as important and that is the difference.
That's just weird. Again I don't think most people feel the same way.
Because "Unemployed people want to work" remember what you just wrote?Most people do not want to work.This is you projecting. It is not reality. Unemployed people want to work. But if unemployment is higher than the the shitty job you had, why would you want to go back to it?
Because "Unemployed people want to work" remember what you just wrote?Most people do not want to work.This is you projecting. It is not reality. Unemployed people want to work. But if unemployment is higher than the the shitty job you had, why would you want to go back to it?
Jesus H. Christ...
See, most people also view their jobs as "shit jobs," as you put it, because most people are fucked in the head and cannot put together two thoughts in a row that make sense, much like your example here.
And if they are capable of living as I am currently (even better, in most instances), then yeah, they are not going to work.
And if they are capable of living as I am currently (even better, in most instances), then yeah, they are not going to work.
I think I have the numbers right:
The max amount you can get is $450 per week of unemployment for usually 26 weeks (Some states are lower, like Missouri is 13 weeks). And that’s the max amount based upon your previous years income. And the max amount varies by State. For instance, California max is $450, Arizona’s is $240, Kentucky’s is $552. So I’m using the rough average max for this, $450.
That’s a total of $11,700.00 ($450 X 26 weeks, 1/2 a year)
Covid has extended the 26 weeks to 39 weeks and added a $300 additional benefit for up to 11 weeks.
So the max would be $450 + 300 for 11 weeks + $450 for 28 weeks for a total of: $8250 + $12600 = $20,850.00
Are you saying you make less than $20k for 3/4 of a year and the unemployed with these benefits are making more than you?
If you need a real reason to dislike Joe Biden then look no further at his fecklessness regarding the current situation in Israel.
(on the notion of the joke)
Trump wouldn't have made a joke in that exact way, though. He'd most likely phrase it as a general comment about how great it would be if he could kill journalists. And he wouldn't say it to the journalists directly, but to his fans at a rally. The cheering crowd would scream their enthusiastic approval, at least one crazy person present would begin making their own plans to murder journalists, and Trump onstage would bask in their admiration. Afterwards, he would deny ever making the controversial comment to begin with, and after a few days, either he or his staff would dismissively say it had been a joke.
It was in bad taste, no doubt. But also context.
The man was literally about to drive away at an event specifically setup for him to drive. And someone wants to ask him about Israel.
But I maintain he shouldn't have said it and I also maintain that half of Trump's comments wouldn't have gotten nothing if he didn't double down everytime someone called him out on shit.
People who aren't friends with Israel have a pretty bad track record so I'm glad we are allied with them.
People who aren't friends with Israel have a pretty bad track record so I'm glad we are allied with them.
Seems to be a common theme among American Presidents to confuse Syria with other nations - Trump remembers details of cake he was eating while launching missiles, but not which country he was attacking:
Trump recalls moment he launched missiles, confuses Iraq for Syria
Trump says he informed the leader of China of the missile strike “over dessert”.
“Let me explain something to you, this is during dessert,” he said of his meal with Jinping.
"We’ve just fired 59 missiles, all of which hit by the way, unbelievable, from hundreds of miles away, it’s brilliant it’s genius, what we have in terms of technology no-one can come close to competing.
So I said, we’ve just launched 59 missiles, heading to Iraq."
“Heading to Syria?” the host interjects.
https://www.thejournal.ie/trump-syria-dessert-3337600-Apr2017/
NOT MY PRES..his party cheated..LOSERShahahaha sucked in! 8)
Seems to be a common theme among American Presidents to confuse Syria with other nations - Trump remembers details of cake he was eating while launching missiles, but not which country he was attacking:
Trump recalls moment he launched missiles, confuses Iraq for Syria
Trump says he informed the leader of China of the missile strike “over dessert”.
“Let me explain something to you, this is during dessert,” he said of his meal with Jinping.
"We’ve just fired 59 missiles, all of which hit by the way, unbelievable, from hundreds of miles away, it’s brilliant it’s genius, what we have in terms of technology no-one can come close to competing.
So I said, we’ve just launched 59 missiles, heading to Iraq."
“Heading to Syria?” the host interjects.
https://www.thejournal.ie/trump-syria-dessert-3337600-Apr2017/
This ain't a President...this is a senile old man who should go put his feet up and never appear in public as any kind of official.
NOT MY PRES..his party cheated..LOSERS
Funny. WHo is in the white house and currently the leader of the free world
https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1404778472015286286?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1404810367721787394%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2021%2F06%2Fjoe-biden-totally-lost-shares-gibberish-world-stage-embarrassing-received-81-million-votes%2F
Biden seems brain dead. Is he really going to play hard ball with Putin?
Tammy Bruce
@HeyTammyBruce
·
Jun 13
This is horrible. At some point his cognitive disfunction has to be considered a natl security threat if only because of the confidence it must give our enemies “President confuses Syria with Libya three times”
1.8M views
1:13 / 1:24
From
RNC Research
https://twitter.com/HeyTammyBruce/status/1404169515638870017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1404410620036980739%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fahead-putin-meeting-biden-confuses-syria-libya-3-times-less-90-seconds
Biden seems brain dead. Is he really going to play hard ball with Putin?
General life expectancy for someone with Alzheimer’s is around 8-12 years.
After diagnosis, the average lifespan of someone with dementia with Lewy bodies was found in one study to be around 5-7 years after onset.
The average life span for someone with frontotemporal dementia (sometimes called Pick’s disease) is around eight years.
I thought I'd calculate the odds of Joe Biden dying in office. Below are the actuarial tables so you can see my sources.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Joe is 78 years old. He has a 4.78% chance of dying this year.
Out of 100,000, people only 56,065 would be left to make the ripe old age of 78.
4 years later 44,553 will be left to celebrate their 82nd birthday.
56,056 - 44,553 = 11503
100 / (56056 / 11503) = 20.5% chance of death in those 4 years. Joe didn't have his birthday on the day he was inaugurated so his chances are a fraction more.
I honestly thought his odds of dying would be a lot higher. :-\
Edit: Joe has dementia.Quote from: https://www.liftedcare.com/what-is-the-life-expectancy-for-someone-with-dementia/General life expectancy for someone with Alzheimer’s is around 8-12 years.
After diagnosis, the average lifespan of someone with dementia with Lewy bodies was found in one study to be around 5-7 years after onset.
The average life span for someone with frontotemporal dementia (sometimes called Pick’s disease) is around eight years.
So its about 50-50. Ok, I feel better about this now.
I thought I'd calculate the odds of Joe Biden dying in office. Below are the actuarial tables so you can see my sources.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Joe is 78 years old. He has a 4.78% chance of dying this year.
Out of 100,000, people only 56,065 would be left to make the ripe old age of 78.
4 years later 44,553 will be left to celebrate their 82nd birthday.
56,056 - 44,553 = 11503
100 / (56056 / 11503) = 20.5% chance of death in those 4 years. Joe didn't have his birthday on the day he was inaugurated so his chances are a fraction more.
I honestly thought his odds of dying would be a lot higher. :-\
Edit: Joe has dementia.Quote from: https://www.liftedcare.com/what-is-the-life-expectancy-for-someone-with-dementia/General life expectancy for someone with Alzheimer’s is around 8-12 years.
After diagnosis, the average lifespan of someone with dementia with Lewy bodies was found in one study to be around 5-7 years after onset.
The average life span for someone with frontotemporal dementia (sometimes called Pick’s disease) is around eight years.
So its about 50-50. Ok, I feel better about this now.
I thought I'd calculate the odds of Joe Biden dying in office. Below are the actuarial tables so you can see my sources.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Joe is 78 years old. He has a 4.78% chance of dying this year.
Out of 100,000, people only 56,065 would be left to make the ripe old age of 78.
4 years later 44,553 will be left to celebrate their 82nd birthday.
56,056 - 44,553 = 11503
100 / (56056 / 11503) = 20.5% chance of death in those 4 years. Joe didn't have his birthday on the day he was inaugurated so his chances are a fraction more.
I honestly thought his odds of dying would be a lot higher. :-\
Edit: Joe has dementia.Quote from: https://www.liftedcare.com/what-is-the-life-expectancy-for-someone-with-dementia/General life expectancy for someone with Alzheimer’s is around 8-12 years.
After diagnosis, the average lifespan of someone with dementia with Lewy bodies was found in one study to be around 5-7 years after onset.
The average life span for someone with frontotemporal dementia (sometimes called Pick’s disease) is around eight years.
So its about 50-50. Ok, I feel better about this now.
Does your numbers take into account that, as president, he has the best healthcare money can buy?Between you and me Dave, I think Biden died sometime last year on the campaign trail and what you are seeing on TV, is his reanimated corpse. I don't want to start a conspiracy theory, but I'm sure I read something about 'Project Weekend at Bernie's".
Or is this based on the average American, who (just fyi) does not have the best medical care or even very good medical care.
So a reanimated corpse was better than Donald Trump?Does your numbers take into account that, as president, he has the best healthcare money can buy?Between you and me Dave, I think Biden died sometime last year on the campaign trail and what you are seeing on TV, is his reanimated corpse. I don't want to start a conspiracy theory, but I'm sure I read something about 'Project Weekend at Bernie's".
Or is this based on the average American, who (just fyi) does not have the best medical care or even very good medical care.
Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?
Sincerely,
Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?Hey Canada, would it be possible to start speaking out against acts of terrorism committed by government officials against your citizenry now instead of waiting until it's too late?
Sincerely,
Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?
Sincerely,
Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
OMG, if there was ever anyone who needed to get their political house in order before worrying about others, its Canada.
Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?Hey Canada, would it be possible to start speaking out against acts of terrorism committed by government officials against your citizenry now instead of waiting until it's too late?
Sincerely,
Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
Sincerely,
Your unconcerned neighbor (The US)
I understand anyone shouting out "terrorism," is most likely a terrorist.Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?
Sincerely,
Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
OMG, if there was ever anyone who needed to get their political house in order before worrying about others, its Canada.
Everyone needs work. This is a Biden thread though. If you want to start a Trudeau bad thread, go ahead.Hey America, would it be possible to start speaking out against the drive for extreme domestic counter-terrorism powers now instead of waiting until it’s too late?Hey Canada, would it be possible to start speaking out against acts of terrorism committed by government officials against your citizenry now instead of waiting until it's too late?
Sincerely,
Your concerned neighbor. (Canada)
Sincerely,
Your unconcerned neighbor (The US)
You obviously are concerned, hence the effort of replying while trying to be a cool kid. You and Thork can go get your rage-boners about Trudeau in another thread.
Interesting that you don’t want to speak out against the Biden administration’s rhetoric about Domestic Terrorism being a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism and calls for increased domestic powers.
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.Forget China and Russia. The US government sees its own citizens as the real enemy. It watches them far more closely than any would be geopolitical rival.
Anyway, to people interested in discussing, it seems like Biden and the establishment Dems are interested in ratcheting up funding and legislation to increase already disastrous power wielded by the FBI and CIA, using Jan 6th as the political smokescreen.
Unfortunately MSNBC and CNN won’t cover it and Fox News will cover it badly and no one will realize that their government is amping up the surveillance state.
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.Forget China and Russia. The US government sees its own citizens as the real enemy. It watches them far more closely than any would be geopolitical rival.
Anyway, to people interested in discussing, it seems like Biden and the establishment Dems are interested in ratcheting up funding and legislation to increase already disastrous power wielded by the FBI and CIA, using Jan 6th as the political smokescreen.
Unfortunately MSNBC and CNN won’t cover it and Fox News will cover it badly and no one will realize that their government is amping up the surveillance state.
With you acting as a willing agent those same people you supposedly decry?No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.Forget China and Russia. The US government sees its own citizens as the real enemy. It watches them far more closely than any would be geopolitical rival.
Anyway, to people interested in discussing, it seems like Biden and the establishment Dems are interested in ratcheting up funding and legislation to increase already disastrous power wielded by the FBI and CIA, using Jan 6th as the political smokescreen.
Unfortunately MSNBC and CNN won’t cover it and Fox News will cover it badly and no one will realize that their government is amping up the surveillance state.
Not so much the enemy and more of a pawn in my estimation. The government, billionaires and media are just putting the public against one another.
With you acting as a willing agent those same people you supposedly decry?
No need to quote my post to talk about how smart you are.Forget China and Russia. The US government sees its own citizens as the real enemy. It watches them far more closely than any would be geopolitical rival.
Anyway, to people interested in discussing, it seems like Biden and the establishment Dems are interested in ratcheting up funding and legislation to increase already disastrous power wielded by the FBI and CIA, using Jan 6th as the political smokescreen.
Unfortunately MSNBC and CNN won’t cover it and Fox News will cover it badly and no one will realize that their government is amping up the surveillance state.
How many weapons and soliders does China and Russia have in the US?Stormed the capital?[sic] These extremely dangerous looking people who have calmly stopped to have their photos taken by the assembled press who a) knew they would be there and b) felt in absolutely no mortal danger whatsoever? You think is gaggle have more weapons and soldiers than China?
Alot less than the number who stormed the capital on January 6.
assembled press who a) knew they would be there and b) felt in absolutely no mortal danger whatsoever?
How many weapons and soliders does China and Russia have in the US?Stormed the capital?[sic] These extremely dangerous looking people who have calmly stopped to have their photos taken by the assembled press who a) knew they would be there and b) felt in absolutely no mortal danger whatsoever? You think is gaggle have more weapons and soldiers than China?
Alot less than the number who stormed the capital on January 6.
(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/newscms/2021_02/3440538/200107-capitol-invasion-jacob-chansley-mn-1624-3440538.jpg)
I think you've been watching too much CNN again.
The thing that gets me is that most of the Jan 6th rioters seem to be regular folks. Regular folks with a lot of disposable income, since a lot of them seem to have travelled from far and wide to get there.... but;
I don't get the impression that they thought they would storm the building, stop the process, then actually DO something. I get the impression they thought they would stop the process, then go back home, go back to work, and it would then be someone else's problem.
Did "The Big Guy" get his 10% again ?
So brain dead he ate a booger on live tv.
He's the best you got?.
Not my Pres., my clown.....
You'all raw raw picked a clown that couldn't even lead 6 months. Now we get a female attorney with little experience running the USA USA USA
Shows how dumb the libs truly are.
So brain dead he ate a booger on live tv.
He's the best you got?.
Not my Pres., my clown.....
Its so weird to watch conservatives jump and attack liberals with arguments that fit Trump.
Not even sure its there or added in post production.The note that was handed to him, informing of the booger on his chin, was also edited in post-production.
Benghazi on steroids coming. Lotsa dead Americans. Thanks Joe you retard, couldn't run a lemonade stand with free lemons.
Resign NOW !!!
Isn’t the argument that whenever they did this the end result would have been the same? They appear to have picked pretty much the worst time to do it which made the Taliban’s takeover alarmingly swift.
The timing seems to have been so they could say it was done by the 20th anniversary of 9/11 which is an objectively stupid way of planning something like this - to time with an arbitrary anniversary.
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.
1. A failure to get our people out of there. Clearly Biden's fault.
2. The country falling to the Taliban. Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.
To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch.
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.
1. A failure to get our people out of there. Clearly Biden's fault.
2. The country falling to the Taliban. Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.
To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.
Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.
1. A failure to get our people out of there. Clearly Biden's fault.
2. The country falling to the Taliban. Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.
To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.
Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.
What exactly should have happened? Under what circumstances could they end this unjust occupation and contain the Taliban. The timeline to withdraw was rushed because the Taliban were becoming increasingly aggressive so the option to stay could quite easily have made the situation worse.
There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.
1. A failure to get our people out of there. Clearly Biden's fault.
2. The country falling to the Taliban. Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.
To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.
Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.
What exactly should have happened? Under what circumstances could they end this unjust occupation and contain the Taliban. The timeline to withdraw was rushed because the Taliban were becoming increasingly aggressive so the option to stay could quite easily have made the situation worse.
The Taliban were increasingly aggressive in the past few months because the US foolishly told them loud and clear we were leaving. We could have done lots of things differently (and still pulled out), and one easy way to do so is to leave without telling the Taliban when the effective date was going to be...
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year. That's not what an "occupation" is. It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.
Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year. That's not what an "occupation" is. It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.
An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.
QuoteAlso, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year. That's not what an "occupation" is. It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.QuoteAn occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.
Got it, so in other words, the war was unjust and the US and NATO should never have invaded? Is that the argument?
QuoteTracking the killing of civilians is really messy. A source would be nice.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan
71,000 total, although no breakdown as to which actions were responsible for what. Drone strikes were notorious for “collateral damage” under Obama, and regulation on those missions were relaxed by Trump.QuoteI know that the best final assessment of civilians killed by US forces in Iraq can be summed up as "Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians." At the height of the Iraqi insurgency (2006 through 2008) only about 1 out of every 100 civilian deaths involved US troops in any way. You read that right - 1%. An example year is 2006, when 16,791 civilians were killed by terrorists and insurgents, and only 225 by US troops for that whole year.
Where are these numbers from?QuoteI have read a lot less about these numbers in Afghanistan, but given that it was a much more low intensity war overall, I would be surprised if the numbers were dramatically different.
They still dropped 7,000 bombs in Afghanistan in 2019. I know it’s a pebble compared to Shock and Awe but that’s a lot of fucking bombs.QuoteAnd finally, given that the US has poured billions of USD into Afghanistan to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other things - and has poured in FAR more money than any it could have gotten out by "pulling out natural resources" that's an odd statement. I'm not going to defend any stealing the US may have done in Afghanistan, but the net is a flow of money and resources INTO, not out of, that country. And this doesn't include the dramatic increase in civil rights - particularly women's rights - that were fostered under our "puppet" regime.
Edit: One of the easiest criticisms that domestic (US) opponents of the ongoing war make is that it is so stunningly costly to keep it up (not just to pay for the military stuff, but all the so-called "nation building" stuff too). We've been pumping billions into Afghanistan via the USAID org and other means, and it's expensive. That's going to go away with the Taliban.
Here's right from the horse's mouth all the pillaging the US government has done since 2002 in Afghanistan:
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan
The government doesn’t get rich from the war directly, it’s a wealth shift from taxpayers to government contractors.
QuoteAlso, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year. That's not what an "occupation" is. It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.QuoteAn occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.
Got it, so in other words, the war was unjust and the US and NATO should never have invaded? Is that the argument?
Tracking the killing of civilians is really messy. A source would be nice. I know that the best final assessment of civilians killed by US forces in Iraq can be summed up as "Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians." At the height of the Iraqi insurgency (2006 through 2008) only about 1 out of every 100 civilian deaths involved US troops in any way. You read that right - 1%. An example year is 2006, when 16,791 civilians were killed by terrorists and insurgents, and only 225 by US troops for that whole year.
I have read a lot less about these numbers in Afghanistan, but given that it was a much more low intensity war overall, I would be surprised if the numbers were dramatically different.
And finally, given that the US has poured billions of USD into Afghanistan to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other things - and has poured in FAR more money than any it could have gotten out by "pulling out natural resources" that's an odd statement. I'm not going to defend any stealing the US may have done in Afghanistan, but the net is a flow of money and resources INTO, not out of, that country. And this doesn't include the dramatic increase in civil rights - particularly women's rights - that were fostered under our "puppet" regime.
Edit: One of the easiest criticisms that domestic (US) opponents of the ongoing war make is that it is so stunningly costly to keep it up (not just to pay for the military stuff, but all the so-called "nation building" stuff too). We've been pumping billions into Afghanistan via the USAID org and other means, and it's expensive. That's going to go away with the Taliban.
Here's right from the horse's mouth all the pillaging the US government has done since 2002 in Afghanistan:
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan
I take it back. Joe’s fucked this up bad.
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/large-explosion-at-abbey-gate-at-the-kabul-airport-report-677790
I take it back. Joe’s fucked this up bad.
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/large-explosion-at-abbey-gate-at-the-kabul-airport-report-677790
The White House said about 12,500 people were evacuated from Kabul in the 24 hours ending at 3 a.m. ET Friday, bringing the total number evacuated from Afghanistan to 111,000, including 5,100 US. citizens.
I see that Joe Biden has survived the Taliban insurgency to become the leader America needs.
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1431754382383763456
I see that Joe Biden has survived the Taliban insurgency to become the leader America needs.
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1431754382383763456
It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?
Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:
https://youtu.be/9HxnvQLdkvg
Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.
It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?
Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:
https://youtu.be/9HxnvQLdkvg
Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.
It’s hilarious how easily you fall in lockstep with the false meme nonsense that fits your narrative. And we’re the sheeple…
Did it ever strike you to wonder why your Twitter video ends where it did? Maybe curious to hopefully see sleepy joe snap out of his nap? Wouldn’t that have been even juicier for your narrative?
Here’s the full clip. Skip to about 3:16, where your Twitter video abruptly, curiously ends:
https://youtu.be/9HxnvQLdkvg
Obvi, not asleep. So silly how so easily you fall for this stuff.
Fall for what? That looks exactly like narcolepsy where people micro-sleep and zone out during meetings.
God awful embarrassing, whatever the diagnosis. When people are talking to you you look at them, not zone out at the floor. He's supposed to be the president speaking to a world leader at the white house.
It is common for one to look away, look down, while listening to another person.
It is common for one to look away, look down, while listening to another person.
It is common for one to look away, look down, while listening to another person.It’s also common for people with certain agendas to find every possible excuse to criticise Biden, having spent 4 years bending over backwards to be an apologist for everything Trump did no matter how crass or embarrassing.
an apologist for everything Trump did.
He freed 5000 Taliban, including their leader. He then upheld the deal he struck with them, even after multie breaches of the terms of said deal, allowing more and more Taliban to be released despite non compliance.an apologist for everything Trump did.
What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan.
He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.He didnt do a lot of reading, no... that's why his addresses were incoherent, rambling, improvised messes that left him slinging insults and mocking disabled people, or holding bibles upside down, or getting the names of countries wrong, or calling countries shitholes, or suggesting consumption of bleach, or using nuclear weapons to stop a hurricane, or calling racists 'very nice people's etc etc etc
Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?
an apologist for everything Trump did.
What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan. He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.
Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?
an apologist for everything Trump did.
What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan. He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.
Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?
an apologist for everything Trump did.
What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan. He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.
Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?
Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?
You mean aside from all the sexual assault allegations?
Well, there was that time we had a terrible pandemicWhat terrible pandemic? How many billions died? Where are all the dead otherwise healthy people?
and Trump spent several months insisting that there was no problem,It wasn't.
it wasn't a big deal,It was made into a big deal, but the virus itself wasn't a big deal, no.
and it would go away by itself very quickly,Pretty much what has happened. Vaccines are getting the credit for the work done by natural immunity at this point.
and also indirectly encouraged his followers to refuse to wear a mask in public.On the advice of Dr Fauchy. Is Trump supposed to contradict the chief medical officer? You'd have screamed bloody murder if he had.
We'll never know what would have happened if there had been a competent president in the Oval Office rather than someone asleep at the wheel, but hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead, and Trump must bear some responsibility for that.Hundreds and thousands of Americans die every year. They die prematurely because they are as fat as fuck and never exercise.
Also, the discussion was about Biden's behavior and mannerisms being "embarrassing" to a certain type of conservative who supported Trump. I'm in full agreement with AATW that that is the height of hypocrisy after four years of Trump's bullying, insults, and general boorish behavior.Trump spoke his mind. Biden reads other people's minds off of a teleprompter as he no longer has one of his own. You picked a rotten President this time around and he as already made more terrible mistakes than Trump made in 4 years.
lol... I'd start a list but I have to work today, I don't have several hours to recount every awful thing Trump did while in office but I invite you to read over the Trump thread if you've really forgotten, most of it is in there.I don't care about CNN knicker wetting over minutia. Did he start any wars? No. Did he try to reign in China? Yes. Did he try to enforce law and order? Yes. Then he did a pretty good job. I don't care if he said he wanted to grab a woman by the pussy once upon a time.
Are people guilty until proven innocent in the USA? So your big hatred comes down to allegations by those looking for money, fame or political gain? But no hard evidence or conviction. In other words ... Trump was great but you can't admit you voted for a deranged old fool instead by mistake because you are too proud. Got it.
What terrible pandemic? How many billions died?
Where are all the dead otherwise healthy people?
It wasn't.
It was made into a big deal, but the virus itself wasn't a big deal, no.
Pretty much what has happened. Vaccines are getting the credit for the work done by natural immunity at this point.
On the advice of Dr Fauchy. Is Trump supposed to contradict the chief medical officer? You'd have screamed bloody murder if he had.
Hundreds and thousands of Americans die every year. They die prematurely because they are as fat as fuck and never exercise.
Trump spoke his mind. Biden reads other people's minds off of a teleprompter as he no longer has one of his own. You picked a rotten President this time around and he as already made more terrible mistakes than Trump made in 4 years.
I don't care about CNN knicker wetting over minutia. Did he start any wars? No.
Did he try to reign in China? Yes.
Did he try to enforce law and order? Yes.
Then he did a pretty good job.
I don't care if he said he wanted to grab a woman by the pussy once upon a time.
Let's just say he is as guilty as Prince Andrew, perhaps more so when you recall that he bragged about going in to the Miss Teen USA dressing room when the contestants were in there and grabbing women by the pussy.Again, allegations aren't convictions. We don't live in the era of witch trials. Please get some better standards.
Only billions are terrible? You whinge about people in the UK losing their jobs to other EU citizens, but it takes billions of deaths to be a tragedy? That's pretty sick.Pandemic ... not epidemic. Come back to me when billions.
Trump insisted it was not a problem in public, while acknowledging it was a serious problem in private. You should try and keep up.That's a way to stop panic. Panic causes problems.
The millions who died from it would disagree.How? Being dead is somewhat of a disability when it comes to expressing one's own opinion.
It hasn't gone away at all. Please at least have your silly trolls informed by real life facts. Many red states in the US are hitting new highs in deaths and hospitalizations this week.Fudged numbers from the corporate drug pushers. Look around you. What do YOU see?
Yet the US has hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that correlate quite strongly with increases in COVID cases. But you don't care because it's not you.Why would you bother looking after people who can't be bothered to look after themselves? - hold that thought, its going to come up again in a second.
I eagerly await your applause for Biden not only avoiding conflict but actively ending one then.Credit where credit is due. Ending the war in Afghanistan was a good policy. Its actually a Trump policy that Biden inherited, but the execution of the withdrawal on Biden's watch has been a shit show.
He did so in a way that actively hurt the American economy by demonstrably not understanding how tariffs work.No, he successfully started bringing jobs back to the USA.
The never-ending CNN lie about insurrection. Give it up. It's a non-story. ::)QuoteDid he try to enforce law and order? Yes.Except when he encouraged his followers to violence. Then he encouraged that.
That would be sexual assault. Not rape. Why do you always exaggerate?QuoteI don't care if he said he wanted to grab a woman by the pussy once upon a time.
Of course you don't. You have often underplayed how serious a crime rape is. I sincerely hope you aren't projecting.
Let's just say he is as guilty as Prince Andrew, perhaps more so when you recall that he bragged about going in to the Miss Teen USA dressing room when the contestants were in there and grabbing women by the pussy.Again, allegations aren't convictions. We don't live in the era of witch trials. Please get some better standards.
Only billions are terrible? You whinge about people in the UK losing their jobs to other EU citizens, but it takes billions of deaths to be a tragedy? That's pretty sick.Pandemic ... not epidemic. Come back to me when billions.
Trump insisted it was not a problem in public, while acknowledging it was a serious problem in private. You should try and keep up.That's a way to stop panic. Panic causes problems.
The millions who died from it would disagree.How? Being dead is somewhat of a disability when it comes to expressing one's own opinion.
It hasn't gone away at all. Please at least have your silly trolls informed by real life facts. Many red states in the US are hitting new highs in deaths and hospitalizations this week.Fudged numbers from the corporate drug pushers. Look around you. What do YOU see?
Yet the US has hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that correlate quite strongly with increases in COVID cases. But you don't care because it's not you.Why would you bother looking after people who can't be bothered to look after themselves? - hold that thought, its going to come up again in a second.
I eagerly await your applause for Biden not only avoiding conflict but actively ending one then.Credit where credit is due. Ending the war in Afghanistan was a good policy. Its actually a Trump policy that Biden inherited, but the execution of the withdrawal on Biden's watch has been a shit show.
Job growth went down 90% from 2016 to 2019 while over 1,800 factories closed. What in the actual fuck are you on?He did so in a way that actively hurt the American economy by demonstrably not understanding how tariffs work.No, he successfully started bringing jobs back to the USA.
The never-ending CNN lie about insurrection. Give it up. It's a non-story. ::)QuoteDid he try to enforce law and order? Yes.Except when he encouraged his followers to violence. Then he encouraged that.
That would be sexual assault. Not rape. Why do you always exaggerate?QuoteI don't care if he said he wanted to grab a woman by the pussy once upon a time.
Of course you don't. You have often underplayed how serious a crime rape is. I sincerely hope you aren't projecting.
President Joe Biden called a black man "boy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rchgYSS2OjU&ab_channel=BidenGaffes
Not my Pres....
1. You are not American.Not my Pres....
Here are the ways Joe B. is not your Pres:
What an absolute disgrace.
boy oh boy, Biden has hit dementia overload. Where's my mommy? My diaper is dirty....
Give it to the tards that voted for this clown and stole the election for him.
Not my Pres....
What an absolute disgrace.
It’s What Jen Psaki *Didn’t* Say When Asked About Biden Looking at His Watch That People Should Notice
...
White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the issue during today’s press briefing by Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich. Here’s how the exchange went down:
Heinrich: “Some of the Gold Star families have criticized the president’s conduct at the dignified transfer. There was a father of one Marine who said the president shouldn’t be checking his watch every time a flag-draped transport case came out of the plane. And a sister of another Marine said that it felt like a fake and scripted apology. Was the President looking at his watch and does he have a message to those people who felt that they were offended?”
Psaki: “Well, I would say his message to all of the family members who were there, those who were not even in attendance, is that he is grateful to their sons and daughters, the sacrifice they made to the country. That he knows firsthand what it’s like to lose a child and the fact no one can tell you anything or say anything, or there’s no words that are going to fill that hole that is left by that.
He’s not going to speak to and I’m not going to speak to the private conversations. Of course, they have the right to convey whatever they would like. But I will tell you, from spending a lot of time with him over the past couple of days, that he was deeply impacted by these family members who he met just two days ago. That he talks about them frequently in meetings and the incredible service and sacrifice of their sons and daughters. That is not going to change their suffering, but I wanted to convey that still.”
Watch:
https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1432805965955534850?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1432805965955534850%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2021%2F08%2F31%2Fits-what-jen-psaki-didnt-say-when-asked-about-biden-looking-at-his-watch-that-people-should-notice-2-n436179
What wasn’t said in the clip? Firstly, there was no denial, no attempt at spinning it into him looking at something else or doing something else rather than checking his watch.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there was no apology, no expression of regret, nothing.
If you’re not going to deny it, you should at the very least apologize for it. That didn’t happen today, as an apology did not come from Biden nor did it come from Psaki.
As I’ve often said, sometimes it’s what they *don’t* tell you that speaks volumes.
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?There's a yet-to-be-defined differential equation and then an if(biden && trump){thenThing1} elseif(biden && !trump){thenThisOtherThing} elseif(trump && !biden){doThisThingInsteadOfTheOtherThings} else{print("Biden BAD OK?")} waterfall of outcomes to determine the level of disgust and why it should be directed at Biden. The differential equation is an absolute value, so it's always positive.
I'm just trying to get a sense of where the goal posts sit before I decide if this is worth jumping into or not
It is claimed by multiple people that he checked his watch multiple times.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the issue during today’s press briefing by Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich. Here’s how the exchange went down:
Heinrich: “Some of the Gold Star families have criticized the president’s conduct at the dignified transfer. There was a father of one Marine who said the president shouldn’t be checking his watch every time a flag-draped transport case came out of the plane. And a sister of another Marine said that it felt like a fake and scripted apology. Was the President looking at his watch and does he have a message to those people who felt that they were offended?”
Psaki: “Well, I would say his message to all of the family members who were there, those who were not even in attendance, is that he is grateful to their sons and daughters, the sacrifice they made to the country. That he knows firsthand what it’s like to lose a child and the fact no one can tell you anything or say anything, or there’s no words that are going to fill that hole that is left by that.
He’s not going to speak to and I’m not going to speak to the private conversations. Of course, they have the right to convey whatever they would like. But I will tell you, from spending a lot of time with him over the past couple of days, that he was deeply impacted by these family members who he met just two days ago. That he talks about them frequently in meetings and the incredible service and sacrifice of their sons and daughters. That is not going to change their suffering, but I wanted to convey that still.”
What wasn’t said in the clip? Firstly, there was no denial, no attempt at spinning it into him looking at something else or doing something else rather than checking his watch.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there was no apology, no expression of regret, nothing.
If you’re not going to deny it, you should at the very least apologize for it. That didn’t happen today, as an apology did not come from Biden nor did it come from Psaki.
As I’ve often said, sometimes it’s what they *don’t* tell you that speaks volumes.
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?
Are you certain that's it's all the Republicans' fault in this and that Biden isn't a disrespectful buffoon?
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?
Wow. It appears that you are saying "so what," admitting that Joe Biden is disrespectful, and deflecting that the problem is actually with other people. Can't you liberals ever own up to your faults?
I don't see how any past bad action which any person of any particular group may or may not have done has any bearing on Biden disrespecting the families of dead soldiers. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why should Joe Biden be compared to any other person for his actions? Just because Adolf Hitler did some despicable things doesn't give Biden a pass on any despicable thing he does.
Also the gop: Off topic to this thread
I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behavior, but Joe Biden's actions remain bad independently of any bad thing anyone else may or may not have done at any time in the past. If you want to talk about the gop and abortion I would suggest making a thread about it.
I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behaviorPeople are actually talking about your hypocrisy. Keep up.
I'm still waiting to hear why Republicans are hypocrits and how you justify it. Should I make a thread about that too? Or are you gonna dance around that one too?
I understand why you guys want to talk about someone else's possible bad actions when confronted with Joe Biden's abhorent behaviorPeople are actually talking about your hypocrisy. Keep up.
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets. Joe Biden is not running the country.
So, according to you, Joe demanded the set to be built for the photo op.Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets. Joe Biden is not running the country.
Yeah, I remember...
(https://i.imgur.com/hkUy04t.png)
(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2021/03/captain-disiluusion.jpg)
And comedians making cracks about the Biden booster shot theatrics, definitely funny. Kind of a leap to say he's not running the country based upon comedy. Basically an odd illogical non sequitur on your part.
Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets.Literally no idea what point you think you're making here.
Did they show the area to be a set on TV when broadcasting the "booster shot?"Remember the green screen presser outside? They are now just building sets.Literally no idea what point you think you're making here.
Are you claiming they were trying to be deceptive? Pretty dumb to invite the press if so.
You seriously think that the fact he's not actually having the booster in the White House (if that's what that is supposed to be) is a real zinger?The question is simple.
OK, dude...
Why wouldn't he get the booster in the White House?You think the people who do boosters go door to door?
Holy shit.Why wouldn't he get the booster in the White House?You think the people who do boosters go door to door?
I guess the set is for show, but I don't think the point of this was that he was doing it at the White House or wherever that's meant to be, but that he was having it at all - the point being to encourage others to.
Jesus, the fact you think setting up fake scenery is somehow encouraging people to get this shot
Transparency is a good thing, right?
What happened to that point?
You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.
Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.
Transparency is a good thing, right?
What happened to that point?
You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.
Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.
An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me. Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters. This is so silly.
Jesus, this thread is about Joe Biden.Transparency is a good thing, right?
What happened to that point?
You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.
Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.
An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me. Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters. This is so silly.
Its ironic, given how much makup and set dressing Trump does.
Oh, so the stated purpose of "LET US PITCH THE EFFICACY AND NECESSITY of getting these shots (that is all they are, after all. Note, they do not even market the flu vaccine as a vaccine anymore, it is marketed as a shot) by doing it in front of a camera!" isn't misleading if it isn't done where they claim it is being done.Transparency is a good thing, right?
What happened to that point?
You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.
Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.
An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me. Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters. This is so silly.
Oh, so the stated purpose of "LET US PITCH THE EFFICACY AND NECESSITY of getting these shots (that is all they are, after all. Note, they do not even market the flu vaccine as a vaccine anymore, it is marketed as a shot) by doing it in front of a camera!" isn't misleading if it isn't done where they claim it is being done.Transparency is a good thing, right?
What happened to that point?
You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.
Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.
An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me. Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters. This is so silly.
That all explains why you are such a fervent believer in the science fiction of space flight.
If you are so gullible as to believe you live on some blue marble floating around space, you'll believe any fucking lie told by the proven liars.
Note, they do not even market the flu vaccine as a vaccine anymore, it is marketed as a shot)
What part of honest messaging escapes you?Oh, so the stated purpose of "LET US PITCH THE EFFICACY AND NECESSITY of getting these shots (that is all they are, after all. Note, they do not even market the flu vaccine as a vaccine anymore, it is marketed as a shot) by doing it in front of a camera!" isn't misleading if it isn't done where they claim it is being done.Transparency is a good thing, right?
What happened to that point?
You three obviously give less than two combined shits about "truth in advertising" when it comes to the messaging about your beloved vaccine.
Pathetic stance by all of you, and par for the course.
An advertisement about vaccine boosters would need to make a misleading claim about vaccine boosters for it to concern me. Being filmed on a set is not being misleading about vaccine boosters. This is so silly.
Of course it isn’t. Why would it be?
Note, they probably started marketing it as “a shot” because a percentage of smooth brained anti-vaxxers might be fooled in to getting the jab.QuoteThat all explains why you are such a fervent believer in the science fiction of space flight.
If you are so gullible as to believe you live on some blue marble floating around space, you'll believe any fucking lie told by the proven liars.
K. Bet you can’t demonstrate a necessary causal link between filming on a set and “they are lying about the vaccine”.
In your world, Geico is lying about insurance because Gecko’s can’t really talk. Lol
President Harris!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59352170
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.
There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.
There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.
I’m not convinced the GOP establishment wants him but I am also not convinced they are willing to do what the Dems did to Bernie.
What makes you think that? The Republican nomination for 2024 is his if he wants it, and if he runs again, I'd say he has a very good chance of winning.
I’m not convinced the GOP establishment wants him but I am also not convinced they are willing to do what the Dems did to Bernie.
Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are two of the few in the GOP with any balls left.
Trump will run again if he thinks it'll be more profitable.
There is a VERY good reason he hasn't made himself a candidate yet.
(In 2016 he did it the day of his inauration)
Trump will run again if he thinks it'll be more profitable.
There is a VERY good reason he hasn't made himself a candidate yet.
(In 2016 he did it the day of his inauration)
He will run again because he can make money from all the suckers he spams emails for donations with. He's otherwise broke and I imagine in the business and banking world, his name is pariah. So if he's not stirring outrage, he has no money coming in.
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.
There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.
There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.
I think people will be utterly sick of Sleepy Joe by then. If its vs Biden, I think Trump will win. If its against Harris, you know that black people will block vote and she'll win it. All 3 are a shitty choice. I think Ted Cruz would be a better choice for Republicans. I don't give a fuck about the dems. They are all wankers.Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.
There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.
What makes you think that? The Republican nomination for 2024 is his if he wants it, and if he runs again, I'd say he has a very good chance of winning.
I miss Paul Ryan.LOL! Define integrity please, as I don't think you actually know what the word means.
At least he had integrity.
You hold principals that are for the betterment of your society and do not change your views based on personal hardship or reward but rather new evidence or understanding.I miss Paul Ryan.LOL! Define integrity please, as I don't think you actually know what the word means.
At least he had integrity.
I think Ted Cruz would be a better choice for Republicans.
Oh yes, Paul Ryan, the anti-fear mongering guy who pushed for our continued war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.You hold principals that are for the betterment of your society and do not change your views based on personal hardship or reward but rather new evidence or understanding.I miss Paul Ryan.LOL! Define integrity please, as I don't think you actually know what the word means.
At least he had integrity.
An example of a lack of integrity: Thinking North Korea's ruler is evil until they send you a big card with nice words on it, then saying they are such a great leader.
An example of great integrity: Stepping down as house speaker when your party has decided to use fear mongering, which you are against.
Oh, please. Ryan retired from politics because he didn't want to risk tarnishing his career by either associating too closely with Trump or making an enemy of him. Like any good Objectivist, Ryan's first priority was his own bottom line, and that's why he figured he'd be better off avoiding controversy altogether and enriching himself in the private sector instead.
And if I sound too scornful, I should stress that that's fine. If private companies think it's a good use of their money to offer Ryan a huge salary in exchange for the honor of officially listing him as a member of their board of directors, more power to him for the easy gig. But it wasn't an act of courage or integrity to retire from politics and quietly farm out his name to the highest bidder. It was an act of pure self-interest.
Former President Donald Trump ended his presidency more unpopular than any of the last 12 presidents at
the end of their first terms and he is still unpopular post-presidency according to FiveThirtyEight’s new average
of Trump’s favourability numbers. Currently, 41.4% of Americans have a favourable opinion of Trump, while
53% have an unfavourable opinion of him.
A November poll from Suffolk University reports that 11% say they would vote for a third-party candidate, which
is a worry for both the Republicans and the Democrats, as swinging voters often confound the pre-election polls.
Too many voters will just focus on how bad things are now and forget how much worse they were under Trump.
Too many voters will just focus on how bad things are now and forget how much worse they were under Trump.
Were things worse under Trump?
Too many voters will just focus on how bad things are now and forget how much worse they were under Trump.
Were things worse under Trump?
Depends upon who you ask.
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1471635387550519298?s=20
Good question.
That's not the question to ask.Right.
As we all know, the vaccine doesn't prevent you from catching covid, it just makes it quicker to end and much milder symptoms.
The question is... Of these players, how many had to be hospitalized? How many died?
That's not the question to ask.Right.
As we all know, the vaccine doesn't prevent you from catching covid, it just makes it quicker to end and much milder symptoms.
The question is... Of these players, how many had to be hospitalized? How many died?
I don’t understand the obsession with “cases”. The relevant metric is surely how many people are ending up in hospital or dying. Cases are through the roof in the UK but so far that hasn’t translated in to hospitalisations or deaths. There is a lag though do that may follow. Hopefully with the vaccines and boosters it won’t.
silly tweet
After relatively smooth sailing through training camps in August and the first three months of the season, 106 players have tested positive the past three days. That’s more than over the previous four weeks combined (87) and not far off the six-week total (121).
While COVID vaccines have proven durable in terms of preventing serious illness and death, they have not fared as well in preventing infections. The vast majority of players, coaches and staff members are vaccinated. Many of this wave of infections are breakthrough cases in which the players are asymptomatic.
“Just out of breath going up the stairs but that’s every week. I had nothing, really, which was nice,” Packers tight ends coach Justin Outten, who is back after missing Sunday night’s win vs. Chicago, said on Thursday.
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.
Your suggestion that the vaccines don't work to provide immunity but may provide a decrease in hospitalizations is irrelevant to Biden being continuously incorrect.
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.
Your point that the vaccines don't work to provide immunity but may provide a decrease in hospitalizations is irrelevant to Biden being continuously incorrect.
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.
Your suggestion that the vaccines don't work to provide immunity but may provide a decrease in hospitalizations is irrelevant to Biden being continuously incorrect.
Knowing your track record of cherry picking quotes Id like to see a source. I’d imagine he would have said it was a part of the strategy, not the only element.
Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
The brown line represents weekly deaths from all causes of vaccinated people aged 10-59, per 100,000 people.
The blue line represents weekly deaths from all causes of unvaccinated people per 100,000 in the same age range.
(https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbdca5329-b20b-4518-a733-fff84cc22124_1098x681.png)
I have checked the underlying dataset myself and this graph is correct. Vaccinated people under 60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated people. And overall deaths in Britain are running well above normal.
I don’t know how to explain this other than vaccine-caused mortality.
The basic data is available here, download the Excel file and see table 4:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.
Your suggestion that the vaccines don't work to provide immunity but may provide a decrease in hospitalizations is irrelevant to Biden being continuously incorrect.
Knowing your track record of cherry picking quotes Id like to see a source. I’d imagine he would have said it was a part of the strategy, not the only element.
He repeatedly says that getting the masses vaccinated will end Covid.
Here is a statement from Dec 3 - https://hannity.com/media-room/going-global-biden-says-america-must-vaccinate-the-world-to-end-covid-in-the-usa/President Biden addressed the nation Thursday on new threats posed by COVID’s Omicron-Variant; saying the US must vaccinate the world to ultimately end the Coronavirus pandemic.
“As we’ve seen with COVID-19 and the delta variant, and now with omicron variant, all that emerged elsewhere. It all came from somewhere else. In order to beat this pandemic, we need to go to where it came from in the rest of the world. We also need to vaccinate the rest of the world.”
Here he is claiming that the vaccine provides immunity:
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1463196939382575118
you present a plot of all-cause mortality over a 50-year age difference over some time period. the young end of that group is least likely to be vaccinated, and least likely to die of any cause. the old end of the group is most likely to be vaccinated, and most likely to die of any cause.
see if you can connect the rest of the dots on your own. (hint: population-level statistics do not track individual outcomes)
Since you cannot provide a firm definition, all of your post is irrelevant.
Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
Since you cannot provide a firm definition, all of your post is irrelevant.
Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
I have been reading. You have not.Since you cannot provide a firm definition, all of your post is irrelevant.
Obviously fully vaxxed is preferable.,
Firm definition(s) are in the article. Read before posting.
The bottom line:
Everyone will catch this "virus."
The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.
The bottom line:
Everyone will catch this "virus."
The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.
FTFYThe bottom line:
Everyone will catch this "virus."
The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.Even if all of that were true, so what?I have no dispute with what was written, so I'll write , "so what," in a fashion evading forum rules.
Wait, aren't you one of the voices crying out:The bottom line:
Everyone will catch this "virus."
The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.
Specifically define a "short time".
Causes of death and comorbidities in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5)
"We found that septic shock and multi organ failure was the most common immediate cause of death, often due to suppurative pulmonary infection....Several comorbidities, such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and obesity were present in the vast majority of patients. Our findings reveal that causes of death were directly related to COVID-19 in the majority of decedents, while they appear not to be an immediate result of preexisting health conditions and comorbidities."
So people without Covid yet with some comorbidities would die of Septic shock and multi organ failure in a "short time anyway"? I'm surprised people en masse aren't falling over dead left, right, and center even in non-pandemic times.
Wait, aren't you one of the voices crying out:The bottom line:
Everyone will catch this "virus."
The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.
Specifically define a "short time".
Causes of death and comorbidities in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5)
"We found that septic shock and multi organ failure was the most common immediate cause of death, often due to suppurative pulmonary infection....Several comorbidities, such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and obesity were present in the vast majority of patients. Our findings reveal that causes of death were directly related to COVID-19 in the majority of decedents, while they appear not to be an immediate result of preexisting health conditions and comorbidities."
So people without Covid yet with some comorbidities would die of Septic shock and multi organ failure in a "short time anyway"? I'm surprised people en masse aren't falling over dead left, right, and center even in non-pandemic times.
EXPLAIN THE EXCESS DEATHS!?!? (i.e., people dying en masse)
Seems you're trying to have it both ways.
You're trolling is once exposed as weak and ineffective.
Go lay down in the corner somewhere.
This is what confuses me. He seems to arguing that medicine is a waste of time, which seems particularly stupid.
I see no reason at this particular point to expect anything more than total senseless rhetoric or just plain feigned ignorance from you.Wait, aren't you one of the voices crying out:The bottom line:
Everyone will catch this "virus."
The people needing hospital treatment and/or dying from this "virus" are due to die in a short time anyway, due to the actual cause of their death, either just being old or the comorbidity causing their death.
Specifically define a "short time".
Causes of death and comorbidities in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5)
"We found that septic shock and multi organ failure was the most common immediate cause of death, often due to suppurative pulmonary infection....Several comorbidities, such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and obesity were present in the vast majority of patients. Our findings reveal that causes of death were directly related to COVID-19 in the majority of decedents, while they appear not to be an immediate result of preexisting health conditions and comorbidities."
So people without Covid yet with some comorbidities would die of Septic shock and multi organ failure in a "short time anyway"? I'm surprised people en masse aren't falling over dead left, right, and center even in non-pandemic times.
EXPLAIN THE EXCESS DEATHS!?!? (i.e., people dying en masse)
Seems you're trying to have it both ways.
You're trolling is once exposed as weak and ineffective.
Go lay down in the corner somewhere.
I don't even know what you're going on about or what connection you're trying to make. In any case, you're not making any sense.
You can't seem to define what a "short time" is whilst claiming anyone with a comorbidity is going to die soon anyways. A truly bizarre argument. Additionally, it appears people with covid and comorbidities (or not) seem to succumb to septic shock and multiple organ failure. I guess, according to you, since these folks are going to die soon anyway, what's all the bother about. Pretty heartless, even for you.
This is what confuses me. He seems to arguing that medicine is a waste of time, which seems particularly stupid.
Yeah, it's been his go-to argument against COVID regulations for a while now, people die anyway so why try to save them. Maybe being terminally ill has skewed his perspective or something. :(
So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.
So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.
Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination will end the pandemic and that vaccination would provide immunity.
This reporter remarks the same:
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/12/19/the-white-house-prepares-to-surrender-on-covid-n494113
So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.
Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination will end the pandemic and that vaccination would provide immunity.
This reporter remarks the same:
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/12/19/the-white-house-prepares-to-surrender-on-covid-n494113
Sure, as Rama mentioned, part of the plan, not the only element. He’s promoting all of these levers we currently have: Vax, masks, social distancing, etc. Problem is you and your Redstate.com folks (I wonder which way that “news” site leans…) refuse all three+ levers. In other words, you’re the problem, not Joe Biden.
So he didn’t say vaccination alone will end the pandemic. That’s what I thought.
Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination will end the pandemic and that vaccination would provide immunity.
This reporter remarks the same:
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/12/19/the-white-house-prepares-to-surrender-on-covid-n494113
Sure, as Rama mentioned, part of the plan, not the only element. He’s promoting all of these levers we currently have: Vax, masks, social distancing, etc. Problem is you and your Redstate.com folks (I wonder which way that “news” site leans…) refuse all three+ levers. In other words, you’re the problem, not Joe Biden.
Actually Biden explicitly said that if you were vaccinated you wouldn't get Covid.
Actually Biden has repeatedly said that the masses getting vaccinated will end covid.
I guess the former is on board...
Trump met with boos after revealing he received Covid-19 booster (https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/donald-trump-booster-shot-boos/index.html)
According to video tweeted by O'Reilly's "No Spin News," the former Fox News host says, "Both the President and I are vaxxed" and then asks Trump, "Did you get the booster?"
"Yes," Trump says to a smattering of boos in the audience. "Don't, don't, don't, don't, don't," Trump says in the video, seemingly trying to quiet the boos. "That's all right, it's a very tiny group over there."
40% of Joe Biden's own party thinks that he should be impeached.
I don't see that Biden's disapproval has changed significantly since September.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/prez_track_dec20
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
When the GOP takes the house next year and appoints mtg as the speaker
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.
Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president.
Your claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.
So, it appears you're stating no people in the US support impeachment of Biden.Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.
Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president.
Irrelevant.QuoteYour claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.
I haven’t said they have. I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden. Please keep up.
So, it appears you're stating no people in the US support impeachment of Biden.Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.
Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president.
Irrelevant.QuoteYour claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.
I haven’t said they have. I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden. Please keep up.
Shirley, you can't be serious. - Striker
I live in the US and I currently want Joe Biden impeached.
There is your evidence.
I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.EQUAL THIS:
Sorry, unless you're hinging the idea on the act of typing and not speaking, it appears your hypocrisy is rather evident.
I’m not saying that...
HOW DOES THIS:I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.EQUAL THIS:
I’m not saying that...
So, it appears you're stating no people in the US support impeachment of Biden.Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.
Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president.
Irrelevant.QuoteYour claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.
I haven’t said they have. I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden. Please keep up.
Shirley, you can't be serious. - Striker
I live in the US and I currently want Joe Biden impeached.
There is your evidence.
The idea you could ever simply type what you mean to type is obviously in the dumpster.HOW DOES THIS:I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.EQUAL THIS:
I’m not saying that...
Those are two responses to two different posts. Why should they be equal?
The idea you could ever simply type what you mean to type is obviously in the dumpster.HOW DOES THIS:I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.EQUAL THIS:
I’m not saying that...
Those are two responses to two different posts. Why should they be equal?
Here is the bottom line. The fact there are people who want Biden impeached is akin to the fact the sky is blue.
Stop demanding evidence for patently true statements and stop trolling.
Not until this very post did you actually state what you were asking for.The idea you could ever simply type what you mean to type is obviously in the dumpster.HOW DOES THIS:I’m saying you don’t have evidence that people currently wish to impeach Biden.EQUAL THIS:
I’m not saying that...
Those are two responses to two different posts. Why should they be equal?
Here is the bottom line. The fact there are people who want Biden impeached is akin to the fact the sky is blue.
Stop demanding evidence for patently true statements and stop trolling.
I was wasn’t asking for evidence that people anecdotally want Biden impeached. I was asking for evidence that there is a significant political will to impeach Biden. If you thought about the context of the entire conversation, specifically when Tom pointed out that a significant number of democrats wanted this, you would understand. You are too concerned with trying to catch me out, and it shows.
Incorrect. Biden's unpopularity and wanting Biden impeached does have something to do with each other.
You are incapable of showing that the desire to impeach remains so you tried to substitute another metric that does not show that people continue to want to impeach Biden. You have nothing.
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?
https://nypost.com/2021/12/24/biden-says-i-agree-when-dad-drops-lets-go-brandon-on-call/
(https://i.imgur.com/yERnHRg.png)
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?Ha.
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?
How does it feel to have voted for an utter imbecile?Ha.
Imagine voting for Trump. Twice.
And then saying this.
I admit Joe is suffering from Alzheimers and has no clue.
It would have been decent to say, "Yeah. Whatever." Or, his good old, "C'mon man!?!?" That would have indicated a functioning brain.I admit Joe is suffering from Alzheimers and has no clue.
Why, because he casually shrugged off a silly insult instead of getting mad about it? Again, what should he have done instead? If he had started arguing with the guy, conservatives would be saying that he was ruining an event for children with inappropriate partisan bickering. If he had outright ignored the comment, conservatives would be saying the same thing they are now - that he was too addled to realize he was being insulted. I don't believe there's anything he could have said or done that you'd be willing to concede was a decent response.
Yeah. Whatever.It would have been decent to say, "Yeah. Whatever." Or, his good old, "C'mon man!?!?" That would have indicated a functioning brain.I admit Joe is suffering from Alzheimers and has no clue.
Why, because he casually shrugged off a silly insult instead of getting mad about it? Again, what should he have done instead? If he had started arguing with the guy, conservatives would be saying that he was ruining an event for children with inappropriate partisan bickering. If he had outright ignored the comment, conservatives would be saying the same thing they are now - that he was too addled to realize he was being insulted. I don't believe there's anything he could have said or done that you'd be willing to concede was a decent response.
But he doesn't have one.
His own wife, at this very moment, getting triple teamed by SS agents, hung her head, not in shame, not in pity, but in embarrassment, wondering how long she has to hang out with this sniffer of children.
He ignored itImagine thinking that:
He ignored itImagine thinking that:
Repeating the line: "Let’s go Brandon!"
AND
Subsequently stating: "I agree!"
= Ignoring it.
LMMFAO!!!
So you were one of the thousands that day in attendance joining in with the crowd who were obviously shouting out, as the reporter pointed out, Let's Go Brandon?He ignored itImagine thinking that:
Repeating the line: "Let’s go Brandon!"
AND
Subsequently stating: "I agree!"
= Ignoring it.
LMMFAO!!!
I agree. Let's Go Brandon! As in 'Let's Go Brandon Brown, NASCAR driver. Congrats on your Talladega victory, I hope you win again.
Conservatives are unusually triggered over this. Even the guy who made this dumb remark to Biden is trying to pull it back. I think Biden made the best possible response to make them look like asses.Maybe you should call Joe, tell him to divorce his embarassed and ashamed wife, marry him, and when he pulls another response like this from his ass (you know, perhaps when he is participating in another press conference he isn't supposed to be having), you will be sitting right beside him, smiling gleefully at his impromptu response, instead of hanging your head in shame and embarrassment like that Jill.
Conservatives are unusually triggered over this. Even the guy who made this dumb remark to Biden is trying to pull it back. I think Biden made the best possible response to make them look like asses.Maybe you should call Joe, tell him to divorce his dumb ass wife, marry him, and when he pulls another response like this from his ass (you know, perhaps when he is participating in another press conference he isn't supposed to be having), you will be sitting right beside him, smiling gleefully at his impromptu response, instead of hanging your head in shame and embarrassment like that idiot Jill.
Your assertion that Biden brushed it off is betrayed by the blonde sitting to the right of Biden in the video. She knows him better than you, I would wager (although I cannot be sure, as you might be intimate in some form or fashion with the sick bastard) and she hangs her head in shame and embarrassment at his response.Conservatives are unusually triggered over this. Even the guy who made this dumb remark to Biden is trying to pull it back. I think Biden made the best possible response to make them look like asses.Maybe you should call Joe, tell him to divorce his dumb ass wife, marry him, and when he pulls another response like this from his ass (you know, perhaps when he is participating in another press conference he isn't supposed to be having), you will be sitting right beside him, smiling gleefully at his impromptu response, instead of hanging your head in shame and embarrassment like that idiot Jill.
It's just that there seems to be a lot of people who are reacting very emotionally that Biden just sort of brushed this off.
I'm not invested in any sort of goal of "owning" a particular group. There's a lot of legitimate criticism that can be leveled at Biden but instead of doing any of that he just repeated some juvenile chant that imbeciles like to chant at NASCAR.The phrase, "Ignoring it," must mean something totally different in Utah than the rest of civilized society. Perhaps it is all that funky diaper wearing going on well after being potty trained, giving rise to such a unique defining of the term.
I think this Jared Schmeck was expecting Biden to have a strong reaction over it and when he more or less ignored it then it just made Jared embarrassed. And I think a lot of conservatives are feeling that embarrassment too.
You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.
You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.
Biden is incapable of taking anything seriously. He is demented and doesn't even know the time of day.
Jill, in between her daily dp sessions with SS agents, takes it seriously. That's why she hung her head in shame and utter embarrassment after his response. She finds the addled fuck repulsive and disgusting.
Especially considering he seems to have intimate knowledge of her sex life.You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.
Biden is incapable of taking anything seriously. He is demented and doesn't even know the time of day.
Jill, in between her daily dp sessions with SS agents, takes it seriously. That's why she hung her head in shame and utter embarrassment after his response. She finds the addled fuck repulsive and disgusting.
You and Tom have a very strange fixation on Jill Biden.
Pointing out her shame and embarrassment exhibited for all to see does not constitute strange fixation.You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.
Biden is incapable of taking anything seriously. He is demented and doesn't even know the time of day.
Jill, in between her daily dp sessions with SS agents, takes it seriously. That's why she hung her head in shame and utter embarrassment after his response. She finds the addled fuck repulsive and disgusting.
You and Tom have a very strange fixation on Jill Biden.
Sorry, I didn't catch that photoshopped porn flick. If you know where I can get a copy, fill me in, okay?Especially considering he seems to have intimate knowledge of her sex life.You sound triggered. Why are you so invested in twisting this into a huge embarrassment for Biden? Why can't you just accept that the only people who think that "Let's go Brandon" is a sick burn are the conservatives who say it? Nobody else takes it seriously. Not leftists, not liberals, and not Biden.Starting with the reporter who claimed the crowd was shouting, "Let’s Go Brandon!" rather than "Fuck Joe Biden!", the ones who take it seriously are indeed leftists and liberals.
Biden is incapable of taking anything seriously. He is demented and doesn't even know the time of day.
Jill, in between her daily dp sessions with SS agents, takes it seriously. That's why she hung her head in shame and utter embarrassment after his response. She finds the addled fuck repulsive and disgusting.
You and Tom have a very strange fixation on Jill Biden.
You think he saw some photoshopped porn and thinks its real? That maybe his browser history is filled with democrat wives having sex because thats what gets him off?
Also, considering Jill Biden has a doctorate and neither Tom nor Action do... The 'dumb' comments really seem misplaced. Almost like they're projecting their own inadequicies onto other people....
LET'S GO BRANDON!
And now I am being attacked for utilizing my freedom of speech
Quote from: Jared SchmeckAnd now I am being attacked for utilizing my freedom of speech
Poor guy, I can't believe this is happening. Just a joke, bro. Stop being so triggered.
I doubt that Jill was embarrassed by Joe's response so much as she was by the guy saying the dumb phrase to begin with, but there's really no way to say for sure. In related news, Jared Schmeck is now making his tentative first steps towards a right-wing media/MAGA career:
https://www.rawstory.com/jared-schmeck-stolen-election/
Depending on how he plays this, we may see him at CPAC in the coming months and years, or maybe even in Congress. Because these are the kind of people that the GOP promotes nowadays.
I doubt that Jill was embarrassed by Joe's response so much as she was by the guy saying the dumb phrase to begin with, but there's really no way to say for sure. In related news, Jared Schmeck is now making his tentative first steps towards a right-wing media/MAGA career:
https://www.rawstory.com/jared-schmeck-stolen-election/
Depending on how he plays this, we may see him at CPAC in the coming months and years, or maybe even in Congress. Because these are the kind of people that the GOP promotes nowadays.
Yep. If Trump isn't running then I think we're looking at a Rittenhouse/Schmeck 2024 ticket.
They'll be running on very important policies. Like... umm... I don't know. Crank calls and defending dumpsters.
Actually Biden continues to be a deeply unpopular president. Your claim that people have changed their opinion on him since September is what needs evidence, rather than assumed.
They will probably also get that MAGA hat kid with the face most likely to be punched to be secretary of state.
(https://i.imgur.com/OiR6s6W.png)
They will probably also get that MAGA hat kid with the face most likely to be punched to be secretary of state.
(https://i.imgur.com/OiR6s6W.png)
That kid is already a millionaire from all of the defamation settlements, probably the same thing Rittenhouse will get. Poor Jared is going to be relegated to a gofundme if he is lucky and won't get a spot on the team.
That kid is already a millionaire from all of the defamation settlements
That kid is already a millionaire from all of the defamation settlements
Some lawyers have convincingly argued that his lawsuit was almost certainly settled for a relatively tiny sum:
https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-lawyers-think-covington-catholics-nick-sandmann-walked-away-from-media-lawsuits-with-peanuts/
Looks like Biden surrendered to the Coronavirus.
(https://i.imgur.com/vus7j9I.jpg)
That’s pretty shite leadership if he’s saying that, even if efforts at the federal level have been hampered by state politicians.
I think Honk is mostly right as well. It’s bad phrasing making it seem worse than it is and giving the entire right a free pass at crucifying him.
But it’s also his own doing, and not just a poor choice of once in one isolated instance. Yes it’s difficult to implement federal policies in the US when each state has so much independence to just railroad anything that comes along they don’t like. But Biden is supposed to be a leader - regardless of what he’s up against, he should be actively charting a path forward and championing that path. This reeks of a cop-out where he’s going to try to pin the blame on the red states when things spiral out of control next. As much blame as individual governors may have in this, it’s still not an excuse for Joe ‘the buck stops here’ Biden to just hedge his bets instead of taking action.
Alas, stupid voters are why [insert name of any democratic nation] is in decline.
To very differing extents. Surely you're not going to act as if the US was your average democracy?
Alas, stupid voters are why [insert name of any democratic nation] is in decline.
Absolutely not. It’s probably more true in other countries, for very different reasons. Countries with more than two parties and a first past the post system will have larger majorities of the population who didn’t vote for those in power.To very differing extents. Surely you're not going to act as if the US was your average democracy?
Alas, stupid voters are why [insert name of any democratic nation] is in decline.
Even Hillary Clinton thinks Biden is running a poor White House:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/must-hillary-slams-biden-dont-white-house-can-count-sane-sober-stable-productive/
(https://i.imgur.com/I9WloRn.png)
"To hold the house and the senate in 2022 and to win the electoral college because also republicans are doing everything they can to create an environment in which winning the electoral college even narrowly the way joe biden did will be out of reach for a democrat so I understand why people want to argue for their priorities that's what they believe they were elected to do but at the end of the day nothing is going to get done if you don't have a democratic majority in the house in the senate and our majority comes from .people who win.
So look I'm all about um having vigorous debate i think it's it's good and it gives people a chance to be part of the process but at the end of the day it means nothing if we don't have a congress that will get things done and we don't have a white house that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive so this is going to be a very intense period not just for the democratic party but for the country."
Quote from: Hillary"To hold the house and the senate in 2022 and to win the electoral college because also republicans are doing everything they can to create an environment in which winning the electoral college even narrowly the way joe biden did will be out of reach for a democrat so I understand why people want to argue for their priorities that's what they believe they were elected to do but at the end of the day nothing is going to get done if you don't have a democratic majority in the house in the senate and our majority comes from .people who win.
So look I'm all about um having vigorous debate i think it's it's good and it gives people a chance to be part of the process but at the end of the day it means nothing if we don't have a congress that will get things done and we don't have a white house that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive so this is going to be a very intense period not just for the democratic party but for the country."
Where do you see the Whitehouse after losing 2024 mentioned in that quote? You are clearly wrong.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/14/politics/biden-approval-rating-polling-memo/index.html
Putting out a statement to make sure it's understood that a poll showing deep unpopularity for the president is not accurate seems so... Trumpy. She seems to have come just short of referring to the poll as fake news.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/14/politics/biden-approval-rating-polling-memo/index.html
Putting out a statement to make sure it's understood that a poll showing deep unpopularity for the president is not accurate seems so... Trumpy. She seems to have come just short of referring to the poll as fake news.
Ugh...
Why Biden why?
Is it because they put you lower than Trump at the same time?
Look, about 50% is gonna hate Biden. Nothing he does is going to change that. And honestly, he hasn'f done much. He's a very low key president. At least from what I've seen.
Honestly, republicans seem to paint him as more active than he is. So to me its hard to know if he's doing a good job or not.
Even Hillary Clinton thinks Biden is running a poor White House:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/must-hillary-slams-biden-dont-white-house-can-count-sane-sober-stable-productive/
The idiot Joe Biden thinks that bridges shouldn't have weight restrictions. His idea to solve supply chain issues is to bypass the bridge weight restrictions put in place by the engineers who designed the bridge.
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1485612824583888898
So he thinks that a bridge can be upgraded to have no weight restrictions in the tweet I posted? Sounds pretty idiotic to me.
This what happens when you elect a senile old president who plagiarized coursework in law school, managing to graduate at the bottom of his class.
So he thinks that a bridge can be upgraded to have no weight restrictions in the tweet I posted? Sounds pretty idiotic to me.
This what happens when you elect a senile old president who plagiarized coursework in law school, managing to graduate at the bottom of his class.
lol @ actually arguing that a bridge can have no weight restrictions. Incorrect.
Yeah, poor communication from Joe there, telling us that we just need to remove weight restriction on bridges to solve our supply chain woes.
I would say that it's also pretty funny that the leader of the nation thinks we need to fix bridge capacity when reading reports of empty store shelves and food shortages, but really it's pretty horrific.
I find that it's more likely that Biden is fulfilling his promise he made here of "I've done dumb things and I'll do dumb things again"
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/24/biden-calls-fox-news-reporter-peter-doocy-a-stupid-son-of-a-bitch.html
Lmao what a guy. My opinion of Joe Biden has raised 10 points.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/591590-biden-leading-trump-desantis-by-similar-margins-in-new-poll?amp
It's comforting to see that even with the economy falling apart and Biden's popularity tanking people would still choose him over Tweedledum or Tweedledee in a hypothetical election right now.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/591590-biden-leading-trump-desantis-by-similar-margins-in-new-poll?amp
It's comforting to see that even with the economy falling apart and Biden's popularity tanking people would still choose him over Tweedledum or Tweedledee in a hypothetical election right now.
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1488866798581817357
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased
So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased
So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.
You larping as a righteous advocate for intellectual honesty and non-partisan takes is so cute. Instead of complaining why don’t you present evidence that the Hill is inaccurate?
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased
So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.
You larping as a righteous advocate for intellectual honesty and non-partisan takes is so cute. Instead of complaining why don’t you present evidence that the Hill is inaccurate?
So one of the die hard liberals on this site thinks it's the liberal outlet who needs to be proven wrong. Who saw that coming. ::)
Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased
So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.
I know Rasmussen tends to be pretty reliable
The Hill is widely regarded as generally centrist
Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.
Since you don't actually have a rebuttal to the content we can see that your argument is a failure. "They are conservative" isn't analogous to "lying". Sites like Rasmussen or Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative. This is a terrible argument. You are discrediting yourself by claiming such nonsense in your failure to produce a legitimate argument.
"Sites like Rasmussen or Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."
But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?
"Sites like Rasmussen or Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."It doesn’t matter what the source is.
But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?
Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.
Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.
In previous elections, yes. But years have passed since then, and I would argue that them advocating that the vice-president should overturn the results of the election and keep Trump in power is very strong evidence that they are no longer reliable.
Not all wikis are created equally. Like I said, I’d never heard of this one until today. But it is rich with bias.
Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.
You and Thork cite things incorrectly all the time. Just citing sources doesn’t make you reliable or correct.
Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.
Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.
Being biased has nothing to do with being incorrect. Astronomers are biased against astrologers and the practice of astrology. This does not make Astronomers incorrect about astrology.
Every person or group has its own biases and that alone does not mean that they are incorrect. "They're biased!" is mostly a liberal excuse to avoid having to address the arguments given.
I admitted your poll could be accurate. What else is there to argue? You asserting that conservapedia is a wiki therefore reliable?I would argue that the question shouldn't be whether Conservapedia is reliable in general (it isn't), but rather whether the specific claim they've made about The Hill is true. In some cases, this might be difficult or time-consuming to verify, so falling back on general reliability may be a good option.
I’ll add “bias” to the ever increasing list of things you don’t understand. Scientists aren’t “biased” against astrology any more than they’re biased against there being fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s simply no empirical evidence for fairies, or for astrology being a good way of predicting the future.Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.
Being biased has nothing to do with being incorrect.
Astronomers are biased against astrologers and the practice of astrology.
I’ll add “bias” to the ever increasing list of things you don’t understand. Scientists aren’t “biased” against astrology any more than they’re biased against there being fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s simply no empirical evidence for fairies, or for astrology being a good way of predicting the future.
So they form conclusions based on that empirical evidence, or lack thereof. That isn’t bias, it’s how everyone should be coming to conclusions.
You have in the past derided sources which you feel are biased against your position. You’re fine with sources which say what you want. Cherry picking, as usual.
Astronomers have a bias against astrology.No, they don’t.
Bias does not mean incorrect or wrong.It does make it more likely that someone is wrong because their bias makes them more likely to accept evidence which backs up their bias and reject evidence which does not, rather than assessing things objectively.
I admitted your poll could be accurate. What else is there to argue? You asserting that conservapedia is a wiki therefore reliable?I would argue that the question shouldn't be whether Conservapedia is reliable in general (it isn't), but rather whether the specific claim they've made about The Hill is true. In some cases, this might be difficult or time-consuming to verify, so falling back on general reliability may be a good option.
However, in this case verification is trivial. Both articles are linked within the Conservapedia page. You can just, like, go to them and find out whether they did or didn't use the specific wording alleged.
I've done just that, and so now I know that the claim was true.
Saddam's response of "Conservapedia? Is this a joke?" is dumb, because it fails to address the claim, and merely dismisses it based on who the claimant is.
Tom could have just as well re-typed the same argument by hand, and then it would suddenly not be a Conservapedia link. The source doesn't automatically discredit a position.
But hey, since we're all on watchlist for accessing that cursed website anyway, let's all enjoy the Biden junta (https://www.conservapedia.com/Biden_junta) article.
Astronomers have a bias against astrology.No, they don’t.
They (and a lot of other people) have looked at the empirical evidence and concluded that it does not support astrology. That isn’t bias.
QuoteBias does not mean incorrect or wrong.It does make it more likely that someone is wrong because their bias makes them more likely to accept evidence which backs up their bias and reject evidence which does not, rather than assessing things objectively.
As you demonstrate on here daily.
Tom disputed that the Hill is widely regarded as centrist and attempted to use conservapedia’s article as a contrafactual to that.He provided a very specific quote that he considers to be the counterpoint. Focus on that.
Not only is that site unreliable because of their cherry-picking and falsely framed comparisonsDo you believe the specific example Tom presented to be falsely framed? If so, you've just found an excellent point for yourself to argue.
but Conservapedia even admit in their article on the Hill that it has “a reputation of being more balanced compared to other lamestream [sic] media sources”. It doesn’t even really say what Tom wants it to say.Not part of what's been quoted. Again, focus on the specific claim.
Which claim? That the Hill has a liberal bias?No. Here, let me quote it again for clarity:
Despite having referred to migrant detention centers under the Trump presidency as "cages",[15 (https://thehill.com/latino/527569-texas-warehouse-where-migrants-housed-in-cages-closed-for-humane-renovation)] The Hill refers to such under the tenure of the Biden junta merely as "shelter for young migrants".[16 (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/540817-biden-vows-texas-shelter-for-young-migrants-wont-stay-open-very-long)]
Sadam obviously made a poor refutation of that, but Tom made a bad point to begin with. It’s bias all the way down.Until this moment, it really looked like you're defending Saddam's position. I now understand that you aren't, so this is either a presentation issue on your part, or a reading comprehension issue on mine.
Can you please clarify which point of Tom’s you are referring to?Hopefully done above, but just in case: "Conservapedia bad" is not, by itself, a refutation of the claim of "The choice of words in these articles is evidence of The Hill's liberal bias".
Actually, it is.Oh whoopsie doodle! You accidently didn't quote this part:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased
adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"
While biased can just mean having a preference for one thing over another, it also is synonymous with "prejudiced,"
"A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Some biases are positive and helpful—like choosing to only eat foods that are considered healthy or staying away from someone who has knowingly caused harm. But biases are often based on stereotypes, rather than actual knowledge of an individual or circumstance. Whether positive or negative, such cognitive shortcuts can result in prejudgments that lead to rash decisions or discriminatory practices."
Actually, it is.Oh whoopsie doodle! You accidently didn't quote this part:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased
adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"QuoteWhile biased can just mean having a preference for one thing over another, it also is synonymous with "prejudiced,"
In common usage bias has a clear connotation.
Tom disputed that the Hill is widely regarded as centrist and attempted to use conservapedia’s article as a contrafactual to that.He provided a very specific quote that he considers to be the counterpoint. Focus on that.
Do you believe the specific example Tom presented to be falsely framed? If so, you've just found an excellent point for yourself to argue.
Not part of what's been quoted. Again, focus on the specific claim.Which claim? That the Hill has a liberal bias?No. Here, let me quote it again for clarity:
I already did above. I'll recap so you don't have to root around for it: The reference to "cages" was not the Hill editorializing, but quoting a source; it was also in reference to individual enclosures and not the entire facility. Conservaderp then proceeded to compare that to an article talking about Biden wanting to close the entire facility. It's not a fair comparison.Sounds sensible to me! No further questions, your honour
Saddam's response of "Conservapedia? Is this a joke?" is dumb, because it fails to address the claim, and merely dismisses it based on who the claimant is.
Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another.Literally no-one understands it that way.
Also, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either.
When the claimant is Conservapedia, then yes, the claim can be safely dismissed based on who the claimant is.If you have any response at all to why that's dumb, please go ahead. If all you have to say is "YUH-UH I AM RIGHT", then perhaps we could respect the value of each other's time and not go there?
Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another.Literally no-one understands it that way.
QuoteAlso, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either.
It doesn't equal wrong, but it makes being wrong more likely.
Conservapedia is notorious for being a ridiculous meme of right-wing nonsense almost indistinguishable from parody. Nothing they have to say is reliable or sensible. I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap
Actually, you do. How is it possible to know that this Conservapedia article about the game of chess (https://www.conservapedia.com/Chess) is going to be full of falsities without reading and assessing it?
Really, and how did you perform your assessment of this article without reading it, as honk has claimed was his superior go-to method of rebutting articles? Are you going to even answer the question posed, or admit that you did have to read the article, showing honk wrong?
Also, how exactly did you determine that Chess has never helped anyone with addictions such as pornography, gambling, video games, or televised football? You are questioning something, but this is is not a determination that these statements are falsities. Your assessment is more akin to thinking that there needs to be a [citation needed] there, and has nothing to do with the matter of whether the statements are true or false.
Well let’s just say that Honk’s assumption has proved to be correct one more time.
Actually, you do. How is it possible to know that this Conservapedia article about the game of chess (https://www.conservapedia.com/Chess) is going to be full of falsities without reading and assessing it?
We only heard about a minor claim of Chess helping people with addictions, which stack thinks, but completely fails to provide evidence for, is wrong. There is a lot more content there. Can you show us how this article is totally unreliable, how nothing in the article is correct, including the described rules of Chess, etc., possibly through use of honk's preferred method of not reading the article?
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.
I'm not saying that a position being argued on Conservapedia automatically means that the opposite is true
You’ve really got to be joking.
Quote from: stackI didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.
You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.
Quote from: stackI didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.
You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.
I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.
But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.
Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.
Quote from: stackI didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.
You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.
I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.
But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.
Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.
I'd like to submit that supporting Trump leads to obesity.
Evidence:
Trump eats unhealthy food.
Trump is visibly obese.
Trump's supporters admire his decisions, which must therefore include his diet and exercise decisions.
Therefore they like being unhealthy and obese.
In 2016 obesity was 39.8% in adults.
In 2018 obesity was 42.4% in adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db288.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm
So while Trump was in office, obesity increased.
Its clear: Trump makes his supporters fat. Vote Biden to avoid obesity
Quote from: stackI didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.
You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.
I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.
But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.
Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.
I'd like to submit that supporting Trump leads to obesity.
Evidence:
Trump eats unhealthy food.
Trump is visibly obese.
Trump's supporters admire his decisions, which must therefore include his diet and exercise decisions.
Therefore they like being unhealthy and obese.
In 2016 obesity was 39.8% in adults.
In 2018 obesity was 42.4% in adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db288.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm
So while Trump was in office, obesity increased.
Its clear: Trump makes his supporters fat. Vote Biden to avoid obesity
No, Dave. The game is to boldly present something as fact with no evidence whatsoever, then demand proof that it's not the case. You put thought into it so you failed. :(
So parents who are prejudiced to not want their children to be around convicted child molesters are more likely to be wrong? How does that work?That isn't prejudice. If they've been convicted then they've already been judged and found to be guilty.
I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap.OK. Well, two of us have read it and we agree that this specific claim was factually correct, if possibly misused. If you're gonna take the "well I don't HAVE TO read it" route, then I'll just assume you have no meaningful response and move on.
So parents who are prejudiced to not want their children to be around convicted child molesters are more likely to be wrong? How does that work?That isn't prejudice. If they've been convicted then they've already been judged and found to be guilty.
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.
You are misunderstanding how the justice system works. Serving your sentence does not wipe away a guilty plea or conviction. You do not suddenly become innocent of your past crimes after your sentence is up. It would take a pardon or a higher court invalidating your conviction can do that.
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.
You are misunderstanding how the justice system works. Serving your sentence does not wipe away a guilty plea or conviction. You do not suddenly become innocent of your past crimes after your sentence is up. It would take a pardon or a higher court invalidating your conviction can do that.
No, you don't become innocent of the crime committed
Judging someone who stole something once and preventing them from getting a job because you assume that they will steal again is clearly a form of prejudice.
I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap.OK. Well, two of us have read it and we agree that this specific claim was factually correct, if possibly misused. If you're gonna take the "well I don't HAVE TO read it" route, then I'll just assume you have no meaningful response and move on.
If there's a good argument to be made that The Hill is in fact politically liberal, then you and/or Tom would have been better off posting that argument rather than just a link to Conservapedia.I agree, and the adults in the room already went over that.
Like I said, it's simply disingenuous to pretend that website's reputation means nothing and shouldn't be taken into account.Serendipitously, that's exactly the argument Tom was making. You just forgot to read it.
I can't stop you from pompously declaring victory and "moving on,"Of course you can - you can simply address the argument, which has now been made several times without referring to Conservapedia. You screaming about how much you hate some website is irrelevant.
At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itself and more in responding to the circlejerk from you and Rama about how obviously I was dumb and off-base to simply mock a Conservapedia article being linked to in an Internet discussion, and that even if one were to dispute Tom's point, that of course shouldn't be interpreted as support for the stupid thing I said! I'm not going to let the notion that mockingly expressing disbelief that someone is linking a Conservapedia article in an Internet discussion is a dumb thing to say stand unchallenged, because I know that it's not. You could say that it's an incomplete response, or one that isn't particularly productive, because it doesn't explain why each of the article's specific arguments fail to hold up. But that doesn't mean that it's dumb or wrong. Conservapedia is a bullshit website, and so I called bullshit when it was cited. No logical fallacy, no breakdown in reasoning, just an entirely justified ad hominem attack.
At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itselfWell, of course you are. After all, if you had a meaningful response, you'd have already provided it. Instead, you're going to bawl about how righteous and just you are, because that's how you handle difficult situations.
even if one were to dispute Tom's point, that of course shouldn't be interpreted as support for the stupid thing I said!Literally everyone is disputing Tom's point. Read the thread my dude, it'll help you form relevant responses.
I'm not going to let the notion that mockingly expressing disbelief that someone is linking a Conservapedia article in an Internet discussion is a dumb thing to say stand unchallenged, because I know that it's not.Okay - how are you going to challenge it? Will you just repeatedly say "I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!!!1!!!", or are you going to, like, actually present a position?
You could say that it's an incomplete response, or one that isn't particularly productiveDing ding ding!
But that doesn't mean that it's dumb or wrong.Indeed - it just happens to also be dumb and wrong in this specific case, for reasons we went over in great detail. You're welcome to address those, by the way, though you'll have to read them first.
No logical fallacy, no breakdown in reasoning, just an entirely justified ad hominem attack.lol
Despite having referred to migrant detention centers under the Trump presidency as "cages",[15 (https://thehill.com/latino/527569-texas-warehouse-where-migrants-housed-in-cages-closed-for-humane-renovation)] The Hill refers to such under the tenure of the Biden junta merely as "shelter for young migrants".[16 (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/540817-biden-vows-texas-shelter-for-young-migrants-wont-stay-open-very-long)]
You have a funny way of defining "debunked". From the version of the quote with links posted earlier:Quote from: https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Hill#Liberal_biasDespite having referred to migrant detention centers under the Trump presidency as "cages",[15 (https://thehill.com/latino/527569-texas-warehouse-where-migrants-housed-in-cages-closed-for-humane-renovation)] The Hill refers to such under the tenure of the Biden junta merely as "shelter for young migrants".[16 (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/540817-biden-vows-texas-shelter-for-young-migrants-wont-stay-open-very-long)]
One article refers to it as "cages" and another article for Biden refers to it as "shelter for young migrants".
Rama Set's argument is that The Hill is quoting someone who calls it cages in the headline of their article, so it absolves them of bias, as if they did not choose to put that in the headline of their article, did not choose which sources to cite, and did not choose to publish it in that way.
Since all articles are composed of sources, which they are supposed to vet and selectively use to convey an intended story, arguing that they used a source is ludicrous, to say the least.
So, we are going to trust the idiot who hands out these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnZzyzjoxro
to the citizenry of his own country as to what constitutes mistreatment of citizens in an entirely separate country.
While agreeing that drugs should be legalized, it is a strange mind that conceives smoking or injecting methamphetamine or crack cocaine is a net positive for anyone's health, let alone the overall health of the general populace. I am sure you do not consider drug-induced psychosis or any of the other aspects of mental health impacted by the use of drugs as a "health problem."So, we are going to trust the idiot who hands out these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnZzyzjoxro
to the citizenry of his own country as to what constitutes mistreatment of citizens in an entirely separate country.
Handing out clean and safe drug paraphernalia is a net positive public health initiative. It’s part of a productive switch to treating drug abuse as health and social issues rather than a moral failing that should be criminally punished.
Handing out free paraphernalia so people do not need to worry about "getting sick," from their "crack pipe," is some real laughable shit.Before I say anything, please excuse me if some of my depictions of drug use are inaccurate. I'm a boring guy, I smoked weed a few times in my life, and that's about as wild as it gets. But:
The net benefit is that you reduce hygiene associated risks with drug use; you also destigmatize drug use to a limited degree. Unless addiction is treated medically and the root causes of drug abuse are addressed in a meaningful way, then there is little to be done to reduce the amount of people abusing drugs.Oh yes, I am absolutely sure the persons walking the streets, avoiding the used drug needles and other discarded paraphernalia, swell with confidence, knowing since the pipe or needle was authorized as "CLEAN," by Uncle Hairy Legs, there is nothing to fear.
When you use drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine, the last thing to be concerned about is hygiene.Handing out free paraphernalia so people do not need to worry about "getting sick," from their "crack pipe," is some real laughable shit.Before I say anything, please excuse me if some of my depictions of drug use are inaccurate. I'm a boring guy, I smoked weed a few times in my life, and that's about as wild as it gets. But:
Imagine a drug addict. He's addicted, he won't just abandon his habit without a huge amount of hard work and support from his surroundings. So, at least for now, he's gonna keep doing drugs. This is a bad thing, but it's a thing that's happening.
But, within this scenario, there are two sub-scenarios:
- He injects himself with a re-used and unsanitary syringe, exposing himself to additional risk.
- At least he gets a clean syringe. Still bad, but less deadly.
The second option is not good, it's just less bad.
When you use drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine, the last thing to be concerned about is hygiene.Well, that's kinda the point. It's not on the top of their priority list, so if it's in any way difficult, it gets abandoned. By making it easy, we make their lives slightly less miserable.
WASHINGTON (TND) — Are your tax dollars going to be spent on government-provided drug paraphernalia?
It’s a headline that has been dominating social media all week. The White House says the reports are false yet now elected leaders are taking action to stop federal funding of pipes made for drug use.
The Fact Check Team has been looking into the issue to see what is actually behind this government-funded program and how it could impact communities across the U.S.
The first notable mention of this program came on Monday when the Washington Free Beacon put out a story titled, “Biden Admin To Fund Crack Pipe Distribution To Advance ‘Racial Equity.’”
The story claims that a $30 million grant program funded by the Department of Health and Human Services will provide money to help make drug use safer for addicts, including smoking kits.
It says an HHS spokesperson “told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine,” and “any illicit substance.”
The White House also denied the claims on Wednesday saying, “They were never a part of the kit; it was inaccurate reporting.”
~
On Friday, the Washington Free Beacon doubled down on their claims publishing a story headlined, “The Biden Administration Thinks You’re Stupid,” alleging that the White House only backed down on their plan to distribute the durg paraphernalia after their initial reporting.
When asked about this, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit; it was inaccurate reporting. And we wanted to put out information to make that clear.”
So what is actually in these safe smoke kits?
Pskai said the kits may contain alcohol swabs, lip balm and other materials meant to promote hygiene and reduce the transmission of diseases.
When it comes to these kits, there isn’t a standard. Different organizations have different lists of things that they offer as part of safe smoking kits but under Title 21 of federal law, drug paraphernalia is illegal.
So the HHS response about their grant funds that “Harm reduction programs that use federal funding must adhere to federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and other requirements related to such programs or services” means no pipes or drug paraphernalia because they are illegal to include.
No comment on the fact that the Biden Administration lied about it and that it is illegal to distribute?
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/fact-check-team-is-the-federal-government-really-handing-out-drug-paraphernalia-glass-meth-crack-pipes-drugsQuoteWASHINGTON (TND) — Are your tax dollars going to be spent on government-provided drug paraphernalia?
It’s a headline that has been dominating social media all week. The White House says the reports are false yet now elected leaders are taking action to stop federal funding of pipes made for drug use.
The Fact Check Team has been looking into the issue to see what is actually behind this government-funded program and how it could impact communities across the U.S.
The first notable mention of this program came on Monday when the Washington Free Beacon put out a story titled, “Biden Admin To Fund Crack Pipe Distribution To Advance ‘Racial Equity.’”
The story claims that a $30 million grant program funded by the Department of Health and Human Services will provide money to help make drug use safer for addicts, including smoking kits.
It says an HHS spokesperson “told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine,” and “any illicit substance.”
The White House also denied the claims on Wednesday saying, “They were never a part of the kit; it was inaccurate reporting.”
~
On Friday, the Washington Free Beacon doubled down on their claims publishing a story headlined, “The Biden Administration Thinks You’re Stupid,” alleging that the White House only backed down on their plan to distribute the durg paraphernalia after their initial reporting.
When asked about this, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit; it was inaccurate reporting. And we wanted to put out information to make that clear.”
So what is actually in these safe smoke kits?
Pskai said the kits may contain alcohol swabs, lip balm and other materials meant to promote hygiene and reduce the transmission of diseases.
When it comes to these kits, there isn’t a standard. Different organizations have different lists of things that they offer as part of safe smoking kits but under Title 21 of federal law, drug paraphernalia is illegal.
So the HHS response about their grant funds that “Harm reduction programs that use federal funding must adhere to federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and other requirements related to such programs or services” means no pipes or drug paraphernalia because they are illegal to include.
What type of plan do you think Uncle Hairy Legs should introduce to keep the addicts from shitting and urinating on the streets, in order to preserve and perhaps increase public health?When you use drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine, the last thing to be concerned about is hygiene.Well, that's kinda the point. It's not on the top of their priority list, so if it's in any way difficult, it gets abandoned. By making it easy, we make their lives slightly less miserable.
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.The Trump thread is further down the board.
What type of plan do you think Uncle Hairy Legs should introduce to keep the addicts from shitting and urinating on the streets, in order to preserve and perhaps increase public health?When you use drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine, the last thing to be concerned about is hygiene.Well, that's kinda the point. It's not on the top of their priority list, so if it's in any way difficult, it gets abandoned. By making it easy, we make their lives slightly less miserable.
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.
You have a problem if you think that it's okay for someone to lie and do wrong things because you think that someone else did a wrong thing.
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.
You have a problem if you think that it's okay for someone to lie and do wrong things because you think that someone else did a wrong thing.
Very important note: Roundy never said it was ok.
No comment on the fact that the Biden Administration lied about it and that it is illegal to distribute drug paraphernalia?
The Whitehouse denied all crack pipes, not only "glass crack pipes"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/02/09/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-february-9-2022/
(https://i.imgur.com/F4cSyQp.png)
I can't wait for you to continue to argue that crack piper are not drug paraphernalia. ::)
Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not?
Isn't the clammer all about whether there actually are pipes in the "safe smoking kits" or not? And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not?
Isn't the clammer all about whether there actually are pipes in the "safe smoking kits" or not? And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
It is almost common knowledge that crack pipes are illegal to possess in the US. It doesn't matter how safe they are.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Possession-Drug-Paraphernalia.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/io6ZK9B.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8kwgUBN.png)
apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
Who is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not? Why do you keep bringing this up?
Searching on ‘pipe’, 'crack’, ‘glass’, ‘paraphernalia’, I found nothing. No mention of any of that. Searching on ‘kit’ I found, "Safe smoking kits/supplies”
apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
There are clearly pipes in the kit. Maybe you should watch the video again.
https://youtu.be/DnZzyzjoxro
It clearly shows the pipes at 0:32.
At 2:28 a news investigation team concludes that it's true that the kits contain the pipes.
Quote from: stackWho is arguing whether crack pipes are illegal drug paraphernalia or not? Why do you keep bringing this up?
You are, based on your lack of finding a term in a document:Quote from: stackSearching on ‘pipe’, 'crack’, ‘glass’, ‘paraphernalia’, I found nothing. No mention of any of that. Searching on ‘kit’ I found, "Safe smoking kits/supplies”
Apparently the document needs to specify that it's illegal drug paraphernalia to be so. ::)
LOL, you fucking hypocrite. Keep trolling. A president lying never mattered to you when his name was Trump.
You have a problem if you think that it's okay for someone to lie and do wrong things because you think that someone else did a wrong thing.
Very important note: Roundy never said it was ok.
He implied that it was okay, by trying to justify it with a ludicrous two wrongs make a right fallacy. Another "But Trump!!!" excuse. Can't you liberals ever own up to your own faults?
Notice the date, 11/30/2021. Per the "FY 2022 Harm Reduction Program Grant", applications started being accepted on February 7th, 2022. I don't know when your Rasta guy got his kit, but I'd be shocked if the church's program was funded by the Feds in 3 weeks.
Incorrect. He called you out for never batting an eyelash at Trump’s ludicrous lies. Left leaning people have been critical of Biden in this very thread, you should take note and perhaps attempt to live up to our example.
And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.
You're making no sense at all. All I'm pointing out is that no where in the document does it mention the handing out of pipes.Well, the glass pipes are in the kits. From the very first line of your source, "Why we offer Safer Smoking Kits: Providing non-injector supplies, like pipes..." Item list, "What's inside a Safer Smoking Kit: bullet point one: 1 glass straight shooter"
No Tom, people just tired of your hypocrisy is all. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill in your tired campaign to own the libs. All of your indignation vanishes when it’s someone you prefer because you have no values. I certainly don’t think it’s good for Biden to lie about something so trivial. It’s also trivial and surely there are better things to worry about? Like how this program is helping people with dangerous drug habits?Helping them how?
And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.You're making no sense at all. All I'm pointing out is that no where in the document does it mention the handing out of pipes.Well, the glass pipes are in the kits. From the very first line of your source, "Why we offer Safer Smoking Kits: Providing non-injector supplies, like pipes..." Item list, "What's inside a Safer Smoking Kit: bullet point one: 1 glass straight shooter"
And, I guess you're okay with it, simply because it is old news (2021 funding).
You just directly informed everyone here that something is not listed as present in the kit when it is clearly listed in the kit.
This practice is called gaslighting.
Have you been picked to sift through the kits currently awaiting public distribution to remove the pipes? Is your messaging here a smokescreen designed to assist you in not having to follow through with your assigned responsibilities in this area?
Sense has been demonstrably eluding you for many years.And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.You're making no sense at all. All I'm pointing out is that no where in the document does it mention the handing out of pipes.Well, the glass pipes are in the kits. From the very first line of your source, "Why we offer Safer Smoking Kits: Providing non-injector supplies, like pipes..." Item list, "What's inside a Safer Smoking Kit: bullet point one: 1 glass straight shooter"
And, I guess you're okay with it, simply because it is old news (2021 funding).
You just directly informed everyone here that something is not listed as present in the kit when it is clearly listed in the kit.
This practice is called gaslighting.
Have you been picked to sift through the kits currently awaiting public distribution to remove the pipes? Is your messaging here a smokescreen designed to assist you in not having to follow through with your assigned responsibilities in this area?
Now you're not making any sense either.
No Tom, people just tired of your hypocrisy is all. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill in your tired campaign to own the libs. All of your indignation vanishes when it’s someone you prefer because you have no values. I certainly don’t think it’s good for Biden to lie about something so trivial. It’s also trivial and surely there are better things to worry about? Like how this program is helping people with dangerous drug habits?Helping them how?
Providing people with the tools and the means to aid them in killing themselves is not helping them in any way.
The person in the video states it is not the intent of the government to curb drug use, illicit or otherwise.
Your reasoning = "One more hit off the pipe may be their last, but at least it will prevent them possibly contracting a disease that could kill them."
Never mind 30 mill USD could fund a lot of actual shelters/current addiction recovery centers.
Public health initiative, my ass.
Tom is not the hypocrite here.
You are.
Sense has been demonstrably eluding you for many years.And, apparently, pipes are not in the kits. Seems like a made up issue.You're making no sense at all. All I'm pointing out is that no where in the document does it mention the handing out of pipes.Well, the glass pipes are in the kits. From the very first line of your source, "Why we offer Safer Smoking Kits: Providing non-injector supplies, like pipes..." Item list, "What's inside a Safer Smoking Kit: bullet point one: 1 glass straight shooter"
And, I guess you're okay with it, simply because it is old news (2021 funding).
You just directly informed everyone here that something is not listed as present in the kit when it is clearly listed in the kit.
This practice is called gaslighting.
Have you been picked to sift through the kits currently awaiting public distribution to remove the pipes? Is your messaging here a smokescreen designed to assist you in not having to follow through with your assigned responsibilities in this area?
Now you're not making any sense either.
Gets that way when you post remarks not supported by your own source.
And I'm not surprised you are all for nonsense.
- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year
- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year
Yes, because budgets are set in stone and it's impossible to reappropriate money during a year or reimburse for prior year activities, or that this was a planned item for last year. ::)
So, no.
- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year
Yes, because budgets are set in stone and it's impossible to reappropriate money during a year or reimburse for prior year activities, or that this was a planned item for last year. ::)
Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:
Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....
But Jamie Baker, executive director of Being Alive, told The Associated Press the claims are “absolutely not true.”
“Our funding comes from the state of California,” he said. “No federal dollars are used for this program at all.”
Baker said that for about a year, Being Alive has been distributing smoking kits. He noted that primary funding for their smoking supplies distribution comes from the California Harm Reduction Initiative.
Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.
So yeah, you're wrong.
So, no.
- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year
Yes, because budgets are set in stone and it's impossible to reappropriate money during a year or reimburse for prior year activities, or that this was a planned item for last year. ::)
Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:
Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....
But Jamie Baker, executive director of Being Alive, told The Associated Press the claims are “absolutely not true.”
“Our funding comes from the state of California,” he said. “No federal dollars are used for this program at all.”
Baker said that for about a year, Being Alive has been distributing smoking kits. He noted that primary funding for their smoking supplies distribution comes from the California Harm Reduction Initiative.
Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.
So yeah, you're wrong.
He is not wrong.
California gets the money they use to fund the kits from the federal government.
ap fact check is a known disinformation site.
California tax payers pay federal and state taxes, including FICA.So, no.
- Being Alive LA has been supplying safe smoking kits that include a pipe since at least November of last year
Yes, because budgets are set in stone and it's impossible to reappropriate money during a year or reimburse for prior year activities, or that this was a planned item for last year. ::)
Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:
Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....
But Jamie Baker, executive director of Being Alive, told The Associated Press the claims are “absolutely not true.”
“Our funding comes from the state of California,” he said. “No federal dollars are used for this program at all.”
Baker said that for about a year, Being Alive has been distributing smoking kits. He noted that primary funding for their smoking supplies distribution comes from the California Harm Reduction Initiative.
Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.
So yeah, you're wrong.
He is not wrong.
California gets the money they use to fund the kits from the federal government.
Wrong again.
Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, confirmed in a statement to the AP that Being Alive was awarded a $160,000, three-year grant from the California Harm Reduction Initiative, and that the organization was also recently awarded more than $16,000 for supplies such as safer smoking materials and syringes.
It is funded by California, not the Feds...As in California Tax Payers.
The California Harm Reduction Initiative, or CHRI, was established by the California Budget Act of 2019, which included $15.2 million to strengthen substance use disorder response by supporting syringe services programs (SSPs). This program represents the single largest government investment in harm reduction in the history of California.
Regarding California SSP's:
California Law and Safer Smoking Supplies (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DOA/CDPH%20Document%20Library/IssueBrief_SmokingSupplies_Web_ADA.pdf)
What Non-Injection Drug Using Supplies Does CDPH Provide to SSPs?
Safer smoking materials made available through the CDPH Syringe Supplies Clearinghouse may include glass pipes, foil, copper wire filters, and other materials, subject to change based on availability and funding. For more information on supplies currently offered by the Clearinghouse, contact SSPinfo@cdph.ca.gov.
Looks like California has included pipes in the safe smoking kits since at least 2019. Not to mention, California’s GDP in 2021 was $3.35T, representing 14.6% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world. California can afford such programs.ap fact check is a known disinformation site.
Says who? You'd have to show evidence that AP made up the quote from the California Department of Public Health and that the California Budget Act of 2019 doesn't exist. Evidence you don't have. Which means you're just sayin' stuff to say stuff.
Looks like you can't get much more Centrist and Factual Reporting than AP:
(https://i.imgur.com/ROOSdz7.png)
You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."
You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."
Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.
So, I am not ignoring anything.
It is a depraved, sick mindset that considers tackling issues with the supposed cleanliness of the exterior/interior of the drug ingestion method of choice as being a priority consideration and a supposed public health initiative.
I suppose you have some data to back that up.You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."
Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.
So, I am not ignoring anything.
It is a depraved, sick mindset that considers tackling issues with the supposed cleanliness of the exterior/interior of the drug ingestion method of choice as being a priority consideration and a supposed public health initiative.
Nice try. I know you’re not this stupid, so trolling is the only option. Both Pete and I explained that clean paraphernalia, while having the limitation of not addressing issues of addiction does provide the public health benefit of reducing infection and disease from drug use.
I suppose you have some data to back that up.You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."
Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.
So, I am not ignoring anything.
It is a depraved, sick mindset that considers tackling issues with the supposed cleanliness of the exterior/interior of the drug ingestion method of choice as being a priority consideration and a supposed public health initiative.
Nice try. I know you’re not this stupid, so trolling is the only option. Both Pete and I explained that clean paraphernalia, while having the limitation of not addressing issues of addiction does provide the public health benefit of reducing infection and disease from drug use.
I mean actual clinical trials, with valid control groups and all that sciency stuff you preach about so often.
A - Kindly point out where I wrote anything remotely similar or congruent to the meaning of, "You didn't say anything you hypocrite,". I did point out you were the hypocrite here and the reason was pretty specific. It was for the things you have said or written, not for the things you didn't say or write.I suppose you have some data to back that up.You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you. If you choose to ignore that, that is your problem, not mine.I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."
Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.
So, I am not ignoring anything.
It is a depraved, sick mindset that considers tackling issues with the supposed cleanliness of the exterior/interior of the drug ingestion method of choice as being a priority consideration and a supposed public health initiative.
Nice try. I know you’re not this stupid, so trolling is the only option. Both Pete and I explained that clean paraphernalia, while having the limitation of not addressing issues of addiction does provide the public health benefit of reducing infection and disease from drug use.
I mean actual clinical trials, with valid control groups and all that sciency stuff you preach about so often.
Whoa whoa, can we slow down please? You went from "You didn't say anything you hypocrite!!!!1111" to "can you give me evidunce!" real quick. I'll need to stretch if I am going to be chasing goal posts all day. Let me know if you agree that I've said the things I've claimed and we can move on to providing evidence.
A - Kindly point out where I wrote anything remotely similar or congruent to the meaning of, "You didn't say anything you hypocrite,". I did point out you were the hypocrite here and the reason was pretty specific. It was for the things you have said or written, not for the things you didn't say or write.
Public health initiative, my ass.
Tom is not the hypocrite here.
You are.
You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you.I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."
Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.
So, I am not ignoring anything.
B- I agree you've written your misguided belief in the provision of clean needles and clean meth/crack pipes is a plus for the overall health of the populace in general.
Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:
Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....
https://twitter.com/DrugPolicyOrg/status/1491561495418781696
There were crack pipes, but there was no funding earmarked for "just" crack pipes. The funding comes from communities who apply for grants, not directly from the federal government.
https://twitter.com/DrugPolicyOrg/status/1491561497608208388
Decision to "remove" crack pipes after being criticized for it.
Yes, you just pointed out I wrote exactly what I wrote and why. I called you a hypocrite for the things you wrote.A - Kindly point out where I wrote anything remotely similar or congruent to the meaning of, "You didn't say anything you hypocrite,". I did point out you were the hypocrite here and the reason was pretty specific. It was for the things you have said or written, not for the things you didn't say or write.
Ok.Public health initiative, my ass.
Tom is not the hypocrite here.
You are.You have already had the benefits and limitations of such a program explained to you.I didn't read anything from you about "the limitations."
Come to think of it, I didn't read anything from you concerning "the benefits," either.
So, I am not ignoring anything.
There you go. Anything else?
Awww... It's cute watching you struggle to extract a disparaging remark from my comments.I do not need to extract anything.
Yea, drugs should be legalized. No, generally, people shouldn’t do drugs. People especially shouldn’t do hard drugs.
But legalizing and providing clean methods for existing addicts isn’t going to increase the number of addicts. It’s going to reduce the number of adverse side effects of drug use from unsanitary paraphernalia. That’s all.
People can’t get help if they are dead. Clean needles, fentanyl testing kits, whatever else is needed. Drug addiction doesn’t need to be a death sentence.
The one actual downside of providing abundant clean needles without installing safe injection sites is that it increases the amount of discarded needles in the community, which is an actual problem.
Public health measures should go beyond helping people not kill themselves with drugs to helping people stop doing drugs.
Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:
Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....
It is apparent that you have not been following along on how this works. Drug Policy Alliance stated that this program is technically funded locally, who apply for grants. It's not directly federally funded.
When you get the money back from the feds, then funnel it back out of your state government office, then someone can write, "...the money came from this state office."Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:
Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....
It is apparent that you have not been following along on how this works. Drug Policy Alliance stated that this program is technically funded locally, who apply for grants. It's not directly federally funded.
Yep, that's it! Not federally funded. I'm glad you finally figured that out.
Yea, drugs should be legalized. No, generally, people shouldn’t do drugs. People especially shouldn’t do hard drugs.I asked for this earlier, but Rama declined, so maybe you can help paint the extremely deadly picture the numbers paint when it comes to drug addicts dying from hepatitis or some other disease passed on through the use of a "dirty" needle or pipe.
But legalizing and providing clean methods for existing addicts isn’t going to increase the number of addicts. It’s going to reduce the number of adverse side effects of drug use from unsanitary paraphernalia. That’s all.
People can’t get help if they are dead. Clean needles, fentanyl testing kits, whatever else is needed. Drug addiction doesn’t need to be a death sentence.
The one actual downside of providing abundant clean needles without installing safe injection sites is that it increases the amount of discarded needles in the community, which is an actual problem.
Public health measures should go beyond helping people not kill themselves with drugs to helping people stop doing drugs.
If you read what I said, I’m not completely in favour of just handing out clean needles and pretending you’re solving things. That should be a minor part of tackling the broader issue.Actually, deaths from dirty needles have gone down for the most part.
A quick google shows the WHO reported 1.3M deaths annually from dirty needles, costing $535M/yr. That report is from 1999, so I would expect that both deaths and costs are actually higher today.
To me, a higher priority for today is probably fentanyl detection. Regardless, I would prefer to see a more fulsome approach - and better funding and education - to addictions, homelessness, and mental health issues.
When you get the money back from the feds, then funnel it back out of your state government office, then someone can write, "...the money came from this state office."Do you have knowledge of Being Alive's budgeting plans? If you do, please share them. I'm pretty sure you don't, but actually, I do:
Video misrepresents funding of drug smoking kits in LA (https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-151820802446)
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No federal funding was used to provide the safer smoking kits that are being distributed by Being Alive, an HIV and AIDS-focused nonprofit in Los Angeles. The organization’s funding comes from the state of California, according to Being Alive staff and state officials. The safer smoking kits include sterile supplies intended to decrease harm caused to drug users....
It is apparent that you have not been following along on how this works. Drug Policy Alliance stated that this program is technically funded locally, who apply for grants. It's not directly federally funded.
Yep, that's it! Not federally funded. I'm glad you finally figured that out.
You are really disingenuous.
It is unfortunate that the US liberals voted a dementia patient into office for a time like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/aMxmeBj.png)
Wait. I thought you didn’t care about the war in Ukraine. Now it’s a dire time? Make up your mind, please.
Wait. I thought you didn’t care about the war in Ukraine. Now it’s a dire time? Make up your mind, please.
Yeah, like Ukraine has been the only thing going on. ::)
It is unfortunate that the US liberals voted a dementia patient into office for a time like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/aMxmeBj.png)
Just in case anyone has forgotten, Ronny Jackson is [...]Is what he said about Biden getting lost reading from a teleprompter correct?
I mean...even if it is...Just in case anyone has forgotten, Ronny Jackson is [...]Is what he said about Biden getting lost reading from a teleprompter correct?
I mean...even if it is...Just in case anyone has forgotten, Ronny Jackson is [...]Is what he said about Biden getting lost reading from a teleprompter correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4AzGie3JcI
The whataboutism here isn’t great. Having aFTFY, in order to aid in your efforts to be philosophically and intellectually honest in your post submissions here on your favorite forum.potentiallyHYPOTHETICALLY senile president is ^ABSOLUTELY^ not good for anyone.
The whataboutism here isn’t great. Having a potentially senile president is not good for anyone.Obviously not.
The whataboutism here isn’t great. Having a potentially senile president is not good for anyone.Obviously not.
But what is even being spoken about here? I had a quick Google and found some video of some alleged "gaff" where he read "end of quote" after quoting someone. It didn't come across as one to me. He was quoting someone, it seemed pretty reasonable to say "end of quote" as he did before moving on to the next point. Unless there's something else. I've seen a few similar claims about him but they're all from last year or before.
EDIT: I also think it's pretty reasonable to ask why people with a certain agenda are claiming that Biden has dementia because he trips over certain words in a speech, while finding no fault in, say, the utter ramble that was some of Trump's speeches - you see some of those written down and it's a complete mess. A bit of logical consistency isn't too much to ask.
OMFG!!!The whataboutism here isn’t great. Having a potentially senile president is not good for anyone.Obviously not.
But what is even being spoken about here? I had a quick Google and found some video of some alleged "gaff" where he read "end of quote" after quoting someone. It didn't come across as one to me. He was quoting someone, it seemed pretty reasonable to say "end of quote" as he did before moving on to the next point.
You think it reasonable and lucid to be reading a script and include the words, "end of quote."?Yes. Especially as he started that part by saying "quote" and finished the quote by saying "end of quote" to make it clear it was finished and he was moving on to the next point.
And in conjunction with everything else?You think it reasonable and lucid to be reading a script and include the words, "end of quote."?Yes. Especially as he started that part by saying "quote" and finished the quote by saying "end of quote" to make it clear it was finished and he was moving on to the next point.
It didn't seem particularly jarring to me. When I watched the video in an article saying basically "lolz, what a gaff" the video finished and I honestly couldn't work out what this terrible gaff was supposed to be. It was hardly the "Go fuck yourself, San Diego" Anchorman moment that had been advertised.
And in conjunction with everything else?What's the everything else?
You think it reasonable and lucid to be reading a script and include the words, "end of quote."?
(https://i.imgur.com/aMxmeBj.png)
And in conjunction with everything else?
Yeah, "quote/unquote" is perfectly reasonable.You think it reasonable and lucid to be reading a script and include the words, "end of quote."?
If I introduced it AS A QUOTATION, absolutely.
As a native English speaker, I prefer the form quote / unquote, so I would read out;
"... and here I reference the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson, who said, quote, "That stuff is FLAT", unquote."
Yeah, okay...And in conjunction with everything else?
What would that be?
I also think it's pretty reasonable to ask why people with a certain agenda are claiming that Biden has dementia because he trips over certain words in a speech, while finding no fault in, say, the utter ramble that was some of Trump's speeches - you see some of those written down and it's a complete mess. A bit of logical consistency isn't too much to ask.
Look, having a shit-stained diaper-wearing motherfucker acting as your leader in chief may work out just fine for you; after all, I mean, it probably cannot get much worse you anyway as it is. But this guy is starting to hurt my fucking wallet and that of millions of more and he has got to now, not tomorrow.
I also think it's pretty reasonable to ask why people with a certain agenda are claiming that Biden has dementia because he trips over certain words in a speech, while finding no fault in, say, the utter ramble that was some of Trump's speeches - you see some of those written down and it's a complete mess. A bit of logical consistency isn't too much to ask.
Someone else referred to "whataboutism"...
If someone here refers to the current holder of office as faltering on X, Y and Z, is it so unreasonable to point out that the previous holder of the same office faltered much more than the current one on the same X, Y and Z, and also made a festering hash-up of A, B, C, and P, Q, R, when he could actually be bothered to turn up and do the work, and wasn't watching TV or at one of his country/golf clubs ...
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-412516218791
This is even more dishonest and ridiculous than I expected. It's literally just a video of Biden saying "end of quote,"
Wow, how naive. Who was President and Vice President in 2012 and 2013?
Wow, how naive. Who was President and Vice President in 2012 and 2013?
Who was President and Vice President in 2015?
Wow, how naive. Who was President and Vice President in 2012 and 2013?
Who was President and Vice President in 2015?
Who indeed. They were certainly not good ones since they had just plunged the nation into years of economic hardship while they conducted military interventions abroad.
Economic hardships that were created by previous administrations.
Economic hardships that were created by previous administrations.
Yes because administrations in power only have the power to make policies and not undo or counter policies. ::)
Economic hardships that were created by previous administrations.
Yes because administrations in power only have the power to make policies and not undo or counter policies. ::)
Yes and you may have noticed the economy recovered quite well under Obama.
I am glad you conceded you ridiculous point about military interventions.
Obama and Biden were elected in 2008. It took them that long to get the markets under control? The value of the dollar and the markets are linked closely on investor confidence and can rise or fall based on the mere result of an election without any policies put into place. Obviously that administration had a problem creating the necessary confidence.
Are you arguing that putting your country into wars and numerous conflicts has nothing to do with investor confidence in your country?
This must be why Russia's markets have been unaffected by recent events. ::)
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-412516218791
This is even more dishonest and ridiculous than I expected. It's literally just a video of Biden saying "end of quote,"
Why are you talking about something from November 24th?
Economic hardships that were created by previous administrations.
Yes because administrations in power only have the power to make policies and not undo or counter policies. ::)
Yes and you may have noticed the economy recovered quite well under Obama.
Obama and Biden were elected in 2008. It took them that long to get the markets under control? The value of the dollar and the markets are linked closely to investor confidence and can rise or fall based on the mere result of an election without any policies put into place. Obviously that administration had a problem creating the necessary confidence.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/597987-new-polling-confirms-democrats-left-leaning-policies-are-out-of-touch?amp=1&_recirculation=1Neither party is a real party and they all spend heavy.
tldr:
Neither party is a real party and they all spend heavy.
They are a party of ONE and they both spend money on things resulting in little to no long-term economic benefit for the populace in general.
Neither party is a real party and they all spend heavy.
They are a party of ONE and they both spend money on things resulting in little to no long-term economic benefit for the populace in general.
I hate myself for saying it but I actually mostly agree with this. Politics in this country just sucks in general.
Whether explicitly Biden's and the Democrats' fault
Neither party is a real party and they all spend heavy.
They are a party of ONE and they both spend money on things resulting in little to no long-term economic benefit for the populace in general.
I hate myself for saying it but I actually mostly agree with this. Politics in this country just sucks in general.
I mostly agree too, and it's only gonna get worse. Just wait till November, post mid-terms, where the common first term shift will take place and literally nothing will get done for 2 years, yet much money will be wasted.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/597987-new-polling-confirms-democrats-left-leaning-policies-are-out-of-touch
tldr: It will take a miracle for the Democrats to hold onto a majority in the midterms.
What's costing Dems the most is the ongoing, desperate narrative that the economy is doing great. Biden repeatedly saying he's "added more jobs than any other president ever" is pouring salt on the wound. Repeating talking points with the assumption that your electoral base has actual mental retardation is not going to be popular. The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof. One remarkable historic event regarding food prices was the time that the French invented a very efficient head chopping machine and started chopping off heads. Dems are lucky the ongoing inflation screwups will only cost them the midterms.Isn't the food costs directly related to the fuel costs tho?
What's costing Dems the most is the ongoing, desperate narrative that the economy is doing great. Biden repeatedly saying he's "added more jobs than any other president ever" is pouring salt on the wound. Repeating talking points with the assumption that your electoral base has actual mental retardation is not going to be popular. The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof. One remarkable historic event regarding food prices was the time that the French invented a very efficient head chopping machine and started chopping off heads. Dems are lucky the ongoing inflation screwups will only cost them the midterms.Isn't the food costs directly related to the fuel costs tho?
Which is a result of the Russia invasion making the oil market panic?
What have Dems done that caused this?
What's costing Dems the most is the ongoing, desperate narrative that the economy is doing great. Biden repeatedly saying he's "added more jobs than any other president ever" is pouring salt on the wound. Repeating talking points with the assumption that your electoral base has actual mental retardation is not going to be popular. The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof. One remarkable historic event regarding food prices was the time that the French invented a very efficient head chopping machine and started chopping off heads. Dems are lucky the ongoing inflation screwups will only cost them the midterms.Isn't the food costs directly related to the fuel costs tho?
Which is a result of the Russia invasion making the oil market panic?
What have Dems done that caused this?
No, food price related inflation has been rising for months now.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/597987-new-polling-confirms-democrats-left-leaning-policies-are-out-of-touch
tldr: It will take a miracle for the Democrats to hold onto a majority in the midterms.
This article reads to me more like right-wing concern trolling designed to set a narrative than any serious effort to actually gather information. I mean, yes, Democrats are almost certainly going to lose their majority in the midterms, but it won't be because Democrats as a whole are too leftist (a claim that is objectively just ridiculous, and very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster to take for granted), nor will it be because Democrats are too focused on "identity politics" (a snarl term used almost exclusively these days by conservatives, to uncritically use a term like that is also very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster). It'll be because Republicans have used their own strong messaging and gamed a spineless media into accommodating them for fear of being accused of bias to create a playing field that overwhelmingly favors them. The pattern works like this: Right-wing media decide on a falsehood to sell to the public. It could be the idea that there's a war on Christmas, that Dr. Seuss has somehow been banned by liberals, that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves, that LGBT teachers are somehow indoctrinating kids into the LGBT lifestyle, or any other of the numerous cultural boogeymen they've dreamed up over the years. Right-wing politicians pick up on the lie and begin repeating it themselves. The back-and-forth amplifies the controversy until the mainstream media takes notice, and because they know that they'll be attacked for "bias" if they accurately report that, no, of course schools aren't teaching white kids to hate themselves, they report it like "Some people say that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves. Some people say they aren't. Who can say what's true? Both sides have a point, really." Then stupid polls like this one ask people "Do you agree or disagree with teaching white kids to hate themselves?" and when they get the obvious answer, they write stupid articles saying, "The public largely reject teaching white kids to hate themselves! This is bad news for Democrats!"
The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof.
What's costing Dems the most is the ongoing, desperate narrative that the economy is doing great. Biden repeatedly saying he's "added more jobs than any other president ever" is pouring salt on the wound. Repeating talking points with the assumption that your electoral base has actual mental retardation is not going to be popular. The economy is not doing great. Food and energy prices are going through the roof. One remarkable historic event regarding food prices was the time that the French invented a very efficient head chopping machine and started chopping off heads. Dems are lucky the ongoing inflation screwups will only cost them the midterms.
As they should, democrats are in power so it's up to them to do something.
(https://i.imgur.com/hUCFBo5.png)
As they should, democrats are in power so it's up to them to do something.
Don't worry. The Democrats are hard at work fixing the gas crisis.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrats-biden-declare-climate-emergency-ban-oil-drilling-federal-lands
(https://i.imgur.com/hUCFBo5.png)
Wow. Fox got it from Politico, who got it from... a DRAFT report. Not the final version. From a work in progress.
So the story is true then. Thanks for verifying it for us.
The story fails to match the headline.
You agree, surely, that sometimes content of a DRAFT report does not make its way into the FINAL report?
You know, there is a link in the article to the poll itself. You can actually read it instead of guessing at what nefariously biased questions it asks. ::)
Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statement.
Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress are out of touch with hardworking Americans. They have been so focused on catering to the far-left wing of the party that they’re ignoring Americans’ day to day concerns, such as addressing the rising prices for goods and gasoline and combatting violent crime.
Do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should move more to the left and embrace more liberal policies, move more to the center and embrace more moderate policies, or do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should stay where it is right now?
You know, there is a link in the article to the poll itself. You can actually read it instead of guessing at what nefariously biased questions it asks. ::)
Interesting how you're assuming that I'm assuming. I did read the poll, and even if it were a perfectly sensible, objective poll, there still would be no reason for the authors to describe its findings using right-wing snarl terms like "identity politics" or casually present the misinformation their respondents expressed belief in as fact. But of course the poll is neither sensible nor objective. To look at just a couple of questions here:QuotePlease indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statement.
Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress are out of touch with hardworking Americans. They have been so focused on catering to the far-left wing of the party that they’re ignoring Americans’ day to day concerns, such as addressing the rising prices for goods and gasoline and combatting violent crime.
This question is ludicrously loaded. Good, reputable polls don't just blatantly spell out a narrative using this kind of partisan language and somehow maintain their neutrality by simply including the option to disagree. The question also takes it for granted that "catering to the far-left wing of the party" is a negative - the respondent is only asked if it's what they think Biden is doing, not if they think that Biden doing it is good or bad.QuoteDo you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should move more to the left and embrace more liberal policies, move more to the center and embrace more moderate policies, or do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should stay where it is right now?
This question, meanwhile, indicates their expected answer to the previous question, because here they are taking it for granted that Biden and the Democrats are already on the left, a claim that, regardless of anyone's opinions of the merits of being on the left, is objectively just untrue. Biden is not a leftist, he is a centrist, and there's no indication that more left-leaning Democrats has any real influence over his agenda or the party's as a whole. The notion that the Democratic Party as a whole is trending far to the left is yet another right-wing lie that conservatives are repeating as much as possible to gaslight the rest of the country into thinking that Democrats should in the interests of fairness move further to the right. And no matter how many concessions Democrats make or compromises they offer, Republicans continue to drift further and further into extremism while their stooges in the media keep up the chorus of how Democrats are so unfairly devoted to the left. This poll/article is just another example of that. Don't fall for it.
I feel like if your point was really valid you wouldn't have had to make up an obviously far more biased and ridiculous question to try to make it. Obviously there are no questions like the one you used as an "example" in the post of yours I initially quoted. I didn't assume anything; you clearly didn't read the poll; because if you had, and the examples you cite above that actually do appear in the poll really served as examples of your point, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to make one up.
I also don't recall the phrase "identity politics" actually showing up in the poll. I used it, to illustrate my point, independent of what the poll actually said.
If you think the party whose current leader once opined on a popular nationally syndicated radio show "If you're not voting for me, you ain't black!" doesn't engage in identity politics, you're delusional.
But anyway, I was glad to see that you at least attempted to rationalize your ridiculous post, even if you did fail spectacularly at doing so.
You should probably stick to analyzing the capeshit movies rather than politics. You're obviously much more comfortable dealing with fiction than reality.
Irrelevant. I'm not talking about engaging in identity politics, but specifically using the term "identity politics." Because it's a snarl term. It carries a negative connotation, and almost every time it's used nowadays, it's by a conservative who's bashing progressives or progressive ideals. It's a major red flag, same as it would have been if they had used a term like "SJW."Describe "identity politics," in a positive fashion.
Why is the Biden allowing billionaires to pay staff in the White House science office?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10661039/Google-billionaire-Eric-Schmidt-PAID-salaries-staff-inside-Bidens-science-office.html
(https://i.imgur.com/QoSkLgE.png)
The science office actively arranged payment from Schmidt Futures.
(https://i.imgur.com/AQ5JrlN.png)
Because it’s America and you guys love this shit. Remember when Louis Dejoy donated $700k to Trump and then immediately got a job as postmaster general? This kind of stuff happens everywhere, all the time in the USA.
Because it’s America and you guys love this shit. Remember when Louis Dejoy donated $700k to Trump and then immediately got a job as postmaster general? This kind of stuff happens everywhere, all the time in the USA.
Ah yes, the classic liberal "yes he is corrupt and I don't care" defense. ::)
(https://i.ibb.co/zPsD957/rn-Zl-JGXa7-GMl.png)
Because it’s America and you guys love this shit. Remember when Louis Dejoy donated $700k to Trump and then immediately got a job as postmaster general? This kind of stuff happens everywhere, all the time in the USA.
Ah yes, the classic liberal "yes he is corrupt and I don't care" defense. ::)
I wonder if Joe thinks Michelle Obama was Vice President or his wife was.
I wonder if Joe thinks Michelle Obama was Vice President or his wife was.
Is that minor slip really what you think is of importance at the moment?
Yes, the coherency of the US President is important.Agreed.
Actually, it's not possible to state that Joe Biden should stop speaking without it being an opinion. All narratives, interpretations, suggestions, and insights are opinions. The criticism of "that's an opinion!" is terrible and childish. No effort to show that the author is wrong at all.
Actually, it's not possible to state that Joe Biden should stop speaking without it being an opinion. All narratives, interpretations, suggestions, and insights are opinions. The criticism of "that's an opinion!" is terrible and childish. No effort to show that the author is wrong at all.
Correct, no effort shown that the author was wrong about how 'Biden will make America lead again'.
Actually, it's not possible to state that Joe Biden should stop speaking without it being an opinion. All narratives, interpretations, suggestions, and insights are opinions. The criticism of "that's an opinion!" is terrible and childish. No effort to show that the author is wrong at all.
Correct, no effort shown that the author was wrong about how 'Biden will make America lead again'.
Yeah, that article has nothing to do with Joe Biden flubs or the article posted about it. Argument via avoidance. ::)
Yes, the coherency of the US President is important.
A more positive spin on the concept is simply that it's people supporting laws, policies, or agendas that they feel benefit or protect those of the group or class of people which they identify with or belong to. Politicians of both parties have for decades made explicit calls for the support of members of various groups or classes, insisting that their election will be the best outcome for people of that group or class in particular. It's hardly a phenomenon unique to Democrats.You think that's positive, uh?
Opinion: The Hunter Biden story is an opportunity for a reckoning
By Editorial Board
...
For now, what’s more compelling than the assorted accusations about the Bidens’ behavior is this question: Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now? When the New York Post published its blockbuster exclusive on the contents of a laptop said to have been abandoned at a Delaware repair shop by Hunter Biden, mainstream media organizations balked at running with the same narrative. Social media sites displayed even greater caution. Twitter blocked the story altogether, pointing to a policy against hacked materials, and suspended the New York Post’s account for sharing it; Facebook downranked the story in the algorithms that govern users’ news feeds for fear that it was based on misinformation. Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.
This series of events has prompted allegations of a coverup, or at best a double standard in the treatment of conservative and liberal politicians by mainstream media and social media sites. Yet there was reason in this case for reluctance on the part of the publications and the platforms alike. Both had been the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign in 2016, and it was only prudent to suspect a similar plot lay behind the mysterious appearance of a computer stuffed with juicy documents and conveniently handed over to President Donald Trump’s toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
No, it's an argument about the veracity of opinion pieces. I don't think anyone would contest that Biden is the master at flubs and gaffes. Nothing new. He's been notorious for that for decades. So some guy thinks that Biden shouldn't speak anymore? Cool opinion from some guy. I had the same opinion about DJT.
Hey look. The Washington Post Editorial Board is admitting complicity in covering up the the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Looks like it was a false narrative after all and honk was wrong that the laptop was fake.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220403141320/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/03/hunter-biden-story-is-an-opportunity-reckoning/QuoteOpinion: The Hunter Biden story is an opportunity for a reckoning
By Editorial Board
...
For now, what’s more compelling than the assorted accusations about the Bidens’ behavior is this question: Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now? When the New York Post published its blockbuster exclusive on the contents of a laptop said to have been abandoned at a Delaware repair shop by Hunter Biden, mainstream media organizations balked at running with the same narrative. Social media sites displayed even greater caution. Twitter blocked the story altogether, pointing to a policy against hacked materials, and suspended the New York Post’s account for sharing it; Facebook downranked the story in the algorithms that govern users’ news feeds for fear that it was based on misinformation. Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.
This series of events has prompted allegations of a coverup, or at best a double standard in the treatment of conservative and liberal politicians by mainstream media and social media sites. Yet there was reason in this case for reluctance on the part of the publications and the platforms alike. Both had been the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign in 2016, and it was only prudent to suspect a similar plot lay behind the mysterious appearance of a computer stuffed with juicy documents and conveniently handed over to President Donald Trump’s toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
Quote from: stackNo, it's an argument about the veracity of opinion pieces. I don't think anyone would contest that Biden is the master at flubs and gaffes. Nothing new. He's been notorious for that for decades. So some guy thinks that Biden shouldn't speak anymore? Cool opinion from some guy. I had the same opinion about DJT.
Yeah, major media outlets pleading with the President to stop publicly speaking and causing chaos with his numerous flubs and gaffes is totally normal. ::)
Hey look. The Washington Post Editorial Board is admitting complicity in covering up the the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Looks like it was a false narrative after all and honk was wrong that the laptop was fake.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220403141320/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/03/hunter-biden-story-is-an-opportunity-reckoning/QuoteOpinion: The Hunter Biden story is an opportunity for a reckoning
By Editorial Board
...
For now, what’s more compelling than the assorted accusations about the Bidens’ behavior is this question: Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now? When the New York Post published its blockbuster exclusive on the contents of a laptop said to have been abandoned at a Delaware repair shop by Hunter Biden, mainstream media organizations balked at running with the same narrative. Social media sites displayed even greater caution. Twitter blocked the story altogether, pointing to a policy against hacked materials, and suspended the New York Post’s account for sharing it; Facebook downranked the story in the algorithms that govern users’ news feeds for fear that it was based on misinformation. Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.
This series of events has prompted allegations of a coverup, or at best a double standard in the treatment of conservative and liberal politicians by mainstream media and social media sites. Yet there was reason in this case for reluctance on the part of the publications and the platforms alike. Both had been the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign in 2016, and it was only prudent to suspect a similar plot lay behind the mysterious appearance of a computer stuffed with juicy documents and conveniently handed over to President Donald Trump’s toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.Quote from: stackNo, it's an argument about the veracity of opinion pieces. I don't think anyone would contest that Biden is the master at flubs and gaffes. Nothing new. He's been notorious for that for decades. So some guy thinks that Biden shouldn't speak anymore? Cool opinion from some guy. I had the same opinion about DJT.
Yeah, major media outlets pleading with the President to stop publicly speaking and causing chaos with his numerous flubs and gaffes is totally normal. ::)
The article Tom linked is an excellent example of the mainstream media weakly capitulating to unreasonable demands and claims from conservatives in a desperate attempt to convince them that they're not unfairly biased in favor of liberals. It'll never work. No matter how far to the right the media lurches, conservatives will never stop insisting that the media is unfairly biased in favor of liberals, because they're not saying that because it's what they actually believe - they're saying it because it's an excellent tactic to continually push the media further and further to the right, as well as a way to spread doubt in their followers' minds whenever the media report on news they don't like. Why would they ever abandon a winning strategy like that? The media are basically trying to referee a soccer game in which one side has given up trying to kick the ball and instead just picked it up and started running away with it. They simply can't accept that one side is now operating entirely in bad faith and should therefore be treated as such.
Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.
Opinion: Mainstream media have failed to notice their own disinformation issue
...
An actual solution will require the recognition that we in the mainstream media are part of the problem: We are not trusted because we are not entirely trustworthy.
If there’s one thing Joe Biden doesn’t need, it’s more problems. With soaring inflation pushing household budgets into the red, crime rising everywhere, the southern border open to all comers and his agenda stalled in Congress, the 46th president is beyond beleaguered.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine and his efforts to rally NATO initially seemed to give him a second chance with disappointed voters. After Biden focused a big portion of his State of the Union address on the war, he did get a bump in the polls.
But it didn’t last, and even his recent trip to Europe that was filled with photo ops with refugees and tough, if bizarre, talk about Vladimir Putin couldn’t stop the spiral. Two surveys released since the president returned show him with just 38% and 39% approval, respectively.
These are dead-man-walking numbers, and another bombshell waits in the wings. This one has the potential to deliver a fatal blow to his presidency.
The federal probe of Hunter Biden is no longer taboo, and the media floodgates are opening. Where once The New York Post stood alone in reporting the skeezy details of the many millions the first son gained by selling his family name overseas, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and CBS News, among others, are belatedly joining the chase and conceding e-mails found on a laptop Hunter abandoned are authentic, just as The Post said they were 17 months ago.
It seems that you missed the part where the WaPo article says:QuoteNow, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.
snip
Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, the Daily Mail scored an average Factual Grade of 39.7%. This is well below the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources that we analyzed. This places Daily Mail in the 1st percentile of our dataset — it scored the third-lowest of any news source.
A range of factors contribute to these low scores. Articles generally link only to other Daily Mail articles, leading to low scores for cited evidence; headlines and text are generally heavily opinionated or sensationalized; and author expertise is low, given the wide range of new and unrecognized authors.
Far-right Trump lackeys quickly pounced on the Post report and called for a special prosecutor to look at the Biden family, and while that request is obviously politically motivated, all Americans, regardless of party, ought to be asking why we don’t require all candidates for high office to report not only their own foreign financial interests — but also those of their immediate family members.Ask Trump.
MSNBC is the latest major outlet to speak out about Hunter Biden.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/hunter-biden-s-business-bad-look-here-s-how-fix-n1294057
(https://i.imgur.com/x0M4mQT.jpg)
does the msnbc piece account for where the laptop came from, who possessed it between its discovery and publication, and/or what was done with it during that very long period of time? because if not, then who cares?
MSNBC is the latest major outlet to speak out about Hunter Biden
The Democratic party with help from Rino's stole the election. Poopy pants Biden won NOTHING !
Looks like organized crime?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/hunter-biden-laptop-whistleblower-reveals-450-gigabytes-deleted-material-will-released-soon-including-80000-never-seen-images-videos/
Looks like organized crime?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/hunter-biden-laptop-whistleblower-reveals-450-gigabytes-deleted-material-will-released-soon-including-80000-never-seen-images-videos/
I can't wait to see what's on the HD. However, the laptop in question was a Macbook Pro and dropped off in 2019. So let's say it was a 2019 version. Back then, you could get the 15-inch or 13-Inch models. Both with storage options of 256 or 512 GB. 450GB of recovered deleted files out of a possible 512 Gigs seems a little odd.
Looks like organized crime?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/hunter-biden-laptop-whistleblower-reveals-450-gigabytes-deleted-material-will-released-soon-including-80000-never-seen-images-videos/
I can't wait to see what's on the HD. However, the laptop in question was a Macbook Pro and dropped off in 2019. So let's say it was a 2019 version. Back then, you could get the 15-inch or 13-Inch models. Both with storage options of 256 or 512 GB. 450GB of recovered deleted files out of a possible 512 Gigs seems a little odd.
450GB of recovered deleted files out of a possible 512 Gigs seems a little odd.
Look at your internet cache. The number of images, gifs, icons, blank gifs, etc.... Is... Alot.450GB of recovered deleted files out of a possible 512 Gigs seems a little odd.
80,000 images seems a lot.
The machine is reported to be a 2017 Macbook Pro, according to https://securityboulevard.com/2020/10/no-thats-not-how-warrantee-expiration-works/ , not a 2019 model.
80,000 images in 2 years - 40,000 per year, if we assume a 16-hour waking day, that's 6 new images every hour, every day, constantly, for the whole two years. Does that sound remotely probable? On a machine without a built-in camera?
Look at your internet cache. The number of images, gifs, icons, blank gifs, etc.... Is... Alot.
Most likely, yeah.Look at your internet cache. The number of images, gifs, icons, blank gifs, etc.... Is... Alot.
So ... it's stuff that might have been in a web page that HB might have browsed, and which got "deleted" when the internet cache was cleared?
That's the incriminating stuff? Really?
Gas prices were clearly inflated and not due to any scarcity, real or manufactured. Exxon just posted record profits while assuring people it’s prices had to go up because times were so tough.
It is true that some Americans are idiots who like big trucks with questionable utility.
However "just buy a Tesla" is not something the vast majority of Americans can afford to do.
Gas prices were clearly inflated and not due to any scarcity, real or manufactured. Exxon just posted record profits while assuring people it’s prices had to go up because times were so tough.
That's very much a separate issue. If it is truly artificial scarcity, then it needs to be resolved in a way that doesn't involve pissing away ~30% of the entire country's lifeline supplies. The strategic reserve is for when shit hits the fan; when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other. It's when we need to keep basic services running to prevent mass chaos. It should not be used to resolve short term discomfort.
Gas prices were clearly inflated and not due to any scarcity, real or manufactured. Exxon just posted record profits while assuring people it’s prices had to go up because times were so tough.
That's very much a separate issue. If it is truly artificial scarcity, then it needs to be resolved in a way that doesn't involve pissing away ~30% of the entire country's lifeline supplies. The strategic reserve is for when shit hits the fan; when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other. It's when we need to keep basic services running to prevent mass chaos. It should not be used to resolve short term discomfort.
It is true that some Americans are idiots who like big trucks with questionable utility.
However "just buy a Tesla" is not something the vast majority of Americans can afford to do.
Similarly, neither is eating the cost of inflated gas prices.
Perhaps it would help if US vehicle owners switched to fuel-efficient vehicles, as opposed to swanning around in vanity trucks which "piss away" fuel ... ?
It is true that some Americans are idiots who like big trucks with questionable utility.
However "just buy a Tesla" is not something the vast majority of Americans can afford to do.
Similarly, neither is eating the cost of inflated gas prices.
Maybe. As I understand it, the reserve is to mitigate disruptions, not necessarily disruptions caused by threats such as you propose. Don’t get me wrong, I think the economy should have done the hard work of pivoting from fossil fuels a long time ago, but this doesn’t seem to be the worst use of it. The worst use would be selling it to finance the deficit. Big yikes on that happening.
Tesla isn't the only EV/Hybrid manufacturer. Plenty of people could have made the switch a long time ago. They chose not to do so. Toyota has been making reasonably affordable hybrid vehicles that get 40+ MPG for well over a decade now and the majority of vehicles that Americans drive to work cost well over the price of a 10 year old Prius. Those same people are the ones going "oooohhh noooooo gas is toooooo expensive for meeeee noooooow" wow, that's too bad. Maybe one day they will develop the ability to think more than 10 seconds into the future.
The strategic reserve is for when shit hits the fan; when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other. It's when we need to keep basic services running to prevent mass chaos. It should not be used to resolve short term discomfort.
Kinda for when shit hits the fan, but not really in practice. Though I agree that it should not be used to resolve short-term discomfort. We've been selling/using the reserves for all kinds of events, not just 'shit hits the fan' scenarios, for decades:
Petroleum sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - Prior to 2015
- 1985: Test sale—1.1 million barrels (170,000 m3)
- 1990–1991: Desert Storm sale—21 million barrels (3,300,000 m3)
- 4 million barrels (640,000 m3) in October 1990 test sale[27]
- 17 million barrels (2,700,000 m3) in January 1991 presidentially ordered drawdown
- 1996–1997: 28 million barrels (4,500,000 m3) non-emergency sales for deficit reduction
- July–August 2000: 2.8 million barrels (450,000 m3) to supply the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
- September–October 2000: 30 million barrels (4,800,000 m3) in response to a concern over low distillate levels in the northeastern U.S.
- 2005 Hurricane Katrina sale: 11 million barrels (1,700,000 m3)—Katrina shut down 95% of crude production and 88% of natural gas output in the Gulf of Mexico. This amounted to a quarter of total U.S. output. About 735 oil and natural gas rigs and platforms had been evacuated due to the hurricane.
- 2011 Arab Spring sale: 30 million barrels (4,800,000 m3)—non-emergency sale to offset disruptions caused by political upheaval in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. The amount was matched by IEA countries, for a total of 60 million barrels (9,500,000 m3) released from stockpiles around the world.[28] discomfort, it often has been used that way. Not to mention that we've been selling from it for decades, which is bizarre.
Post 2015
- Another section of the Bipartisan Budget Act (Section 403), enacted in 2015, mandates SPR crude oil sales for fiscal years 2018 through 2025 on a volumetric basis, rather than on a dollar basis, as specified in Section 404. The revenues from sales authorized under section 403 will be deposited into the general fund of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[34]
- The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, enacted in December 2015, calls for SPR sales totaling 66 million barrels from fiscal years 2023 through 2025.[34]
- The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in December 2016, calls for the sale of 25 million barrels of SPR crude oil for fiscal years 2017 through 2019. The first portion of these sales is expected in late spring 2017.[34]
- In December 2016, the DOE announced it would begin the sale of 190 million barrels (30,000,000 m3) in January 2017.[24]
- The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, enacted in December 2017, calls for the sale of 7 million barrels over the two-year period of FY 2026 through FY 2027.[10]
- The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, enacted in February 2018, calls for the sale of 30 million barrels over the four-year period of FY 2022 through FY 2025, 35 million barrels in FY 2026, and 35 million barrels in FY 2027.[10]
- In November 2021, the White House announced the release of 50 million barrels (7,900,000 m3) to address high gasoline prices.[35][36]
- On March 1, 2022, President Biden announced the release of 30 million barrels of oil from the reserve in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.[37]
- On March 31, 2022, President Biden announced that his administration would release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the reserve for the next 180 days.[38]
A long history of stupid decisions doesn't surprise me at all.
A long history of stupid decisions doesn't surprise me at all.
Well, that's your opinion based upon your notion that the SPR is only to be used for "when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other." And as shown, that has not been the bar that needs to be exceeded for its intended use. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, in part, was designed to "give the executive branch additional powers to respond to disruptions in energy supply".
So should we open up the reserves for the existing situation? I would prefer we don't. But an argument can be made that it's well within the parameters of use, historically and by design, and we need not be engaged in homeland fight for survival to do so.
A long history of stupid decisions doesn't surprise me at all.
Well, that's your opinion based upon your notion that the SPR is only to be used for "when we're getting nuked on one coast and invaded on the other." And as shown, that has not been the bar that needs to be exceeded for its intended use. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, in part, was designed to "give the executive branch additional powers to respond to disruptions in energy supply".
So should we open up the reserves for the existing situation? I would prefer we don't. But an argument can be made that it's well within the parameters of use, historically and by design, and we need not be engaged in homeland fight for survival to do so.
Of course it's my opinion. What do you think adding "well that's just like, your opinion, man" actually adds to the discussion? All facets of politics are collections of opinions. Any possible argument or choice in politics is merely an opinion.
The US making stupid decisions over and over again is nothing new. I'm simply disappointed that Biden is yet another bad decision. I can't wait to see what the next bad decision our two-party system (also a bad decision in and of itself) will generate next.
Biden the laughing stock of the world now.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/you-know-things-are-bad-when-saudi-state-tv-mocks-biden
(https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/saudisketch.jpg?itok=yplAgQ_b)
Biden the laughing stock of the world now.
... thought it was ice cream and licked it off, off camera, lmao
The President of El Salvador says that the Biden Administration is pro-crime.
https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1513659282566361102
The President of El Salvador says that the Biden Administration is pro-crime.
https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1513659282566361102
The President of El Salvador says that the Biden Administration is pro-crime.
The President of El SalvadorWho you couldn’t have named to save your life, but he’s saying something which fits your agenda so is suddenly worth quoting. Owned dem libs!
Biden BS's more than anyone I've ever known.
"Even though President Biden has said the US will accept up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, his administration hasn't yet created a pathway for Ukrainians fleeing the war."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/14/world/gallery/ukrainians-us-mexico-border/index.html
"Even though President Biden has said the US will accept up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, his administration hasn't yet created a pathway for Ukrainians fleeing the war."
Sometimes it seems like Biden is speaking a foreign language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HmFnp-jgfw
Covfefe! I remember when Trump mumbled and spoke nonsensically
Covfefe! I remember when Trump mumbled and spoke nonsensically
Yeah, that' didn't happen.
Covfefe! I remember when Trump mumbled and spoke nonsensically
Yeah, that' didn't happen.
Right. Trump never spoke nonsense. Got it
“Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor
and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good
genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton
School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if
you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if,
like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m
one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s
true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they
try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start
off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there,
went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to
give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little
disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the
thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy,
and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is
powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many
years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he
would explain the power of what’s going to happen and
he was right—who would have thought?), but when you
look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it
used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and
even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger;
fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they
haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now
than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about
another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators,
the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just
killed, they just killed us.”
Biden's speeches can be very odd.It's hilarious, and a bit depressing, how easy it is for FOX to tell you what to think.
Biden's speeches can be very odd.It's hilarious, and a bit depressing, how easy it is for FOX to tell you what to think.
So you have no defense at all about Biden whispering into the microphone during speeches?
When I think of creepy, I think of this:Yeah, but he's not whispering so it's fine.
He was probably whispering for dramatic effect.Biden's speeches can be very odd.It's hilarious, and a bit depressing, how easy it is for FOX to tell you what to think.
So you have no defense at all about Biden whispering into the microphone during speeches?
“Hey, guys, I think it’s time to give ordinary people a tax break,” he said, almost whispering as he addressed his critics. “The wealthy are doing fine.”
It was the latest instance of Biden speaking volumes by whispering.
The White House and communications experts say Biden’s whispering is just this veteran politician’s old-school way of trying to make a connection while emphasizing a point.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-biden-zeroes-in-on-student-loan-forgiveness-decision-voter-anxiety-grows-11653298200
Joe is going to forgive student loans. He really means it this time, you guys. He's going to do it... as long as you vote for a (D) this midterm. He can't do it before then. It's not possible. Come on, man!
Joe Biden was 70 years old in 2012. Kind of late there. Why did it take him 70 years to accept gay rights?
Joe Biden was 70 years old in 2012. Kind of late there. Why did it take him 70 years to accept gay rights?
It's interesting to see people who are themselves firmly opposed to gay rights criticize politicians for having not always supported gay rights. It might seem completely nonsensical at first, but you have to remember that right-wing political discourse isn't so much focused on reason and logic as it on just trying to own the libs in any way possible.
It's interesting to see people who are themselves firmly opposed to gay rights criticize politicians for having not always supported gay rights. It might seem completely nonsensical at first, but you have to remember that right-wing political discourse isn't so much focused on reason and logic as it on just trying to own the libs in any way possible.
The point is that it's less likely that Biden changed his mind and more likely that he restated certain positions based on popularity. The old guard of the DNC by and large flipped the switch on their gay rights stances in order to appease voters and not necessarily because they think gay marriage is acceptable. You should always be incredibly suspicious of some politician that changes their mind on an incredibly controversial subject after one side becomes much more favorable to their voter base than the other.
It's the same reason he keeps bringing up things like student loan forgiveness. It's popular. It brings in votes. He doesn't actually care about it one way or another and he isn't going to run around fighting for it.
It's interesting to see people who are themselves firmly opposed to gay rights criticize politicians for having not always supported gay rights. It might seem completely nonsensical at first, but you have to remember that right-wing political discourse isn't so much focused on reason and logic as it on just trying to own the libs in any way possible.
The point is that it's less likely that Biden changed his mind and more likely that he restated certain positions based on popularity. The old guard of the DNC by and large flipped the switch on their gay rights stances in order to appease voters and not necessarily because they think gay marriage is acceptable. You should always be incredibly suspicious of some politician that changes their mind on an incredibly controversial subject after one side becomes much more favorable to their voter base than the other.
It's the same reason he keeps bringing up things like student loan forgiveness. It's popular. It brings in votes. He doesn't actually care about it one way or another and he isn't going to run around fighting for it.
I don't disagree with your assessment. But there is know way to really know the motivation. We can speculate, but we don't know.
As far as appeasing voters, isn't that kinda part of the job description? After all, they are supposed to represent their constituents. As voter sentiment changes, I would expect, for the most part, my governmental proxies that I voted for to represent me to evolve as well.
Regardless of motivation, did Biden land on the correct side of history? In my mind, as a voter, a constituent, yes.
Halfhearted support of gay rights, even for the wrong reasons, is vastly preferable to enthusiastic opposition to gay rights. But yes, the Democrats as a whole are more than overdue for the old guard to cede their dominance to the newer, more progressive wing of the party.
He doesn't have to care about either issue. That's really not important. What's important is that he politically exercises the will of the people he represents, and as you point out, he does so smashingly.
I don't think shifting perspective because that's what your constituents are doing is the "wrong reason", as honk suggests. Really it's exactly what he should be doing.
I don't disagree with your assessment. But there is know way to really know the motivation. We can speculate, but we don't know.
Yes, but the point is to assess which politicians are more likely to pull this stunt. They're all liars and thieves, but just how much they lie and thieve is on a spectrum of lying and thieving.
As far as appeasing voters, isn't that kinda part of the job description? After all, they are supposed to represent their constituents. As voter sentiment changes, I would expect, for the most part, my governmental proxies that I voted for to represent me to evolve as well.
Regardless of motivation, did Biden land on the correct side of history? In my mind, as a voter, a constituent, yes.
The thing is, he didn't. His stated support for gay marriage now doesn't retroactively help it pass in the first place.
This is a case of all-too-often mentioned "virtue signaling". Biden is willing to state popular beliefs in order to garner support but he doesn't seem interested in fighting for those beliefs (because, all too likely, they're not genuine). This is why I brought up the student loan debacle. His support for student loan forgiveness likely isn't genuine (as well as most of the DNC's support). He's had a D majority in Congress for two years now. They forgave a few token loans and said "job done, lads!" Bringing it up again at this point is spitting on your supporters and laughing about it.
Trump will be speaking at the NRA Convention this weekend, and despite their exhortations that guns make them safer, attendees will be banned from taking their guns into the room for Trump's speech.
I don't know what his impact was, but for the record, Biden “came out” on same sex marriage way before the SCOTUS ruling in 2015. Specifically, in May of 2012 (Granted, an election year, go figure):
Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”
And even before Obama “came out”.
Were Biden’s statements genuine? Anyone’s guess.
I'm not super up on the student loan forgiveness thing. But it was a Biden campaign promise. Apparently, something has been done since then:
Biden has forgiven debt for some disabled and defrauded borrowers, and made it easier for those already in the public service loan forgiveness program to have their debt forgiven. So far, his administration has forgiven over $17 billion of student loan debt. Still, borrowers owe over $1.74 trillion, collectively, with federal loans comprising over $1.6 trillion of that.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/04/will-biden-forgive-student-loan-debt-where-things-stand/
I think the thinking now is some sort of $10k forgiveness per borrower. But a bunch of stuff needs to still be worked out like the final amount, qualifications for forgiveness, retroactiveness, etc.
But, to your point, his polling is disaterously low. Mid-terms are 20 minutes away. So the genuiness of motivation behind any of this is certainly questionable. But maybe the ends justify the means. Pretty much every first term president in modern times loses the mid-terms, so it will be interesting to see how many of these populist policies come to the fore to try and break the cycle of a somewhat guaranteed mid-term gutting of the executive branch party in Congress.
I don't know what his impact was, but for the record, Biden “came out” on same sex marriage way before the SCOTUS ruling in 2015. Specifically, in May of 2012 (Granted, an election year, go figure):
Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”
And even before Obama “came out”.
Were Biden’s statements genuine? Anyone’s guess.
I'm not super up on the student loan forgiveness thing. But it was a Biden campaign promise. Apparently, something has been done since then:
Biden has forgiven debt for some disabled and defrauded borrowers, and made it easier for those already in the public service loan forgiveness program to have their debt forgiven. So far, his administration has forgiven over $17 billion of student loan debt. Still, borrowers owe over $1.74 trillion, collectively, with federal loans comprising over $1.6 trillion of that.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/04/will-biden-forgive-student-loan-debt-where-things-stand/
I think the thinking now is some sort of $10k forgiveness per borrower. But a bunch of stuff needs to still be worked out like the final amount, qualifications for forgiveness, retroactiveness, etc.
But, to your point, his polling is disaterously low. Mid-terms are 20 minutes away. So the genuiness of motivation behind any of this is certainly questionable. But maybe the ends justify the means. Pretty much every first term president in modern times loses the mid-terms, so it will be interesting to see how many of these populist policies come to the fore to try and break the cycle of a somewhat guaranteed mid-term gutting of the executive branch party in Congress.
Yes, those are the token loans I mentioned. To put it another way, he ran on forgiving $10,000 in student debt per debtor and then forgave about 0.98% of all student debt. It was very much a "look, I did something!" move in an effort to appease voters. It's better than nothing, but he continually pulls that $10,000 number back out of the bag in time for midterms while knowing that it's not an achievable number.
I don't know what his impact was, but for the record, Biden “came out” on same sex marriage way before the SCOTUS ruling in 2015. Specifically, in May of 2012 (Granted, an election year, go figure):
Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”
And even before Obama “came out”.
Were Biden’s statements genuine? Anyone’s guess.
Yes, such an early adopter, even before Obama, because no one was thinking about gay rights until the year 2012. ::)
I've never said that gays shouldn't be allowed to form a union together or be recognized. I support civil unions. My issue with gay marriage was that they should not necessarily be paid for it (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3149.msg72965#msg72965).
I don't see how my particular beliefs have anything to do with Joe Biden opposing the marriage of gays for multiple human generations though.
I don't see how my particular beliefs have anything to do with Joe Biden opposing the marriage of gays for multiple human generations though.That depends. Are you criticizing Biden for opposing gay marriage for many years or are you criticizing him for changing his mind and choosing to support gay marriage? What position would you rather he support?
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage?
Tom, your use of the word "officious" ( more than once in this thread) in place of the word "official" speaks way, way louder than your other words do.Quote from: BillOWhy should any marriage be any different than any other marriage?
You can the discussion of that the thread I linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3149.msg72965#msg72965). I don't think society should necessarily be paying out the same amount of money to homosexual and heterosexual couples if they are not providing equal benefit to society. There were links showing that 93% of opposite sex married people have children, and that the only 11% of gay couples adopt, and that an adopted child of a lesbian couple has a 69% chance of ending up on welfare, and so on.
It's not an equivalent benefit to society, and so the financial benefits should not be equivalent. My reasons were purely financial. Joe Biden's reasons for opposing the marriage of gays were that "Marriage should be between a man and a woman!"
Biden clearly thought that two men should not be together because he was against the officious recognized union of their love in any manner.
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage?
Source? I'm not American so I don't know this from experience. It would be appreciated if you could point me in the right direction. I assume your statements are from a USA perspective as they do not apply globally.Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage?
The purpose of marriage, first and foremost, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole. If it does not engage in that purpose (i.e. childless couples) then it should not confer any benefits to the parties involved.
That is to say: any marriage that doesn't result in procreation or adoption should be null and void within a few years from the government's perspective.
So, you think a person's only worth in a marital union is how many offspring they can produce, is that correct?
- In 1973, Biden suggested that gay federal employees were "security risks"
https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/The_Morning_News_Tue__Sep_25__1973_.pdf
(https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Iq-nEUpO4RlhF7QAvT3O6IAbsJb9DKv4Qh5Gxx70LFWi9TZmNAsP015CqedDVCSOMCXkOK98VqqeMko5qObNhIi4dD9j8Xslp11Bxw0UzvftUJbbyUq4eC2Wn7cRHckElzIT3HW7NrigaA=s0-d-e1-ft#http://i1.cmail20.com/ei/r/13/2DB/68F/050442/csfinal/LGBTrecord131-99045106db03cf3c.jpg)
- In 1993, Biden voted to block the immigration of HIV+ individuals into the United States
- In 1993, Biden voted for the bill that created "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
- In 1994, Biden voted to cut off federal funding for schools that taught "acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle"
For decades, Biden opposed same-sex marriage
- In 1996, Biden voted for the Defense Of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman
- In the 2000s, Biden claimed that same-sex marriage was a "state" issue and repeatedly said that marriage was "between a man and a woman"
Biden refused to characterize a Constitutional marriage amendment as "writing discrimination into the Constitution"
Biden suggested he was opposed to the "timing" of the marriage amendment, not its substance
- In 2008, both before and after he became Obama's Vice-Presidential nominee, Biden said he opposed same-sex marriage
Biden is falsely claiming he was the first major leader to support same-sex marriage
- 12 years before Biden did, Vice President Dick Cheney opposed federal restrictions on same-sex marriage
Biden wasn't even the first Obama Cabinet member to support same-sex marriage
- In 2012, after Biden accidentally supported same-sex marriage, his staff and White House aides attempted to clean up and walk back Biden's remarks, saying he had not actually endorsed it
Source? I'm not American so I don't know this from experience. It would be appreciated if you could point me in the right direction. I assume your statements are from a USA perspective as they do not apply globally.
However, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole solely based on reproductive success alone? What about art, music, literature, engineering, technology, science, industry, commerce, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Why was Biden's reasoning better than mine?Biden is a politician. Reasoning is not a qualification for the job.
Asking me to source an opinion is comical.Sorry, you are right. In my defense it did not read like an opinion to me.
A society that doesn't reproduce doesn't continue. Art, music, etc. are not a society but merely products of one. Those same products are often destroyed by societies that follow, so reproductive success of a society also impacts its products. There were plenty of societies throughout human history that made great art which is now lost because they failed continuation and were destroyed.So then if the non-traditional couple were to adopt and care for children, then they should be treated the same as a traditional couple and given the same incentives, benefits and privileges, right?
So then if the non-traditional couple were to adopt and care for children, then they should be treated the same as a traditional couple and given the same incentives, benefits and privileges, right?
My objection was a based on giving out financial benefits to people who want the recognition of marriage without providing equal benefit to society, not that they shouldn't be together or receive recognition.
Joe Biden's objection was because he doesn't like the idea of two men or two women being married to each other. Again, Biden's reasoning in the video (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17706.msg265340#msg265340) is "Marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that!" and "Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's the game going on here?"
Why was Biden's reasoning better than mine?
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage?
The purpose of marriage, first and foremost, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole. If it does not engage in that purpose (i.e. childless couples) then it should not confer any benefits to the parties involved.
That is to say: any marriage that doesn't result in procreation or adoption should be null and void within a few years from the government's perspective.
Why should any marriage be any different than any other marriage?
The purpose of marriage, first and foremost, is the continuation of the State and society as a whole. If it does not engage in that purpose (i.e. childless couples) then it should not confer any benefits to the parties involved.
That is to say: any marriage that doesn't result in procreation or adoption should be null and void within a few years from the government's perspective.
You guys seem to say that he (Biden) is better than Trump
What about after the kids move out?
Or the woman goes through metapause and is unable to have kids? Should the marriage be null and void in a legal sense?
You think the Government should treat the populace as livestock, then?
In the Rushy Regime, you're not allowed to get/be married if you don't procreate?What about those who procreate without getting married?
They're rational, but they're cynical to the core and have long since abandoned their principles in favor of grasping at power wherever they can at the expense of our democracy. They can't be trusted, and making any sort of plan that relies on their help or cooperation is guaranteed to backfire.
Remember when Democrats negotiated on Obamacare in good faith, caving to Republican demands even though they had the votes to put through something truly differentiating like Universal Health Care if they wanted to, only to find that not a single Republican voted in favor of it despite the fact that it was a near-replication of Romneycare? So they can say what you are saying they will say, but they would be wrong. Democrats have been much better about negotiating in good faith than Republicans for most of my adult life. They are just shit at actually enacting anything of substance, usually because they campaign on the lofty goals, then whittle away at those to appease Republican legislators when courting votes, then don't get a single Republican to actually side with them (or sometimes, a single-digit number of Republicans might side with them), then lose power because they didn't accomplish what they set out to do.They're rational, but they're cynical to the core and have long since abandoned their principles in favor of grasping at power wherever they can at the expense of our democracy. They can't be trusted, and making any sort of plan that relies on their help or cooperation is guaranteed to backfire.
And they say the same about Democrats.
I never said they were right.Remember when Democrats negotiated on Obamacare in good faith, caving to Republican demands even though they had the votes to put through something truly differentiating like Universal Health Care if they wanted to, only to find that not a single Republican voted in favor of it despite the fact that it was a near-replication of Romneycare? So they can say what you are saying they will say, but they would be wrong. Democrats have been much better about negotiating in good faith than Republicans for most of my adult life. They are just shit at actually enacting anything of substance, usually because they campaign on the lofty goals, then whittle away at those to appease Republican legislators when courting votes, then don't get a single Republican to actually side with them (or sometimes, a single-digit number of Republicans might side with them), then lose power because they didn't accomplish what they set out to do.They're rational, but they're cynical to the core and have long since abandoned their principles in favor of grasping at power wherever they can at the expense of our democracy. They can't be trusted, and making any sort of plan that relies on their help or cooperation is guaranteed to backfire.
And they say the same about Democrats.
It sounds like Joe Biden is doing a poor job.
https://twitter.com/mjrusher/status/1538890135730806786
It sounds like Joe Biden is doing a poor job.
Yes, the tweet clearly states that it is at the 571 mark. The graph shows that his popularity has been dropping to the point that he is now the most unpopular president at this point in his presidency in recorded US History.
The despicable Biden Administration doesn't want states to require proof of citizenship to vote.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-administration-sues-arizona-over-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-federal-elections
(https://i.imgur.com/2el5KY7.png)
Yes, the tweet clearly states that it is at the 571 (517 according to the above, not 571 - T) mark. The graph shows that his popularity has been dropping to the point that he is now the most unpopular president at this point in his presidency in recorded US History.
So on balance, he has greater approval than Trump.It also shows that, with the exception of Literally Orange Man, Biden is less popular than just about any POTUS at just about any point in their presidency. Thanks for sharing this damning data!
The despicable Biden Administration doesn't want states to require proof of citizenship to vote.When was the last time that you were required to show proof of citizenship when you went to vote?
Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?The Republicans would certainly like that to be the case. Because they don’t care about such people, so such people aren’t going to vote for them.
So how would such a person vote? Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?This problem has been solved by most countries that require ID to vote. You set up a free and mandatory national ID card scheme.
I'm not adverse to that idea, but the key thing is it being free. But I've yet to be convinced that there is a problem to solve here.So how would such a person vote? Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?This problem has been solved by most countries that require ID to vote. You set up a free and mandatory national ID card scheme.
I'm not adverse to that idea, but the key thing is it being free.Yes. Anything else would just result in repeating the problem.
But I've yet to be convinced that there is a problem to solve here.Personally, I don't know how you'd be able to establish whether the problem is widespread. I know people say voter fraud is not a widespread issue, but it genuinely stumps me how you could conclude that.
So how would such a person vote? Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?This problem has been solved by most countries that require ID to vote. You set up a free and mandatory national ID card scheme.
These are unpopular in Anglophone countries, because they somehow convinced themselves that this would impact their privacy, or that being given a piece of plastic violates their freedom. I guess it's down to the Democrats to convince voters otherwise.
The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.
The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.
I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.
But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.
You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.
I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.
But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238
It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think. The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists. To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.
I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.
But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238
It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think. The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists. To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
So, you are claiming it doesn't take massive voter fraud to alter the outcome of an election.You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.
I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.
But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238
It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think. The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists. To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
No. This incident actually happened.
So we shouldn't even bother to vote because Langley and Arlington will decide it anyway?I vote every election, as it is a personal choice to be made, regardless of other things outside of my purview.
How and why did you swizzle China into the mix?
I don't know what any of that means.Well, go study some more.
What's this about millions of gallons of fuel?
So, you are claiming it doesn't take massive voter fraud to alter the outcome of an election.You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.
I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.
But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238
It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think. The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists. To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
No. This incident actually happened.
Gotcha.
I see.So, you are claiming it doesn't take massive voter fraud to alter the outcome of an election.You mean like the lot occupying Langley and Arlington, in conjunction with Beijing?The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information.I have to say our system has always felt a bit flaky for the reasons you've mentioned.
I guess if I turned up and said I'm Mr Neighbours Name from Neighbour's Address then they'd let me vote.
But if my neighbour had already been to vote then I'd get caught in the lie. Or if they turned up later in the day to then they'd realise something is up when his name is already crossed off. I might get lucky and he might not vote I guess. I guess I could go at the start of the day and vote as him and then go later as me and hope they don't recognise me. Or send someone not registered to vote to pretend to be him I guess.
But it's all a fair amount of effort for...one extra vote. The risk/reward calculation doesn't really make it worth it. Especially if you're not in a marginal seat, often it's pretty clear who is going to win anyway. As much as I rail against FPTP, it almost protects against this sort of thing because it's just not worth it. I've not seen any evidence that voter fraud is a problem here although I agree I don't know how they check.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/29/true-tale-absentee-voter-fraud-north-carolina-523238
It's a lot more difficult to get away with retail voting fraud than one would think. The anomaly tends to stick out to accountants and data scientists. To change an election it would take a lot of people coordinating to do something extremely illegal.
No. This incident actually happened.
Gotcha.
No. It did take massive voter fraud to change this particular election and the fraud is very obvious.
Biden got what after 4 shots? Oh dementia...
Biden got what after 4 shots?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62256544
He’s even handling getting Covid better than Trump. None of this being hospitalised and nearly dying nonsense
Hey that big fat ass of his might have saved this country. What if he was actually capable of walking to congress on January 6?
Hey that big fat ass of his might have saved this country. What if he was actually capable of walking to congress on January 6?
The deleted secret service texts are all “yo POTUS so fat” jokes
this guy is brain dead, send me the money MF
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/joe-biden-seems-think-sent-americans-checks-8000-video/
this guy is brain dead, send me the money MF
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/joe-biden-seems-think-sent-americans-checks-8000-video/
Yeah, definitely a gaf on his part. Probably got a bunch of numbers and summaries mixed up.
Joes looking to go in for a sniffer doodle.
Cute dress, with all the money we sent your daddy boy you could have had a tailor add two buttons and move those nips.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/26/zelensky-urges-biden-to-visit-ukraine/
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/07/biden-2-2.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1535)
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html
Or invest in upgrading the grid.Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html
Perhaps it will encourage people to drive less.
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html
These people are just being alarmist. California is recommending cutting back on all electrical use to avoid rolling blackouts. EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html
These people are just being alarmist. California is recommending cutting back on all electrical use to avoid rolling blackouts. EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.
I charged two teslas on a 50 amp rv plug on my service pole. $120....Thats stress. Solar also doesn't do well at night :)
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html
These people are just being alarmist. California is recommending cutting back on all electrical use to avoid rolling blackouts. EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.
I charged two teslas on a 50 amp rv plug on my service pole. $120....Thats stress. Solar also doesn't do well at night :)
Joe is an idiot with all the Dems..
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/california-advises-slower-ev-charging-175627840.html
These people are just being alarmist. California is recommending cutting back on all electrical use to avoid rolling blackouts. EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.
I charged two teslas on a 50 amp rv plug on my service pole. $120....Thats stress. Solar also doesn't do well at night :)
Nah, thats your sorry asses overcharging.
Tho electricity prices are fairly high.
But curious on the math...
Lets assume model S, so 100kwh. Highest they have.
So 200 kwh (for both)
Means $60 per tesla.
$60/100 kwh
So $0.60/kwh
LA paid about $.025/kwh in July 2022.
So you're charging people 3x the power cost.
You bastard.
EVs don't use anywhere near enough electricity to stress the grid under normal circumstances.
The electric car with the best kWh per mile is the 2020 Tesla Model 3, with 24 kWh/100 mi (or 0.24kWh per mile)
In 2020, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,715 kilowatthours (kWh), an average of about 893 kWh per month.
There's a very obvious reason why California now sees routine rolling blackouts and imports more electricity than any other state in the nation.
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.
It's almost like you just made this up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/
The only places saying the grid will be fine are, coincidentally, EV blogs where no one in the room has a degree in power engineering. Every time I watch power engineers talk about the grid at conferences, they look nervous as all hell and say the grid needs massive upgrades, then I hear politicians and environmental morons say "don't worry about it". Who do you think I'm going to believe? It's not coincidence that the same people saying it's "not something to be all that worried about" are the same people who know absolutely nothing about electrical power.
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.
It's almost like you just made this up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/
The only places saying the grid will be fine are, coincidentally, EV blogs where no one in the room has a degree in power engineering. Every time I watch power engineers talk about the grid at conferences, they look nervous as all hell and say the grid needs massive upgrades, then I hear politicians and environmental morons say "don't worry about it". Who do you think I'm going to believe? It's not coincidence that the same people saying it's "not something to be all that worried about" are the same people who know absolutely nothing about electrical power.
My goodness. You act like the grid is some kind of otherworldly entity that has been gifted to us by aliens and as such as may never touch it or leave it as is.
I assure you this is not the case. We regularly upgraded it for whatever need arises and I'm sure your power engineer friends will back me up on this, grumble as they might for having to do work.
FYI, I do know something about power. And when I saw that, I'm being modest.
Grid can't and will never handle electric vehicles.
Having alot of EVs at once is a big power need and will cause issues if the grid isn't ready.
Having alot of EVs at once is a big power need and will cause issues if the grid isn't ready.
Key phrase is "all at once".
From a car and driver report (August 2022):
Currently, it's estimated that around 1 percent of the 250 million cars, SUVs, and light-duty trucks on American roads are electric. However, while it's difficult to estimate future sales, an analysis by IHS Markit projects that 25–30 percent of new car sales could be electric by 2030 and then 40–45 percent by 2035. Using the rates for those projections, Reuters estimates that by 2050 more than half of the vehicles on U.S. roads could be EVs.
And utilities are fairly profitable, from Investopedia:
The utilities industry ranks highly in terms of margin metrics. The average net profit margin in the sector was nearly 10% in the first quarter of 2022 and for the trailing 12 months (TTM) was almost 11%.
Looks like the grid will have to expand in line with usage over time, like it's always done successfully (and unsuccessfully). And we need to incrementally get our grid shit together over the next 30 years.
Granted, EV sales are kind of currently rocketing upward, but as it stands today in 2022, at a 1% share of vehicles, I'd say EV's are a net zero burden on the current grid.
As an aside, if anyone really wants to get freaked out by resource burdens/constraints, EV's impact on the grid issues are minuscule in comparison to the biggy: Water. I have a close friend who is the director of a major metro municipal water dept in the US. S/he goes around the country and the world in fact giving talks regarding the system, resources, treatment, conservation, etc. as it's considered one of the best around. To hear him/her talk about the water issues we're facing in the next 25 years, not just globally, but in the US too, sends shivers down your spine.
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.
It's almost like you just made this up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/
The only places saying the grid will be fine are, coincidentally, EV blogs where no one in the room has a degree in power engineering. Every time I watch power engineers talk about the grid at conferences, they look nervous as all hell and say the grid needs massive upgrades, then I hear politicians and environmental morons say "don't worry about it". Who do you think I'm going to believe? It's not coincidence that the same people saying it's "not something to be all that worried about" are the same people who know absolutely nothing about electrical power.
My goodness. You act like the grid is some kind of otherworldly entity that has been gifted to us by aliens and as such as may never touch it or leave it as is.
I assure you this is not the case. We regularly upgraded it for whatever need arises and I'm sure your power engineer friends will back me up on this, grumble as they might for having to do work.
FYI, I do know something about power. And when I saw that, I'm being modest.
Rushy is right tho.
Its a massive undertaking that most electrical companies don't want to do unless they have to. Not to mention building more power plants and that cost.
America has been dragging its feet on upgrades for decades because its not profitable to do so. Instead of planning ahead and doing it before its needed.
Having alot of EVs at once is a big power need and will cause issues if the grid isn't ready.
My point being that the grid buckling under the weight of EVs is not something to be all that worried about.
It's almost like you just made this up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/
The only places saying the grid will be fine are, coincidentally, EV blogs where no one in the room has a degree in power engineering. Every time I watch power engineers talk about the grid at conferences, they look nervous as all hell and say the grid needs massive upgrades, then I hear politicians and environmental morons say "don't worry about it". Who do you think I'm going to believe? It's not coincidence that the same people saying it's "not something to be all that worried about" are the same people who know absolutely nothing about electrical power.
My goodness. You act like the grid is some kind of otherworldly entity that has been gifted to us by aliens and as such as may never touch it or leave it as is.
I assure you this is not the case. We regularly upgraded it for whatever need arises and I'm sure your power engineer friends will back me up on this, grumble as they might for having to do work.
FYI, I do know something about power. And when I saw that, I'm being modest.
Rushy is right tho.
Its a massive undertaking that most electrical companies don't want to do unless they have to. Not to mention building more power plants and that cost.
America has been dragging its feet on upgrades for decades because its not profitable to do so. Instead of planning ahead and doing it before its needed.
Having alot of EVs at once is a big power need and will cause issues if the grid isn't ready.
I must disagree with the severity of the undertaking.
There are about 2.32 million evs in the US. The average distance they drive is 14263 miles in a year = 33,090,160,000.
At 330 wats per mision that's 10,919,752,800 kwh vs the grid's output of 4.12 trillion kwh.
So currently EVs overall draw less than a percent of the grid. Increase the number of EVs to 100% of passenger vehicles and the load would be 5%.
I think some of the confusion might be coming from comparing EV power draws to residential sources. Residential makes up a relatively minor pie of the power grid.
I admit. It is 1 in the morning and its easily possible that my numbers are wrong. Feel free to correct me.
The problem isn't now.
The problem is in 20 years when its 200 million EVs.
Here's california, live grid usage.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx
It actually hits capacity around 6pm.
Which is whwn people start plugging in EVs to charge.
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?
Stick with your science BS as Puttie freezes your kester. Leave foreign policy to NATO forces and the Pedo man.
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?
Stick with your science BS as Puttie freezes your kester. Leave foreign policy to NATO forces and the Pedo man.
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?
Stick with your science BS as Puttie freezes your kester. Leave foreign policy to NATO forces and the Pedo man.
I still don't get it. What does Biden and/or science BS have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?
I don't get it. What does Biden have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?
Stick with your science BS as Puttie freezes your kester. Leave foreign policy to NATO forces and the Pedo man.
I still don't get it. What does Biden and/or science BS have to do with the EU not getting oil/nat gas from Russia this winter?
Try to follow the bouncing ball. According to this NATO has been in Ukraine since 2014 and to start a civil war with Russia in Donbass. Bingo.
russia invaded
what a loser
https://twitter.com/i/status/1566230943693676544
Actually NO, Trump won by the landslide. The proof now is floating in and forming. Many will go to jail now and the majority will not seat Biden as President now. Big Fraud with Dominion and other countries with internet hooked machines.
Seriously? you missed the raid on Barrons bedroom? some sick F'sActually NO, Trump won by the landslide. The proof now is floating in and forming. Many will go to jail now and the majority will not seat Biden as President now. Big Fraud with Dominion and other countries with internet hooked machines.
How many have been jailed?
what a loser
https://twitter.com/i/status/1566230943693676544
Remember when MAGATs used this as a
Sure metric of Trumps imminent re-election? Yeah me too. Trump still hasn’t won a popular vote and couldn’t steal the 2020 election.
you missed the raid on Barrons bedroom?
As I said in the Trump thread, Republicans and high-profile, mainstream conservatives insult and slander Democrats, Democratic voters, working-class people, and people who simply live in Democratic areas all the time. It's not just Trump; it's a ton of Republicans that do it, and they do it regularly. Here's Ted Cruz just the other day:
https://boingboing.net/2022/08/29/ted-cruz-thinks-student-loan-debt-makes-you-a-slacker-with-a-bong.html
Even though there was some deserved backlash to this comment, you probably didn't hear about this on the news. It's partially because the mainstream media is numb to the general level of crudeness from Republicans by now, and it's partially because they've enabled the major double standard that Democrats are the ones who have a problem with insulting and disrespecting their fellow Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of insults, abuse, and lies come from the other side of the aisle. It's why we still hear about how upset Republicans were by Hillary's "deplorables" comment and how it was such a huge gaffe that it cost her the election and why can't Democrats learn from it and blah blah blah, while Republicans and Fox News continuing to talk about how Democrats are pedophiles and are currently burning down major cities goes unchallenged. The same thing applies in this case. There is nothing that Biden said in his speech that wasn't considerably more measured, nuanced, and factual than the torrent of abuse Republicans regularly pour on Democrats and the residents of Democrat-run areas. Yes, Trumpism is a threat to American democracy. Trump and his followers want to put themselves in power and pass laws to ensure they'll never lose power. They look towards Hungary under Viktor Orbán as a model for what America should be. That is a disastrous, fundamentally anti-democratic, and yes, fascist agenda to pursue, and it deserves to be called out for what it is. If that offends you, then you deserve to be offended.
It's progressives and woke culture that are at fault for riling people up to vote for Trump. We'd have our electric cars and renewable energy goals on track to being met if it wasn't for the whole anti-white crusade that progressives have been propagating for the last several years. They tried to change the culture too quickly.
I can't read, apparently.
,As I said in the Trump thread, Republicans and high-profile, mainstream conservatives insult and slander Democrats, Democratic voters, working-class people, and people who simply live in Democratic areas all the time. It's not just Trump; it's a ton of Republicans that do it, and they do it regularly. Here's Ted Cruz just the other day:
https://boingboing.net/2022/08/29/ted-cruz-thinks-student-loan-debt-makes-you-a-slacker-with-a-bong.html
Even though there was some deserved backlash to this comment, you probably didn't hear about this on the news. It's partially because the mainstream media is numb to the general level of crudeness from Republicans by now, and it's partially because they've enabled the major double standard that Democrats are the ones who have a problem with insulting and disrespecting their fellow Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of insults, abuse, and lies come from the other side of the aisle. It's why we still hear about how upset Republicans were by Hillary's "deplorables" comment and how it was such a huge gaffe that it cost her the election and why can't Democrats learn from it and blah blah blah, while Republicans and Fox News continuing to talk about how Democrats are pedophiles and are currently burning down major cities goes unchallenged. The same thing applies in this case. There is nothing that Biden said in his speech that wasn't considerably more measured, nuanced, and factual than the torrent of abuse Republicans regularly pour on Democrats and the residents of Democrat-run areas. Yes, Trumpism is a threat to American democracy. Trump and his followers want to put themselves in power and pass laws to ensure they'll never lose power. They look towards Hungary under Viktor Orbán as a model for what America should be. That is a disastrous, fundamentally anti-democratic, and yes, fascist agenda to pursue, and it deserves to be called out for what it is. If that offends you, then you deserve to be offended.
It's progressives and woke culture that are at fault for riling people up to vote for Trump. We'd have our electric cars and renewable energy goals on track to being met if it wasn't for the whole anti-white crusade that progressives have been propagating for the last several years. They tried to change the culture too quickly.
Is racism a moral wrong no matter what or is it possible to scientifically support an argument such that racism is deemed acceptable?Humans (and a lesser extent dogs) are too complex, mentally, to follow set behavoral patters based on race. Simply put, such patterns don't exist.
The former is a moral debate and simply opinion. The latter is far more interesting. For example, do you hypothesize that the race of a person doesn't impact the outcome of their actions? If so, by what evidence?
Humans (and a lesser extent dogs) are too complex, mentally, to follow set behavoral patters based on race. Simply put, such patterns don't exist.
Wild animals, however, are another matter. Some domesticated one as well like cows or sheep. Very predictable and its easy to say that "Yes this is a cow and its dosile" because cows have been bred that way and nearly all cows are docile as a reault
Also, I want to expand a bit: if it were rigorously, scientifically shown that a specific group of people are, say, 70% more likely to do violence in their lifetime, is it the government's duty to marginalize them? If some X feature of a person (outside of their control) is shown to predispose them to murder people, should that person be marginalized (or even aborted before they are born)?
Further, would you agree or disagree that aborting a fetus detected to have down syndrome is reasonable?
True but we have alot of research of psycholoigcal behavior of humans. As a mixed group, presumably, with seemingly no negative effect on the results.Humans (and a lesser extent dogs) are too complex, mentally, to follow set behavoral patters based on race. Simply put, such patterns don't exist.
By what evidence do you state this? In order to say this, you must vigorously research the subject. However, vigorous research on racial patterns is taboo and avoided. I don't see how there exists such a large amount of research to say definitively "the pattern does not exist".
Because it is.Wild animals, however, are another matter. Some domesticated one as well like cows or sheep. Very predictable and its easy to say that "Yes this is a cow and its dosile" because cows have been bred that way and nearly all cows are docile as a reault
How is a human that much more complex than an animal when such a vast majority of our DNA is shared between them?
Are you suggesting that such a race would be genetically predisposed to violence, or are you describing something that might exist in the real world?
Sure, why not? As long as it's not late term.
True but we have alot of research of psycholoigcal behavior of humans. As a mixed group, presumably, with seemingly no negative effect on the results.
Tho I will admit that race would be a very hard variable to control as culture influences how we percieve race. So even if you had two children, one black one white, growing up in the exact same family environemnt, they'll have vastly different experiences with regards to the rest of the world: Media representation, schools, racist people, news, etc...
So I'd shudder to wonder how you could make any kind of research on the subject.
Because it is.
A mouse and a human are very different both psychologically and physcially. As far as we know, a mouse can't form language or complex thought. It has no artistic capability. No desire to build a society, just operate on instinct.
pedo Joe
https://twitter.com/i/status/1573360055407484928
It's really sad how you guys would rather twist lines out of context and deliberately misinterpret them rather than argue in good faith and criticize Biden for his actual faults and weaknesses.
So sad this country is being run by Bidens handlers. Where's the potty? my diapers are soaked.
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1572695406915604481
So sad this country is being run by Bidens handlers. Where's the potty? my diapers are soaked
People's obsession with Trump's dump truck of an arse is peak politics
People's obsession with Trump's dump truck of an arse is peak politics
Wouldn't have mentioned without the previous posts. Why aren't you asking the others why they were "obsessed" with Biden's lavatorial functions?
Why aren't you asking the others why they were "obsessed" with Biden's lavatorial functions?Because it's just one person, and he's completely unhinged. Not worth anyone's time.
Why aren't you asking the others why they were "obsessed" with Biden's lavatorial functions?Because it's just one person, and he's completely unhinged. Not worth anyone's time.
Well, unfortunately that implies you think I'm "worth the time"You really ought to try and process what you read sometime. I commented on the people who are obsessed with Trump's butt, and not the one person that keeps trying to make haha funny poop jokes.
I don't know why you've decided that everything I say is about you
(https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/teaser_desktop_2x/public/2022-10/biden%20yelling.jpg?itok=mfvytGGZ)Biden is such a poopy pants loser, back door deals..try sending in Hunter
https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1577680926816903168 (https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1577680926816903168)
In 2020, Democrats blocked Trump's proposal to buy American oil at $24 a barrel.
Yesterday, a Biden official disclosed a secret offer to buy OPEC+ oil at $80 a barrel in exchange for not cutting production.
Biden's efforts backfired. The US is weakened.
=====
The White House is furious.
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/white-house-panics-prices-rebound-mulls-gasoline-export-ban-blasts-opec-hostile-acts
"President Joe Biden has directed the Department of Energy to deliver another 10 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to the market next month, they added.This is not a shock.
“The President will continue to direct SPR releases as appropriate to protect American consumers and promote energy security, and he is directing the Secretary of Energy to explore any additional responsible actions to continue increasing domestic production in the immediate term.”
[ZH: The SPR is already at a record low 22 days of supply...]"
Biden is such a dumb ass....oil is going to be pushed to $140+ a barrel....better start fracking idiot !!! The reserve is empty come next month. Biden has destroyed Amerika in less than 2 years..Does he know the world is laughing at him? Oh yeah run again sleepy joey. he he
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/us-preparing-its-response-short-sighted-strategy-opec
"President Joe Biden has directed the Department of Energy to deliver another 10 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to the market next month, they added.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-calls-out-socialist-republicans-now-begging-for-money-from-program-they-voted-down
But really is anyone surprised?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-calls-out-socialist-republicans-now-begging-for-money-from-program-they-voted-down
But really is anyone surprised?
Oh good, both the Democrats and Republicans in America can be confirmed to not know what socialism is. Reminds me of when Bernie Sanders tried to say Sweden was a socialist nation. Why are American politicians this stupid? Is it something in the water?
seriously brain dead
https://twitter.com/i/status/1584325204485894144
To be honest I usually avoid his speeches. Every time he pauses for a little too long and has that look like he's trying to remember where he is I have a panic attack that the rise of President Harris is imminent.Being a stutterer, he's probably looking for an easier word when he pauses like that.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-mocked-claiming-there-54-states-this-guy-completely-senile
Biden mocked for claiming there are ’54 states’: ‘This guy is completely senile’
Bring on Mrs. Kackel
Biden mocked for claiming there are ’54 states’: ‘This guy is completely senile’I've asked some young people how many states there are in the US and have gotten some pretty scary answers.
Biden mocked for claiming there are ’54 states’: ‘This guy is completely senile’I've asked some young people how many states there are in the US and have gotten some pretty scary answers.
BTW, the correct answer is 46. Massachusetts, Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania are commonwealths.
Commonwealths are states, but the reverse is not true.
Where did his son die?
Just asking...
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
Well, as there is no evidence the AI at snopes have any regard for facts, I'll stick with good ole Brandon for any testimony.Just asking...
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/
Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
Its frighting, i think.Just asking...
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/
Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
AI is what you get from "fact checkers," and democrats.Its frighting, i think.Just asking...
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/
Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
If a single little sentence or two is enough to get thousands to believe, imagine what an AI generated lies could do?
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/words-3
Ah, so you aren't a fact checker. You must be a fact denier.AI is what you get from "fact checkers," and democrats.Its frighting, i think.Just asking...
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/
Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
If a single little sentence or two is enough to get thousands to believe, imagine what an AI generated lies could do?
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/words-3
Ah, so you aren't a fact checker. You must be a fact denier.AI is what you get from "fact checkers," and democrats.Its frighting, i think.Just asking...
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/
Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
If a single little sentence or two is enough to get thousands to believe, imagine what an AI generated lies could do?
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/words-3
It required careful, diligent research. Interviews with his closest friends. And alot of number crunching.Ah, so you aren't a fact checker. You must be a fact denier.AI is what you get from "fact checkers," and democrats.Its frighting, i think.Just asking...
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/
Oops. Guess not. Isn't it funny how many people will believe and circulate anything they read on the internet if it enforces their silly worldview?
If a single little sentence or two is enough to get thousands to believe, imagine what an AI generated lies could do?
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/words-3
Gee, do you think A69 is a fact denier? I'd have never guessed.
Just asking...Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...Just asking...Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
I wouldn't leave my kids alone with you either. Guess that means you're a pedo.Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...Just asking...Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
"Little kids love to rub my hairy legs...I love kids jumping on my lap", he proudly claimed on the campaign trail...calls Ashley to come up and notice she doesn't respond...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oihV9yrZRHg
Lord Dave and Roundy don't mind if their kids are left alone with him though...
They believe Snopes because it a fount of credibility.
Here is Jeff Sessions doing the right thing...he doesn't want Brandon even thinking about touching his grandaughter...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wULYda4NzdQ
Wrong claim. I was talking about the shower claim.Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...Just asking...Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
I wouldn't want your kids anywhere near me, because I guess they come from a family of paedo supporters.I wouldn't leave my kids alone with you either. Guess that means you're a pedo.Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...Just asking...Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
"Little kids love to rub my hairy legs...I love kids jumping on my lap", he proudly claimed on the campaign trail...calls Ashley to come up and notice she doesn't respond...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oihV9yrZRHg
Lord Dave and Roundy don't mind if their kids are left alone with him though...
They believe Snopes because it a fount of credibility.
Here is Jeff Sessions doing the right thing...he doesn't want Brandon even thinking about touching his grandaughter...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wULYda4NzdQ
I guess when you have all sorts of statements from the perp himself, indicating kids are his type of thing, that is evidence to be ignored in the world of penguins.Wrong claim. I was talking about the shower claim.Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...Just asking...Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
So you admit that you have no credible source for the shower claim. Good to know.I guess when you have all sorts of statements from the perp himself, indicating kids are his type of thing, that is evidence to be ignored in the world of penguins.Wrong claim. I was talking about the shower claim.Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...Just asking...Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
I admit you believe Biden isn't credible.So you admit that you have no credible source for the shower claim. Good to know.I guess when you have all sorts of statements from the perp himself, indicating kids are his type of thing, that is evidence to be ignored in the world of penguins.Wrong claim. I was talking about the shower claim.Hairy Legs Brandon supports the claim...Just asking...Would you care to provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim?
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?
When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?
I agree.When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?
What did you mean when Markjo pointed out that you don't have a credible source for the shower story, and you replied that Markjo doesn't think Biden is credible, if not that Biden said something about it? ???
I agree.When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?
What did you mean when Markjo pointed out that you don't have a credible source for the shower story, and you replied that Markjo doesn't think Biden is credible, if not that Biden said something about it? ???
Pedos aren't credible.
markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking. Given that pretty much constitutes the issue, and pretty much Brandon admits he loves kids sitting on his lap and rubbing his hairy legs, there you have it.I agree.When did Biden ever say that he did something like that?When did any pedo ever say they ever did something like that?
What did you mean when Markjo pointed out that you don't have a credible source for the shower story, and you replied that Markjo doesn't think Biden is credible, if not that Biden said something about it? ???
Pedos aren't credible.
Do you not get tired constantly posting meaningless non sequiturs all the time?
markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking.Obviously you missed that I was pointing out that I believe that you aren't credible, which I'm fairly sure falls in line with pretty much everyone else's thinking.
We weren't talking about Biden's hairy legs; we were talking about Biden supposedly creeping on his daughter in the shower. Do you have any evidence that's true?Yeah, I presented it.
I know you aren't credible.markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking.Obviously you missed that I was pointing out that I believe that you aren't credible, which I'm fairly sure falls in line with pretty much everyone else's thinking.
Come now, you can do better than "I know you are, but what am I?".I know you aren't credible.markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking.Obviously you missed that I was pointing out that I believe that you aren't credible, which I'm fairly sure falls in line with pretty much everyone else's thinking.
Knowing is better than believing.Being able to provide evidence that supports what you "know" is better yet. Just calling Snopes unreliable isn't evidence of anything other than your own bias. Providing a link to a reliable source would be a step in the right direction.
One always needs to consider the recipient(s) when contemplating effort.Come now, you can do better than "I know you are, but what am I?".I know you aren't credible.markjo pointed out what he believes isn't credible, which happens to be in line with your thinking.Obviously you missed that I was pointing out that I believe that you aren't credible, which I'm fairly sure falls in line with pretty much everyone else's thinking.
I did provide evidence.Knowing is better than believing.Being able to provide evidence that supports what you "know" is better yet. Just calling Snopes unreliable isn't evidence of anything other than your own bias. Providing a link to a reliable source would be a step in the right direction.
Just asking...
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
You mean this?Just asking...
Anyone's daughter ever write a personal story about how she was afraid to be in the shower with her daddy?
Brandon's daughter did...
This is neither evidence nor a source. It's just an accusation. We're asking if you have evidence to support this accusation.
I did provide evidence.You seem to have a strange idea of what "evidence" means.
Offered in counter was a snopes "fact" check...HILARIOUS!
I didn't just call Snopes unreliable. Snopes has been proven to lie.That's weird. Snopes is widely considered to be quite reliable.
“Snopes got its start in 1994, investigating urban legends, hoaxes, and folklore. Founder David Mikkelson, later joined by his wife, was publishing online before most people were connected to the internet. As demand for reliable fact checks grew, so did Snopes. Now it’s the oldest and largest fact-checking site online, widely regarded by journalists, folklorists, and readers as an invaluable research companion.” (Source: Organization/Initiative Website)
Although Snopes.com could do a better job of linking to sources within its stories, it does list its sources, so it is easy to confirm accuracy.
Snopes regularly lies. For example, the site tried to deny the basic fact that Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist and was later heard laughing about the case in an audiotapeOne questionable variance.
- https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/
Snopes regularly lies. For example, the site tried to deny the basic fact that Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist and was later heard laughing about the case in an audiotapeWhere in the Snopes article did they try to deny that Clintion defended a child rapist or that she laughed about certain aspects of the case? Seems to me that your link is just a different interpretation of the facts presented.
- https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/
Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case.
Ridiculous.
(https://i.imgur.com/GCyetOM.png)
...
(https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2016/05/The_Hillary_Clinton_Tapes_-_YouTube2.jpg)
She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology)
hillary clinton caught LAUGHING this is epic
.
Again, this is goal post moving.
Again, this is goal post moving. The claim was that she laughed about the case, which she did, regardless of whatever inane argument you want to make about what she was laughing about.
The details of that are generally true. Snopes goes on of a leftist rambling rampage to nitpick about the terminology used. "Volunteered" vs. "appointed and accepted",
Clinton "knew" he was guilty vs. Clinton "believed" he was guilty. Clinton laughed about it vs. she was laughing about something tangential that doesn't make her look bad.
Clearly, this is more of an editorial site than a "fact check" site. Snopes internet editors interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why Snopes is a bad source.
If anything, seems like you're nitpicking the nitpicking. I'm pretty sure defense attorneys/public defenders often times know and believe their client is guilty. More from CNN: "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."
And clearly the blogger you cited interpreting for us what she is laughing about is not a "fact". It's an example of why the blog 'Ethics Alarms' is a bad source.
Snopes' "interpretation" seems to be correct based upon the reporter, Roy Reed, who was actually there interviewing her, "As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim."
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?Maybe we should just rename it to "Democrats"?
I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.
You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.
Now, when presented with the facts that snopes is a disingenuous garbage site, all of a sudden you don't like it anymore.
That's right, and you haven't provided anything to support it either. You really shouldn't keep doubling down on claims that you can't support.I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.
You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.
Yeah, you offered snopes into it. Tom pointed out snopes lies, employs plagiarists, and is generally considered by thinking people to be a for shit rag, loved by liberals.I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.
You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.
Now, when presented with the facts that snopes is a disingenuous garbage site, all of a sudden you don't like it anymore.
It must be nice living in a fantasy world. I didn't say I don't like it. I contributed to the discussion. It is a fine discussion about how Hillary Clinton is a cold bitch, something I don't even disagree with. But it is about Hillary Clinton, and this thread is supposed to be about Joe Biden, and now we have a full page of posts that don't even mention his name, or have anything to do with him.
I just feel like we got lost in the weeds a bit.
When snopes claims something is false, you can pretty much guarantee it is true.That's right, and you haven't provided anything to support it either. You really shouldn't keep doubling down on claims that you can't support.I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.
You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.
When snopes claims something is false, you can pretty much guarantee it is true.I trust Snopes a lot more than I trust you. At least Snopes cites their sources so that you can fact check them yourself, which seems to be a lot more than you're willing to do.
If Clinton was appointed she could have tried taking it above the judge's head. She also could have quit if she felt that she was being asked to do something which compromised her morals. She could have also sued. From what you posted it doesn't sound like she didn't do much to remedy the situation at all.
During the Nuremberg trials being told to do something immoral wasn't an acceptable excuse for the Nazis to avoid justice. And unlike the Nazi situation, there wasn't a potential SS Officer holding a gun to Clinton's head to force her to do immoral things. She willingly did this, and she is fully culpable here.
Snopes cited nothing in claiming the Ashley Biden diary was false.When snopes claims something is false, you can pretty much guarantee it is true.I trust Snopes a lot more than I trust you. At least Snopes cites their sources so that you can fact check them yourself, which seems to be a lot more than you're willing to do.
https://lawyersorbit.com/can-a-court-appointed-lawyer-refuse-a-case/If Clinton was appointed she could have tried taking it above the judge's head. She also could have quit if she felt that she was being asked to do something which compromised her morals. She could have also sued. From what you posted it doesn't sound like she didn't do much to remedy the situation at all.
Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody ???
Looks like you're just making things up.
Snopes cited nothing in claiming the Ashley Biden diary was false.Because that wasn't the claim. The claim was that Ashley Biden supposedly wrote something in her diary about being afraid to shower because of her father and Snopes could not find any such entry in the leaked diary. Do you have a link to the page in her diary where she made that entry or are you just taking some internet rando's word for it that it exists?
Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody ???
Looks like you're just making things up.
Can I Sue the Court?
~
Judges also do not have immunity regarding administrative decisions like hiring and firing court employees, and their immunity is limited when acting unconstitutionally.
As a defense attorney you are demanded to defend your client to the best of your ability. What do you think public defenders do all day when appointed to a case? Are all public defenders who believe their client is guilty immoral for defending them?
This all in the constitution:
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
And as the prosecutor said in the case, "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."
It's definitely a breach of ethics to not make an honest effort to defend your client, no matter the case.It is evil to defend a child rapist if you know they are guilty.
Hillary Clinton is evil because she did her duty as a professional attorney. Tom gonna Tom lol
Tom said nothing of the sort.
There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must have the defense do the best job they can.
The defendant is entitled to counsel bound by criminal procedure in the jurisdiction.
That is it.
Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody ???
Looks like you're just making things up.
Courts have Human Resource departments like many other organizations. Ie. Maryland Courts Human Resources (https://www.mdcourts.gov/hr)
Hillary Clinton was selected because the child rapist was demanding a woman attorney. Hillary Clinton could have escalated the matter to HR and filed an ethics complaint, or she could have complained that she was being singled out to do something undesirable based on her gender. Gender is a protected class. This could be construed as sexual discrimination.
If that didn't work judges can also be sued for administrative decisions. They are not immune from that.
None of that makes it moral to represent someone who you believe to be a child rapist. None of that forces her to represent a child rapist. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.
Tom said nothing of the sort.
There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must have the defense do the best job they can.
The defendant is entitled to counsel bound by criminal procedure in the jurisdiction.
That is it.
She's a REALLY bad lawyer, who doesn't know about any of the ways she could have escaped the trial, and just got lucky to win.Saying that she won implies that the defendant was acquitted. He wasn't. The case never went to trial. Instead, he plead guilty to a lesser charge in a plea deal that she worked out with the DA. This is quite common in our judicial system, even for people charged with horrible crimes.
Hillary Clinton was selected because the child rapist was demanding a woman attorney. Hillary Clinton could have escalated the matter to HR and filed an ethics complaint, or she could have complained that she was being singled out to do something undesirable based on her gender. Gender is a protected class. This could be construed as sexual discrimination.
In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.
She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.
How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?
None of that makes it moral to represent someone who you believe to be a child rapist. None of that forces her to represent a child rapist. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.
How do you know that she "believed" he was guilty before she accepted the appointment? The polygraph thing took place after she accepted the appointment...
Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie-detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”
If you want to play your speculative extrapolation game, maybe the reason she asked the judge to not appoint her was because she was just uncomfortable with child rape cases in general regardless of guilt of innocence of the defendant. Maybe she just wasn't into handling rape cases. Maybe she didn't "believe" the defendant was guilty until after she begrudgingly accepted the appointment and got a look at all the evidence.
No, she could not go to HR because she was not employed by the court.Quote from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.
She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.
How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?
She could have done that. Instead, she chose to fight on the side of a child rapist. Reprehensible.
Nothing Tom wrote indicates he isn't aware of earth-shattering news concerning the rights of the defendant. God, you better contact the Justice Department and let them know too, just in case.She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.
How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?
She could have done that. Instead, she chose to fight on the side of a child rapist. Reprehensible.
Apparently, you are unaware of the fundamental right of "Innocent until proven guilty", as pointed out previously by others. Emphasis on 'proven'.
There's all kinds of stuff in the U.S. Constitution about the rights of the accused. You should read up a little on it. Here's a head start, the concept comes from the Constitutional Due Process protections provided under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as other statutes and case law.
Nothing Tom wrote indicates he isn't aware of earth-shattering news concerning the rights of the defendant. God, you better contact the Justice Department and let them know too, just in case.It appears that some here don't think that accused child rapists don't deserve the right to a lawyer. After all, how could any defense attorney with a soul possibly defend an accused child rapist, sadistic murder or some other violent and depraved individual? Sometimes they just have to suck it up and defend the indefensible.
https://nypost.com/2023/04/23/at-least-a-dozen-biden-relatives-will-be-exposed-in-foreign-money-deals-james-comer/
At least Hunter Biden had a law degree and a terrible and desperate argument can be made that he sat on a board of a national energy company and he gave very special advice to receive millions of dollars from a foreign country without it having anything to do with influence peddling.
Apparently a dozen other Biden relatives were receiving money from foreign countries too. The leaps of logic aren't going to be sufficient to cover this one.
Hunter Biden claims he has no money to avoid child support payments, forced to sleep in dad's room - https://www.frontpagemag.com/hunter-biden-has-no-money-forced-to-sleep-in-daddys-room/
Hunter Biden claims he has no money to avoid child support payments, forced to sleep in dad's room - https://www.frontpagemag.com/hunter-biden-has-no-money-forced-to-sleep-in-daddys-room/
It's sad that we are now routinely giving one of the most stressful jobs on the planet to people who belong in an assisted living home. Our congressmen are looking similarly ancient.For example…
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-indian-ocean-bridge-b2358939.html
I think it's pretty easy to infer that he meant across to the Indian Ocean rather than just across the Indian Ocean. It's a minor verbal slip-up from a man whom we already know has a problem with making minor verbal slip-ups. Big deal.
I think it is extremely easy to infer this bridge will never be built.Of course not. That would be retarded to build a bridge over Africa instead of just building rail on Africa.
Once again, wishing for the impossible...https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-indian-ocean-bridge-b2358939.html
I think it's pretty easy to infer that he meant across to the Indian Ocean rather than just across the Indian Ocean. It's a minor verbal slip-up from a man whom we already know has a problem with making minor verbal slip-ups. Big deal.
He's slipping up alot.
I wish the democrats would put up someone much younger and more mentally sharp. :/
Probably. But hey, got a better shot than a wall.Once again, wishing for the impossible...https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-indian-ocean-bridge-b2358939.html
I think it's pretty easy to infer that he meant across to the Indian Ocean rather than just across the Indian Ocean. It's a minor verbal slip-up from a man whom we already know has a problem with making minor verbal slip-ups. Big deal.
He's slipping up alot.
I wish the democrats would put up someone much younger and more mentally sharp. :/
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?
Haha, guys, isn't it funny that a decade of corruption gets punished with a slap on the wrist and minimal charges for petty crimes?
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?
Haha, guys, isn't it funny that a decade of corruption gets punished with a slap on the wrist and minimal charges for petty crimes?
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?
Haha, guys, isn't it funny that a decade of corruption gets punished with a slap on the wrist and minimal charges for petty crimes?
I'm still not sure what you guys see in this guy.
(https://i.imgur.com/xOMEsTG.jpg)
In all of those cases Joe Biden is denying it as well. He is denying that those things are attributable to his family.
Denying his own grandchild is especially egregious and low, as she was proven to be Hunter's daughter with a blood test in 1999. (https://www.irishcentral.com/news/hunter-biden-child-lunden-alexis-roberts)
Yet the Joe and Jill Biden have repeatedly put up stockings at Christmas at the White House for only six of their seven grandchildren, leaving out Navy Joan Roberts.
They did it in Christmas of 2021:
https://nypost.com/2021/12/01/bidens-stocking-display-excludes-hunters-daughter-born-out-of-wedlock/
(https://i.imgur.com/rNqbwnk.jpg)
And again in Christmas of 2022:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/nov/28/biden-family-christmas-stockings-exclude-hunters-o/
(https://i.imgur.com/nuMjv1Z.jpg)
They reportedly even put Christmas stockings up for the dog and cat (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/joe-jill-biden-snub-granddaughter-navy-joan-white-house-christmas-stockings-new-dog-cat-not-hunters-love-child-navy-joan/) at the White House, but not for Navy Joan.
Biden repeatedly states that he has only six grandchildren:
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1651632958527111168
Jill Biden says it as well:
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/04/06/jill-biden-misstates-number-of-grandchildren-she-and-joe-have/“We have three children, and we have six grandchildren,” the former second lady said, with her husband adding their grandchildren ranged from “seniors in law school to little infants.”
Reporters have asked White House Press Secretary about this and there is a refusal to answer the question or acknowledge the grandchild as theirs:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/06/bidens-cruel-erasure-navy-joan-roberts/
(https://i.imgur.com/V64PTi7.png)
According to a Times report, White house aids have been told for years in strategy meetings that President Biden only has six grandkids, excluding Navy Joan
https://nypost.com/2023/07/05/wh-refuses-to-answer-questions-about-bidens-estranged-granddaughter-by-hunter/
(https://i.imgur.com/FoZ0L8a.png)
The little girl is also not even given secret service protection from kidnapping:
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1789245/hunter-biden-lovechild-navy-joan-security-fears/
(https://i.imgur.com/BKfpah2.png)
https://dcweekly.org/2022/06/06/revealed-joe-biden-refuses-to-provide-security-to-his-grandchild-and-hunter-bidens-arkansas-love-child-with-stripper/
(https://i.imgur.com/l6vrPAu.png)
Did it ever occurr to Tom that the mother doesn't want their child to be in the limelight anymore than they already are? Perhaps they asked not to be included in the family events and such? Maybe she's a republican and is ashamed to have a child with a democrat? Or she's afraid of how much hate she and her child would get from republicans who attack the families of politicians.
Hunter does come across as a bit of a slimeball and for some reason the Republicans eat it up. You know what though? Hunter's not our President! Our President is so unimpeachable they need to attack his family. That they are so unapologetically doing so is the real disgrace.
Hunter does come across as a bit of a slimeball and for some reason the Republicans eat it up. You know what though? Hunter's not our President! Our President is so unimpeachable they need to attack his family. That they are so unapologetically doing so is the real disgrace.
The entire point of this debacle is that Joe has been using Hunter as a scapegoat and liaison to enact personal corruption. I think you, and everyone else here, knows perfectly well that this isn't just about Hunter. He's not some random man who happens to be connected to Joe Biden. The meme of "I didn't vote for Hunter!" and "you just don't have anything on Joe!" is nonsense. Hunter didn't find himself on the boards of foreign oil and gas companies because of his extensive executive knowledge in how to run oil and gas companies. Joe used his son to personally gain from his political power. Now neither Joe nor his son will face consequences for doing so. This is okay to you because obviously they are not the same person and the idea of them coordinating with each other is utterly impossible.
Sometimes I think the idea of family members interacting with each other is so completely foreign to so many Democrats that they cannot even imagine it...
Sure, Democrats recognize that families work together; the Trump administration saw some epic nepotism, and Democrats definitely recognize that the Trump crime family has been working together shamelessly defrauding people for decades. I guess maybe some day we'll see some concrete evidence that Joe and Hunter conspired to do something similarly illegal together, who knows?Indeed, who knows? Further just the perception that a company has gained some sort of "inside track" by putting a member of a powerful and well connected family on their board can be useful to that company, whether said appointment actually provides such or not.
Wait... what political power did Joe Biden have via his son? The VP of the US has a lot of power and I can't imagine that Hunter inserting himself into a company he's not qualified to operate somehow increased Biden's political power as VP of the USA.Hunter does come across as a bit of a slimeball and for some reason the Republicans eat it up. You know what though? Hunter's not our President! Our President is so unimpeachable they need to attack his family. That they are so unapologetically doing so is the real disgrace.
The entire point of this debacle is that Joe has been using Hunter as a scapegoat and liaison to enact personal corruption. I think you, and everyone else here, knows perfectly well that this isn't just about Hunter. He's not some random man who happens to be connected to Joe Biden. The meme of "I didn't vote for Hunter!" and "you just don't have anything on Joe!" is nonsense. Hunter didn't find himself on the boards of foreign oil and gas companies because of his extensive executive knowledge in how to run oil and gas companies. Joe used his son to personally gain from his political power. Now neither Joe nor his son will face consequences for doing so. This is okay to you because obviously they are not the same person and the idea of them coordinating with each other is utterly impossible.
Sometimes I think the idea of family members interacting with each other is so completely foreign to so many Democrats that they cannot even imagine it...
Imagine arguing that a child born outside of marriage or in an accident does not deserve to have contact with her grandparents, uncles, aunts, should be banned from family events, family references, and banned from growing up in a childhood with her cousins.You.... you realize this happens often, right? Like... this is common in cases where the parents aren't together.
Wait... what political power did Joe Biden have via his son? The VP of the US has a lot of power and I can't imagine that Hunter inserting himself into a company he's not qualified to operate somehow increased Biden's political power as VP of the USA.
Imagine arguing that a child born outside of marriage or in an accident does not deserve to have contact with her grandparents, uncles, aunts, should be banned from family events, family references, and banned from growing up in a childhood with her cousins.You.... you realize this happens often, right? Like... this is common in cases where the parents aren't together.
Considering how you think Joe Biden likes to molest and/or sniff kids hair... why is this bad again?Imagine arguing that a child born outside of marriage or in an accident does not deserve to have contact with her grandparents, uncles, aunts, should be banned from family events, family references, and banned from growing up in a childhood with her cousins.You.... you realize this happens often, right? Like... this is common in cases where the parents aren't together.
You are arguing that because some people are pieces of excitement who disown their grandchildren, that it's okay for Joe Biden to do so as well. The little girl did nothing here, and is innocent. This is Joe Biden walking away from his responsibilities as a grandfather, specifically ignoring her and excluding one grandchild from phone calls and family activities with his other grandchildren.
Joe Biden appears to deny that he is even her grandfather, instructing aids to deny her existence. This is not normal, even in broken families, and something many rightly consider to be monstrous. This is a punishment on the little girl for doing nothing. She will have to grow up knowing her paternal family excluded her and that the President of the United States specifically disowned her as his grandchild.
Wait... what political power did Joe Biden have via his son? The VP of the US has a lot of power and I can't imagine that Hunter inserting himself into a company he's not qualified to operate somehow increased Biden's political power as VP of the USA.
I pointed out his family made enormous amounts of money in positions they weren't qualified to be in. I don't know where you got the "political power increase" thing from, but I suggest you start reading sentences a bit slower or something.
Considering how you think Joe Biden likes to molest and/or sniff kids hair... why is this bad again?
You seem to think that being part of the Biden family is a blessing and this child would be very fortunate to be included in Joe Biden's political situation. How very interesting.
Regardless, you probably need more perspective on the subject. Family isn't always blood. And blood doesn't make you family.
It does not. One can be blood related but not be family.Considering how you think Joe Biden likes to molest and/or sniff kids hair... why is this bad again?
You seem to think that being part of the Biden family is a blessing and this child would be very fortunate to be included in Joe Biden's political situation. How very interesting.
Regardless, you probably need more perspective on the subject. Family isn't always blood. And blood doesn't make you family.
Actually blood does make you family. Navy Joan's other grandfather did not reject her as his grandchild, despite that she came from a broken family and was an accident with a crackhead father. Navy Joan's other grandfather recognizes that she is his granddaughter and promises to love and protect her as a grandfather should:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/06/bidens-cruel-erasure-navy-joan-roberts/
(https://i.imgur.com/2qU07lQ.png)
joe and hunter are simply different people and hunter has no place in joe's administration as he was not elected or appointed.
which is why the secret service went to the gun dealer and tried to get the paperwork from his firearm purchase. it is very obvious that someone with no ties to the administration would get favors from the secret service. i can confirm this as i have no ties to the administration but the secret service tries to help me out of jams all the time.
not sure why you people care about hunter so much smh.
of course the former vp would have no access to secret service, and of course would have no influence as he wasn't elected president yet, and of course hunter would never be a part of any administration anyway.
It is pretty odd that honk's narrative is that Hunter has fathered a child, abandoned it, and received support in so doing from his father the President of the United States of America, and somehow it is all solely Hunter's fault. Somehow, Joe Biden's hands in his participation in rejecting and abandoning his granddaughter are wiped clean and not worth discussing.
Lord Dave thinks that you can simply choose who your family is, and if you want to disown your four year old daughter or your four year old granddaughter, it's okay in his book.
Roundy is even here arguing that children born out of wedlock don't deserve to be part of their family's lives, part of family events, or grow up with their cousins. He pretends that it is completely normal and acceptable in 2023 that children born out of wedlock are disowned by their grandparents and families.
Considering the absurd and constantly changing range of excuses here, the obvious truth here is that this is difficult to defend. It is more than a partisan issue. Even the liberal media is roasting Biden on this. New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner Maureen Dowd, a fairly well known Democrat journalist, shuns Biden for his heinous actions.
https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/critics-attack-the-new-york-times-for-daring-to-do-journalism-on-the-biden-granddaughter-story/
(https://i.imgur.com/V2elHdK.png)
Her article is here - https://web.archive.org/web/20230708160326/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/opinion/hunter-biden-child.html
of course the former vp would have no access to secret service, and of course would have no influence as he wasn't elected president yet, and of course hunter would never be a part of any administration anyway.
100% correct! The Secret Service's coverage of a VP isn't for life like it is for a President. It ends six months after they serve. So, yeah. But whoever lets facts and details get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, eh?
The ‘Daily Mail’ has a long track record of promoting climate change denial. Its coverage of climate change before and after COP26 has been no exception.
Although it is the most widely-read newspaper in the UK, the ‘Daily Mail’ has a reputation for publishing inaccurate and misleading information. For instance, in 2017, Wikipedia’s editors concluded that there is “established consensus that the Daily Mail was not a reliable source, and that its use in most Wikipedia articles was prohibited”.
If you argument is going to be essentially "yeah, the reporting is true, people were attesting to those things against Joe Biden" then I'm not sure why you jumped into denial mode to attack the source. They claimed that they received evidence that people were saying these things to the FBI about Joe Biden and that is how it was presented.The reporting (by the CHS) is that the reported conversation took place, not that what the conversation was about is true which the CHS can not know and that fact is clearly downplayed in the article. It seems pretty clear that Burisma put Hunter on their board to at least make it appear in their dealings with others that they had influence. Whether they actually had influence with Biden via Hunter is not at all clear nor would it be necessary for Hunter's paycheck to be worthwhile to Bursima. Also as Honk points out Biden wanted Shokin fired due to his NOT investigating Burisma, so that at least does not show Biden acting on Bursima's behalf but against them.
ITT ^ Saddam engaging in revisionist history, with cosigners.
I had a feeling I'd be met with denials. Very well, then, here are the actual sources backing up what I'm saying:The historical record is actually here in these threads, and it's funny you were not claiming any of this crap then that you are trotting out now.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/
https://www.apnews.com/united-states-presidential-election-9d4595ba4f3140c6bb6a3473a91f4a4c
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/gop-senators-echoed-biden-on-ukraine-reforms-kfile/index.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190
The historical record is clear. Shokin was seen as corrupt by both parties in America as well as the international community at large, and more or less everyone supported firing him. If conservatives really thought that this was a corrupt action on Biden's part, they would have brought it up immediately to use it against him and Obama, not waited several years later until he was running for president.
Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival shortly before an election with the subject of military assistance to that country currently being an unsettled issue is ample evidence of his corruption and unfitness for office, and a more than good enough reason to impeach and convict him. The apologists who insist that this actually exonerates Trump because he didn't explicitly threaten the minister with withholding military aid, or explicitly spell out that this was for his own political gain, will never be satisfied, because that's now how real people talk in real life. Nobody would ever have their own words used against them in court going by this unreasonably high standard of evidence. Of course military aid was on the line for this agreement to investigate Biden. Trump knew it, Zelensky knew it, and you knew it. It didn't need to be spelled out for everyone to know it. And of course Trump was doing this for his own political gain. He didn't give a shit about the Biden's son and this supposed corruption issue until very recently, when he saw an opportunity to use it against him. This wasn't some natural concern for the president that just organically drifted across his desk. Everybody knows it. Trying to deny what's so clearly obvious is just playing dumb.I think you need to rethink the whole reasoning about what motivates Trump apologists regarding this matter.
You see, there is no evidence that anything you have written in this polemic is true.
What you write is not obvious.
But just in case, go ahead and point to the lines in the transcript for everyone. You know, the line where Trump says to Zelensky, "Either investigate the Biden issue or else you get no military aid!"
By the way, when you do that, point to a law that says this is illegal.
Cause when you do, the actual videotape (still currently airing on YouTube since it was first recorded) of Biden bragging about exactly that type of behavior will be right here...
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/ (https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/)
"While the whistleblower complaint is based on hearsay, we do know that Joe Biden, while serving as vice president, pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company. Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian national gas company Burisma in 2014 while his father was managing the United States’ Ukraine policy and despite zero personal experience in the field. At the time Hunter Biden joined its board, Burisma was embroiled in allegations of corruption, allegations serious enough that Ukraine’s prosecutor general launched an investigation into the company."
Why did you counter a post about Biden and Hunter with Trump and Ukraine and call that evidence?All humans can see the subject matter is the same.
I am not human so please explain how your post proves that Biden tried to protect Hunter's company.Why did you counter a post about Biden and Hunter with Trump and Ukraine and call that evidence?All humans can see the subject matter is the same.
I only explain things to humans.I am not human so please explain how your post proves that Biden tried to protect Hunter's company.Why did you counter a post about Biden and Hunter with Trump and Ukraine and call that evidence?All humans can see the subject matter is the same.
The historical record is actually here in these threads
and it's funny you were not claiming any of this crap then that you are trotting out now
BREAKING🚨 Rep. James Comer says six banks, including JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, submitted over 170 suspicious activity reports to the Treasury Department regarding the Biden family, alleging their involvement in money laundering, human trafficking, and tax fraud.
The American banks also raised concerns about wire transfers received by the Bidens from foreign state-owned entities, notably from the Chinese government, allegedly for the purpose of money laundering and tax evasion.
The foreign wires were found to be directed towards Biden's business associates before being funneled through 20 shell companies associated with the Bidens. Subsequently, the funds were distributed among various Biden family members.
SARs are vital documents that financial institutions must file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) when they suspect any cases of money laundering or fraudulent activities.
Rep. Comer highlighted one specific SAR linked to a $3 million wire from China to Biden's business partner, Rob Walker. This money was received in an inactive account that had maintained a $50,000 balance for ten years before the significant wire transaction from China.
Within just 24 hours of receiving the wire, Walker initiated incremental payments to several Biden shell companies, eventually disbursing funds to four different Biden family members.
Comer explained that concealing the source of money through the use of shell companies to deceive the IRS is considered money laundering and racketeering.
He noted that if the funds were intended for legitimate purposes, they could have been wired directly to Hunter Biden, but instead, they were routed through business partners and various companies with no clear legitimate purpose.
Senator Ted Cruz asked, "So the Chinese Communist government was sending the money?"
Rep. Comer replied, "Yes."
"If Hunter Biden was doing something legitimate for China, they could have just wired the money to Hunter Biden, but they didn't," he explained.
"They sent it to a company called Robinson Walker. Then they wired it to a company called Owasco. Then they wired it to another company called Bohai. These companies don't do anything with the money."
Senator Cruz responded, "It's just a bucket to pour the water in, then a bucket to pour it into somewhere else?"
Rep Comer said, "That's exactly what it is and it was organized. This is like organized crime."
When the corporate media foolishly asks where is the evidence that the Bidens committed crimes?
American banks have submitted hundreds of suspicious activity reports on the Biden family, alleging their involvement in human trafficking, money laundering, and tax fraud.
Congressional investigators have obtained bank account records and wire transfer statements on twenty shell companies owned by the Bidens, which were allegedly used for laundering illegally obtained money from China, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Kazakhstan as unregistered foreign agents.
This evidence is supported by hundreds of thousands of emails, tens of thousands of text messages, photographs, audio recordings, calendar statements, and ten years of data from Hunter Biden's laptop, which the FBI took into its possession in 2019.
@MarcoPolo501c3
published a comprehensive "Report on the Biden Laptop," documenting 459 alleged crimes involving the Biden family and their associates, including 140 business crimes, 191 sex crimes, and 128 drug crimes.
A $1,000 reward is offered for any verifiable corrections, but thus far, no crimes have been disputed.
In addition, credible IRS whistleblowers have accused the Justice Department of obstructing the Hunter Biden investigation by blocking felony charges, search warrants, and interviews while preventing any investigation of the President and his family.
Furthermore, just yesterday, a judge highlighted an unprecedented lenient deal offered by the Justice Department to Hunter Biden, which would result in no felony charges or jail time for tax fraud and lying on a gun form.
This DOJ deal would have also granted protection to the First Son from any future prosecution related to illegally obtained money from foreign nations as an unregistered foreign agent.
What is more corrosive and destructive to our nation than a politicized Justice Department that applies different legal standards depending on whether one's last name is Trump or Biden?
@MarcoPolo501c3 published a comprehensive "Report on the Biden Laptop," documenting 459 alleged crimes involving the Biden family and their associates, including 140 business crimes, 191 sex crimes, and 128 drug crimes.
A $1,000 reward is offered for any verifiable corrections, but thus far, no crimes have been disputed.
Because if these sources actually stated then what you are claiming they state now, it would have been trotted out then.The historical record is actually here in these threads
No, it isn't. ??? What a strange thing to say.Quoteand it's funny you were not claiming any of this crap then that you are trotting out now
How is at all relevant what I did or didn't say in a post four years ago?
Show me the evidence. Not Ted Cruz and another partisan stooge talking about all the evidence, but the actual evidence itself, or at least a summary of it from a trustworthy source, and then maybe I'll agree there's something there. That Republicans like Cruz are making wild promises about how super-duper corrupt the Bidens are means nothing. Also, a couple of highlights from that lengthy spiel:
Then I look forward to the results of the actual investigation. Probably right after they investigate the voter fraud from the 2020 election, right?Show me the evidence. Not Ted Cruz and another partisan stooge talking about all the evidence, but the actual evidence itself, or at least a summary of it from a trustworthy source, and then maybe I'll agree there's something there. That Republicans like Cruz are making wild promises about how super-duper corrupt the Bidens are means nothing. Also, a couple of highlights from that lengthy spiel:
The other guy there is the chair of the House Oversight Committee, who is talking about its current investigation into the Bidens. The explanation here is that either the House Oversight Committee is framing Biden, or that this is a legitimate investigation. Considering that you have not presented any evidence at all for your claims that Congress is framing Biden, it appears that we have more evidence that Biden is corrupt. Framing a sitting President is, of course, illegal, and you should get on with building a case for your wild claims.
Because if these sources actually stated then what you are claiming they state now, it would have been trotted out then.
The explanation here is that either the House Oversight Committee is framing Biden, or that this is a legitimate investigation.
No, this is just a couple of prominent Republicans publicly lying about Biden and slandering him as a crook to rile up the base.
And as I stated then, the entire US administration and the entire EU wanted him gone because he was investigating Burisma, which was funding the entire Democratic socialist enterprise. You didn't bring up any revisionist history bullcrap then, because it wasn't written then as it is in your latest line of malarkey you are trotting out.Because if these sources actually stated then what you are claiming they state now, it would have been trotted out then.
I really don't think you can be basing deductions about the non-existence of prominent sources purely on the whims of an online discussion. There are a million reasons why I or anyone else might address one but not another particular facet of a complex subject in any given post. Looking at the post of mine you quoted, it's pretty clear that I was talking about the validity of Trump's impeachment rather than whether or not the underlying claim that Biden was corrupt was true, and in particular that there didn't need to be an explicit quid pro quo for what Trump did to be an abuse of power. (I love how you responded with "So where's the explicit quid pro quo?" Great reading comprehension.) For what it's worth - in my view, nothing - Rama Set brought up the point that everyone wanted Shokin fired on the previous page (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg199732#msg199732) of that thread, and I've discussed (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16615.msg221392;topicseen#msg221392) Shokin (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17475.msg227429;topicseen#msg227429) multiple (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19071.msg256736;topicseen#msg256736) times over the past few years. I don't know what makes this forum's records more trustworthy than that of the numerous websites I cited, and I find it very, very unlikely that all these websites could have planted those articles with false dates and pretended that it was information we've known for years with nobody noticing.
What's the lie?The explanation here is that either the House Oversight Committee is framing Biden, or that this is a legitimate investigation.No, this is just a couple of prominent Republicans publicly lying about Biden and slandering him as a crook to rile up the base.
Wow. Democrats have been backed into a corner have resorted to this new narrative they that bribery did occur, but Joe Biden wasn't part of it:In fairness, Elon Musk spent Billions and is getting no Return on Investment. Or profit. Or an easier life. So that part actually makes sense.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/01/democrats-hunter-biden-sold-business-partners-an-illusion-of-access-to-joe-biden/
(https://i.imgur.com/WuTWdqb.png)
This doesn't hold up of course, and only digs the Democrats into a deeper hole. We are expected to believe that foreign entities continually paid millions of dollars for something they did not get:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12361723/MAUREEN-CALLAHAN-Damning-testimony-shows-Biden-reeks-corruption-despite-Democrats-attempts-bury-truth-Dont-know-theyre-throwing-away-2024-Joes-biggest-liability.htmlCNN: 'Hunter Biden sold 'illusion' of access to Joe Biden.'
Sure. What foreign entities would continue to spend millions with no return on their investment?
It is clear this narrative by the Democrats is a poor-effort excuse and lie. In the testimony it was admitted that Burisma pressured Hunter Biden to do something about the prosecutor that was giving them trouble.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/ex-hunter-biden-partner-devon-archer-arrives-for-house-deposition/According to Archer, Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — who allegedly told an FBI informant in 2016 he was “coerced” to pay $10 million in bribes to Hunter and Joe Biden — put intense pressure on Hunter in late 2015 to enlist US support for ousting Ukrainian prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin, who had investigated Burisma, the Republican readout said.
Joe Biden took care of it:
https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1686372318602231808
Honk and Roundy want us to believe that the prosecutor really was corrupt and it is only a coincidence that the Bidens were receiving millions of dollars from the company that was being prosecuted, and that it was only a coincidence that they pressured Hunter Biden to take care of it.
And now, with this new narrative, we are expected to believe that corruption occurred, but everyone involved was corrupt except for Joe Biden, who was somehow fooled by his son in his son's corrupt bribery business dealings. What an odd and increasingly desperate argument this is turning into.
It is clear this narrative by the Democrats is a poor-effort excuse and lie. In the testimony it was admitted that Burisma pressured Hunter Biden to do something about the prosecutor that was giving them trouble.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/ex-hunter-biden-partner-devon-archer-arrives-for-house-deposition/According to Archer, Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — who allegedly told an FBI informant in 2016 he was “coerced” to pay $10 million in bribes to Hunter and Joe Biden — put intense pressure on Hunter in late 2015 to enlist US support for ousting Ukrainian prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin, who had investigated Burisma, the Republican readout said.
Joe Biden took care of it:
However, there are two big problems with the narrative presented by Trump and Giuliani, according to activists in Ukraine and others.
For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.
"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added.
And as I stated then, the entire US administration and the entire EU wanted him gone because he was investigating Burisma, which was funding the entire Democratic socialist enterprise. You didn't bring up any revisionist history bullcrap then, because it wasn't written then as it is in your latest line of malarkey you are trotting out.
Wow. Democrats have been backed into a corner have resorted to this new narrative they that bribery did occur, but Joe Biden wasn't part of it:
We are expected to believe that foreign entities continually paid millions of dollars for something they did not get:
...
Sure. What foreign entities would continue to spend millions with no return on their investment?
Honk and Roundy want us to believe that the prosecutor really was corrupt and it is only a coincidence that the Bidens were receiving millions of dollars from the company that was being prosecuted, and that it was only a coincidence that they pressured Hunter Biden to take care of it. It is one coincidence after the next.
And now, with this new narrative, we are expected to believe that corruption occurred, but everyone involved was corrupt except for Joe Biden, who was somehow fooled by his son in his son's corrupt bribery business dealings. Hunter Biden is the bad and evil one who is tricking his father into policy decisions. What an odd and increasingly desperate argument this is turning into.
WEB ARCHIVE!!!! TOTALLY LEGIT!!!! HONEST!!!!And as I stated then, the entire US administration and the entire EU wanted him gone because he was investigating Burisma, which was funding the entire Democratic socialist enterprise. You didn't bring up any revisionist history bullcrap then, because it wasn't written then as it is in your latest line of malarkey you are trotting out.
Just to be clear, you believe that almost the entire media have colluded to carefully construct an elaborate retroactive narrative by planting numerous fabricated and falsely-dated articles, nobody noticed this blatant rewriting of history but you, and your sole evidence for believing this is the fact that a guy on the Internet didn't cite these articles during a discussion on a related (not even the same, just related) subject a few years ago?
Also, while I don't plan on doing this with every article I linked, I checked for the Bloomberg article on the Internet Archive. It's been copied over seven hundred times between now and its supposed publication date, with the earliest being this one (https://web.archive.org/web/20190507115133/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim) from that same day, May 7th, 2019. How does this square with your theory of the article being posted recently and falsely dated? Is the Archive in on this conspiracy?
...the investigation into Burisma was dormant...ITT^ Saddam - "Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma...therefore he was fired."
There had been an investigation into Burisma, but it was dormant. Therefore, Shokim was not investigating Burisma.ITT^ Saddam states his undying belief that all investigations must be continuously ongoing and in the news in order to be considered active.
There had been an investigation into Burisma, but it was dormant. Therefore, Shokim was not investigating Burisma.ITT^ Saddam states his undying belief that all investigations must be continuously ongoing and in the news in order to be considered active.
Joe Biden is helping to save the middle class.
https://fortune.com/2023/08/08/ups-drivers-170000-union-agreement-teamsters-middle-class-bidenomics/
Thanks Joe!
Just so you guys know, the latest scandal (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/karine-jean-pierre-twitter-biden-mishap-b2394032.html) rocking Biden's world is that his press secretary accidentally tweeted something from her own account that looks like it was supposed to have been sent from Biden's account instead, which proves that Biden...has a comms team, like literally any other politician in the world. I guess that's a bad thing when you're used to Trump's spontaneous shitposting.Brandon - "No comment."
Just so you guys know, the latest scandal (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/karine-jean-pierre-twitter-biden-mishap-b2394032.html) rocking Biden's world is that his press secretary accidentally tweeted something from her own account that looks like it was supposed to have been sent from Biden's account instead, which proves that Biden...has a comms team, like literally any other politician in the world. I guess that's a bad thing when you're used to Trump's spontaneous shitposting.
I agree. If someone isn't constantly posting their every random thought in real time... CovfefeJust so you guys know, the latest scandal (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/karine-jean-pierre-twitter-biden-mishap-b2394032.html) rocking Biden's world is that his press secretary accidentally tweeted something from her own account that looks like it was supposed to have been sent from Biden's account instead, which proves that Biden...has a comms team, like literally any other politician in the world. I guess that's a bad thing when you're used to Trump's spontaneous shitposting.
WHAT?!
Fuck him!
I want my president to be on twitter, not delegating that so he can do other things. His tweets are the only real thing about him. And if they aren't real then I have no choice then to vote for a president who takes his tweeting seriously. Like more seriously than being president!
Imagine having to pretend that this is normal
https://twitter.com/DontWalkRUN/status/1700886354966573388
Imagine having to pretend that this is normalYou understand that Trump will be older than Biden is now at the end of his term if he becomes the next president?
Trump does seem more "with it" than Biden, admittedlyNot sure about that. With Biden's (life long) speech impediment and Trump's (life long) MO of just making stuff up (who knows if he believes it or not), its hard to tell.
- there's other reasons I wouldn't want him being US president. But the whole idea of you electing guys in their 70s to run the country is ludicrous. It has to be one of the most stressful jobs in the country, and you're giving it to people who in pretty much any other career would be long since retired and for good reason - no-one is as sharp in their 70s as they are in their prime.You got that right. I liked Romney's retirement announcement about being time for the baby boomers to make way for a new generation. I wish Biden would pass the torch.
You seem to be mistaking age with competency.I'm not, but there is some correlation between those two things. No-one is as sharp in their late 70s as they are at their prime.
Here is Donald Trump to set you straightWell, he's nice and impartial. I note he doesn't cite which poll so is this just more stuff he's just making up? He does do that, you know.
More than three-quarters of respondents in a new US poll said Joe Biden would be too old to be effective if re-elected president next year.
But as many people in the survey said the 80-year-old Biden was “old” and “confused”, so a similar number saw his 77-year-old likely challenger, Donald Trump, as “corrupt” and “dishonest”.
You seem to be mistaking age with competency.I'm not, but there is some correlation between those two things. No-one is as sharp in their late 70s as they are at their prime.
You seem to be mistaking age with competency.I'm not, but there is some correlation between those two things. No-one is as sharp in their late 70s as they are at their prime.
It depends what you are measuring. After adulthood fluid intelligence decreases as you age, but crystalized intelligence increases as you age - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8809681/
"Population-average declines are observed across adulthood for fluid abilities, whereas population average increases are observed through the seventh decade of life for crystallized abilities (8, 9)."
For example, a young person might be better at adapting to the mechanics of new video game than an older person. But for an existing skill like social interaction and the ability to use it to your advantage, an old person is much better at navigating social dynamics and utilizing social manipulation as a tool than a young person, as they have had more time to hone those skills, and will tend to dominate in that aspect. And it's not just social pressures to submit to old people. They are objectively better in areas like that. Managers in their 60's tend to dominate in business over managers in their 30's and 40's, who should presumably be more capable due to youth and stage of maturity, but are not and still have a lot to learn.
In the past decade the people have had the opportunity to elect someone younger with those qualities. Plenty of younger people have run.
The problem is that if you compare these people directly, one younger person with new knowledge like knowledge of the internet, and an older person with the experiential skills of a manager, the later wins for the position.
Tech-bros ran in 2016, 2020, and will be running in 2024. Vivek Ramaswamy is a 38 year old pharma and finance-bro with a science degree and new knowledge, who is running right now. He also has a JD, and has started his own successful companies. By all accounts he appears to be a very smart and accomplished individual.
Unfortunately he will not win because the skills of an older manager outshine what he has to bring to the table. He is currently lagging behind Trump and DeSantis in the polls, and is presently fighting Mike Pence and Nikki Haley for third place deep down near the sixth percentile.
I couldn't find the rules with a quick google but I think he needs a certain percentage in the polls to be on the primary ballot.The rules vary by state, but usually involve filing petitions with a number of signatures with the state election board.
So if he isn't a household name, few who votes in the primary is gonna vote for him.
But you are forgetting something: Brand recognition. I've never heard if Vivek. And if I know nothing about him, why would I vote for him? How would he even get on the ballot?
I couldn't find the rules with a quick google but I think he needs a certain percentage in the polls to be on the primary ballot.
So if he isn't a household name, few who votes in the primary is gonna vote for him.
Indeed. But regardless of his skills or ideas, he will be drowned out by the name Donald Trump in the media.But you are forgetting something: Brand recognition. I've never heard if Vivek. And if I know nothing about him, why would I vote for him? How would he even get on the ballot?
I couldn't find the rules with a quick google but I think he needs a certain percentage in the polls to be on the primary ballot.
So if he isn't a household name, few who votes in the primary is gonna vote for him.
You have to gain some organic momentum first and get a number of signatures and show of support. As a rising star you attend party conventions and are eligible to participate in the presidential debates.
Vivek met all of that and is one of the contenders in the televised mainstream debates, and has already participated in one GOP presidential debate. He went from zero point zero in the polls to ranking about third place, neck-in-neck and just above Mike Pence and Nikki Hailey. There will be more debates and the lowest people will be cast off the island until there is one remaining winner who typically becomes the GOP presidential nominee.
As far as I can tell the DNC refuses to even hold primary debates.Yeah. The Repubs did that in 2020. Its all about ensuring the emcubrant isn't primaried and thus divide the party.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_debates,_2024
(https://i.imgur.com/gf2bjUM.png)
https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrats-rip-dnc-not-holding-2024-primary-debates-robs-voters
(https://i.imgur.com/karokBi.jpg)
You seem to be mistaking age with competency. Here is Donald Trump to set you straight:
(https://i.imgur.com/VGO4xMO.png)
Did you watch the first fifteen seconds of that video? He didn't mix Biden and Obama there. He was talking about Obama.As you know Crooked Joe Biden and
the radical left thugs have weaponized
law enforcement to arrest their leading
political opponent, leading by a lot,
including Obama. I'll tell you what, you
look at Obama and some of the thing
he's done. We did it with Obama, we
won an election they said could be won
In his second sentence there he says to look at some of the bad things Obama has done, indicating that he was saying in his previous statement that Obama also weaponized law enforcement.
This claim against Obama weaponizing law enforcement is not new -
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2020-07/2020-07-28-Examining-Democrat-Allegations-Against-Attorney-General-William-P-Barr.pdf
"The Obama-Biden Justice Department investigated journalists, targeted legitimate businesses disliked by the Obama-Biden Administration, and flouted Congressional oversight. Most notoriously, the Obama-Biden Justice Department weaponized its law-enforcement apparatus against the campaign of Donald Trump."
Obama had weaponized law enforcement against conservatives, including Donald Trump.
But tell me again how Biden is cognitively impaired and unfit to be President. ::)\
Anyone watching the fist fifteen seconds of the video knows that he said "couldn't be won".Then why did you not write that? I just read what you wrote. Never watched the video.
I sense some denial here. Not to worry though, because you are in warm company with the liberal media.Considering how you spent the months of October, November, December of 2020 and January to March of 2021 saying how Trump won/will win/have the election overturned... I'm guessing you're an expert on denial.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wapo-scrambles-after-own-poll-accidentally-shows-trump-crushing-biden
(https://i.imgur.com/QHnRMtx.jpg)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/abc-news-takes-down-video-gop-analyst-citing/
(https://i.imgur.com/n8dyY70.png)
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/111123274488248502
(https://i.imgur.com/QzVdneL.png)
Considering how you spent the months of October, November, December of 2020 and January to March of 2021 saying how Trump won/will win/have the election overturned... I'm guessing you're an expert on denial.
The twitter comment was specifically talking about television networks
That page you linked as your evidence is featured on neither the front page of https://cnn.com or https://www.cnn.com/politics. Having a page for it hardly shows that it is being treated in the same manner as the Trump Impeachment. You can go there yourself and see that it is wrong that it is being treated in the same way.
If you go to https://cnn.com and search for "impeachment" you see some non-featured links to "Fact check: Republicans make false, misleading claims at first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing" and "Republican witnesses directly undercut GOP narrative at impeachment hearing"
On television the Trump impeachment was also treated with as much importance as a major terrorist attack, that everybody just had to know about, which it is clearly not in the case of the Biden impeachment.
That's odd, because I would have thought that "CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 TV networks" would in fact refer to CNN, MSNBC, and the Big 3 TV networks.
You're changing the subject. This tweet is claiming that CNN is blacking out coverage of the Biden impeachment inquiry, not simply that it's downplaying it or not treating it as momentous as Trump's impeachment. That's not a simple misunderstanding or a poor choice of words; that's a blatant lie.
The Tweet is claiming that the big television networks are not covering it. Your response is that you do not watch TV, but suspect that it is incorrect and immediately claimed in the same post that he is lying. How is it a blatant lie considering that you do not watch TV, exactly?
The Tweet is claiming that the big television networks are not covering it.That depends on what level of coverage you're looking for. If you want wall to wall coverage, then you're out of luck, but all of the news outlets are acknowledging that an impeachment inquiry has begun. But, then again, what do you expect when even a number of Republicans are saying that there doesn't appear to be much of any evidence of wrongdoing?
all of the news outlets are acknowledging that an impeachment inquiry has begun
Nah. He's just using a different definition of "blacked out" than most of the rest of the English speaking world.all of the news outlets are acknowledging that an impeachment inquiry has begun
What? You mean this guy on Twitter is lying? Surely not!
Yes, The Biden Impeachment Hearing Presented Evidence Of Corruption — Lots Of It
The corporate news media all but refused to cover the opening hearing of the House impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden on Thursday, and to the extent they did, it was only to repeat, at the behest of the White House, the exhausted mantra that there’s “no evidence” connecting Biden to his son Hunter’s international bribery scheme.
(The New York Times ran with a cursory and misleadingly headlined article, “First Impeachment Hearing Yields No New Information on Biden,” that boasted “even their [Republicans’] witnesses said the case for impeachment hadn’t been made.” Which, of course the case hasn’t been made yet. That’s why you launch an inquiry, of which Thursday was day one.)
But if the media had actually covered it, the American public might have heard more about the mounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen. All told, House Republicans presented more than two dozen pieces of evidence on Thursday linking Joe Biden to his son’s overseas business dealings.
mounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/29/yes-the-biden-impeachment-hearing-presented-evidence-of-corruption-lots-of-it/Quotemounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen.
hey which one of those is joe biden
I'm sure that the My Pillow guy is working on it and will deliver a massive data dump that will put the whole Biden family, all of Burisma and most of the Ukrainian government behind bars forever.https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/29/yes-the-biden-impeachment-hearing-presented-evidence-of-corruption-lots-of-it/Quotemounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen.
hey which one of those is joe biden
I know the evidence against Joe is coming any day now, and I'm sure whatever it might be it will be damning.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/29/yes-the-biden-impeachment-hearing-presented-evidence-of-corruption-lots-of-it/And how many of the actual texts and emails are documenting crimes?Quotemounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen.
hey which one of those is joe biden
Well this is ironic
(https://i.imgur.com/rSgQOp6.png)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hunter-biden-agrees-testify-house-oversight-committee-rcna126962
So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public. Wonder why?
Any insights Tom?
The punchline is that most Republicans can't explain specifically any evidence supporting their narrative. After years of searching, all we keep hearing is 'foreign money from U.S. adversaries' without a molecule of proof. They know how stupid they're going to look when they put Hunter on the stand and it becomes obvious that they have no real evidence.Nah. They'll probably just double down and accuse Hunter of lying and charge him with obstruction or something stupid like that,
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hunter-biden-agrees-testify-house-oversight-committee-rcna126962
So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public. Wonder why?
Any insights Tom?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hunter-biden-agrees-testify-house-oversight-committee-rcna126962
So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public. Wonder why?
Any insights Tom?
If you ever watch a public congressional testimony a good percentage of the responses to the questions are "I can't mention names in public" or "I can't disclose that in this public setting" and that somehow passes for an answer.
It sounds like they want a private deposition and are also open to a public one at a future date as well.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/172951168330171608 (https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/172951168330171608)8
(https://i.imgur.com/c16tkWP.png)
Well a deposition regarding potentially illegal activity should probably be done in private. If anything illegal was done then the names Hunter Biden has to mention should probably go to law enforcement or the Congressional Sergeant at Arms rather than speak the names in public and tip off a potential criminal who thought that they were safe or that they wouldn't be pointed out, and cause people to destroy records and documents in a mad panic.
Among its powers, the House performs law enforcement functions and has powers to arrest people (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/15/house-has-power-arrest-people-who-defy-its-orders/) who defy their orders. If you are called by the House to testify in a private deposition, you should probably do what they say.
They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/They've had the same claim for what.... 4 years?
They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/They've had the same claim for what.... 4 years?
Trump has claimed election fraud for 8.
And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.
None of them produced any usable evidence so you'll excuse me if I don't trust a press release.
What years? That would seem to be important. And how much? Because if its like $1,000 a month for the political campaign, it would make sense. Hell, every politician gets money from businesses, sad as it is.They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/They've had the same claim for what.... 4 years?
Trump has claimed election fraud for 8.
And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.
None of them produced any usable evidence so you'll excuse me if I don't trust a press release.
It's not the same four year old claims. They have been posting new evidence and new claims to the link I gave all year. They most recently added something today December 4th -
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-direct-monthly-payments-to-joe-biden-from-hunter-bidens-business-entity%ef%bf%bc/
"WASHINGTON—Today, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) released subpoenaed bank records revealing Hunter Biden’s business entity, Owasco PC, made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden. "
Hunter Biden is currently under an investigation by the Department of Justice for using the Owasco PC corporate account for tax evasion and other serious crimes.I look forward to seeing how that goes or if charges are ever brought.
Following subpoenas to obtain Biden family associates’ bank records, Chairman Comer issued subpoenas for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records. The House Oversight Committee has identified over 20 shell companies and uncovered how the Bidens and their associates raked in over $24 million dollars between 2015 and 2019 by selling Joe Biden as “the brand.” Financial records obtained show Hunter Biden’s business account, Owasco PC, received payments from Chinese-state linked companies and other foreign nationals and companies."And? Selling famous people as a brand is a time honored tradition. Tho wasn't Trump president during half of that time, not Biden? Sounds like we need a better breakdown of the time period. If biden was sold as "the brand" when he wasn't VP, wouldn't help your case. Hell, him being VP and being sold as a brand isn't really all that unusual.
And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.
Is trying to profit off the presidency and informally sell access to power illegal or not? You can't say that it's not a big deal when Trump and his family do it and then flip out when a couple of Biden's relatives (not even Biden himself, just his relatives) try to do something similar.And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.
Don't let conservatives rewrite history on this. There is ample evidence that Russia wanted Trump elected and interfered with the 2016 election to achieve that goal. Now, is there any proof that Trump only won because of that interference? No. Does this mean that the 2016 election was somehow invalid or illegitimate? No. And is acknowledging this interference in any way "equivalent" to Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election? No, absolutely not. But it happened, no matter how much conservatives wish that it didn't.
So far, they might have Hunter Biden on selling his father's position for his own gain. But they haven't linked anything illegal to Joe Biden.
We appear to be at the point where you guys are claiming that multiple Biden family members were being bribed by foreign country entities to trick Joe Biden into influencing policy decisions, but Joe Biden didn't know about it. ::)No one is suggesting this.
Quote from: Lord DaveSo far, they might have Hunter Biden on selling his father's position for his own gain. But they haven't linked anything illegal to Joe Biden.
Ok. So you admit that Hunter Biden was selling access to his father's power (through tricking his father into influencing or doing things). How can you maintain that congress doesn't need to investigate that?
...One can sell a relationship for gain without actually doing anything. Hunter doesn't need to even communicate to his father to use his father's position to his advantage. Networking is literally the most effective way to get a job and what better way than to namedrop your famous dad?Absolutely, and even beyond getting the job, having a namedropable person on your board can be an advantage even if they never do anything. In some deal one CEO says to another "well you know we have the Presidents son on our board...". All the more so in areas where influence is at times pedaled this way, but it need not always be so. Just the appearance of the possibility can easily be enough. If it went further in this case I have no idea, but it need not have done so and I am not aware of any evidence that it did.
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?Probably because they aren't investigating anyone else. I'm rather certain the number of people, including the Trumps, who personally benefitted from a relative in high office is pretty damn high. Do you agree every single political family should be investigated to check for such wrongdoings? Maybe make it illegal (because its not).
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?Hey, it's not as if Joe Biden appointed Hunter as a presidential advisor while Hunter was making truckloads of money from outside business interests.
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?First I did NOT say it was a scam, there are multiple reasons to put a high profile person on your board, one is just how it appears. We should investigate things of which we have reason to believe (i.e. evidence) that there was illegal activity. I am not aware of such in the Hunter Biden case.
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?
Yo, this is a thread about Joe Biden. If there's evidence that Hunter Biden did something corrupt of course it should be investigated. But without evidence that Joe was involved it's just another scandal involving a President's relative and is definitely not a basis for impeachment. That whole angle is just a clown show, meant to even the playing field a bit (Look, their guy got impeached too!!) and thus far has been demonstrated to be nothing but a desperate fever dream concocted by some truly corrupt politicians.
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?
Yo, this is a thread about Joe Biden. If there's evidence that Hunter Biden did something corrupt of course it should be investigated. But without evidence that Joe was involved it's just another scandal involving a President's relative and is definitely not a basis for impeachment. That whole angle is just a clown show, meant to even the playing field a bit (Look, their guy got impeached too!!) and thus far has been demonstrated to be nothing but a desperate fever dream concocted by some truly corrupt politicians.
Hunter Biden was collecting money on the suggestion of providing access to Joe Biden's political power. How is that not about Joe Biden, or warranting of an investigation?
The purpose of an investigation is to investigate things and collect evidence. Your statement of "without evidence that Joe was involved" suggests that you want Congress to investigate this and collect evidence. Oddly, you are simultaneously expressing a desire for an investigation while telling us that they should not investigate this.
Archer said Zlochevsky and Pozharski "placed constant pressure on Hunter Biden to get help from D.C." in getting Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin ousted. Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption.
According to the source, Archer testified that in December 2015, Hunter Biden, Zlochevsky and Pozharski "called D.C." to discuss the matter. Archer testified that Biden, Zlochevsky and Pozharski stepped away to make the call.
It is unclear if Hunter and the Burisma executives spoke directly to Joe Biden on the matter.
At the time, though, Joe Biden was in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy for the Obama administration.
Nine Biden family members who allegedly got foreign money identified by House GOP
...
Joe Biden’s son [Hunter], Joe Biden’s brother [James], Joe Biden’s brother’s wife [Sara], Hunter Biden’s girlfriend or Beau Biden’s widow [Hallie], however, you want to write that, Hunter Biden’s ex-wife [Kathleen Buhle], Hunter Biden’s current wife [Melissa Cohen], and three children of the president’s son and the president’s brother,” Comer said.
The chairman seemed to indicate that only one of Biden’s grandchildren and two of his brother’s children got the foreign funds.
“We’re talking about grandchil — a grandchild,” Comer said at the press conference. “That’s odd, most people that work hard every day’s grandchild doesn’t get a wire from a foreign national.
WASHINGTON—House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) today released a bank records memorandum detailing new information obtained in the committee’s investigation into the Biden family’s influence peddling and business schemes. The Oversight Committee has obtained thousands of pages of financial records revealing the Biden family and associates’ complicated network of companies set up during Joe Biden’s vice presidency and the millions the Bidens received from foreign sources. The financial records also reveal how the Bidens used complicated transactions to hide payments from foreign nationals, including CCP-linked associates, and provide clear indications of influence peddling schemes during then-Vice President Biden’s tenure.
“The Bidens intentionally sought to hide, confuse, and conceal their influence peddling schemes, but bank records don’t lie. The Bidens made millions from foreign nationals providing what seems to be no services other than access and influence. From the thousands of records we’ve obtained so far, we know the Biden family set up over a dozen companies when Joe Biden was vice president. The Bidens engaged in many intentionally complicated financial transactions to hide these payments and avoid scrutiny. In at least one instance, the Bidens’ CCP-linked associates took steps to conceal the source of the payment to the Bidens.
“The Bidens’ foreign entanglements are breathtaking and raise serious questions about why foreign actors targeted the Biden family, what they expected in return, and whether our national security is threatened. We will continue to pursue additional bank records to follow the money trail and inform legislative solutions to prevent this type of corruption. Americans deserve answers, transparency, and accountability,” said Chairman Comer.
The questions you replied to are "how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?" Presumably anyone replying to me with an argument must think that this should not be investigated.
Why should Congress put Biden through the wringer for something they refused to hold Trump accountable for?Because Trump is above the law and Biden isn't. Why else?
Putin endorses Joe Biden for POTUS. Very interesting.
Liberals aren't looking too confident about this to me. Apparently The Atlantic is shocked that Joe Biden would put his own self-regard ahead of the good of the country. They are begging for the DNC to pick a new candidate.
https://twitter.com/AlecMacGillis/status/1757411805868036201
Sitting presidents generally aren't primaried at all, to say nothing of the unique degree of loyalty and devotion that Trump's fans show him, so it makes no sense to compare this to other primaries to begin with. Obviously this is a unique situation. Your other point seems to more concerned with some imaginary game of saving face rather than winning the election. Refusing to address an obvious weakness simply because your opponent has already identified that weakness and you don't want to admit that they were right is insanity.
Well, you said it made sense for Biden not to drop out. It doesn't.Who would even replace him?
There surely has to be someone else who is vaguely popular and who has the mental ability to be the president. No?Well, you said it made sense for Biden not to drop out. It doesn't.Who would even replace him?
I can't think of anyone off hand.There surely has to be someone else who is vaguely popular and who has the mental ability to be the president. No?Well, you said it made sense for Biden not to drop out. It doesn't.Who would even replace him?
I can't think of anyone off hand.Trump it is then, unless he’s in prison.
I was talking to a mate about this yesterday and we both agreed we’d both probably vote for Trump if we were in the US. I can’t stand him, but he is at least compus mentus.This really surprises me. I'm no fan of Jo Biden, but to say that Trump is compos mentis1 seems off. Many of the things he's said, especially during his presidency when his publicity was at its highest, strongly suggested that his grasp on reality was tenuous at best. Are you sure that you're comparing the two fairly, rather than falling for the trap of hearing Biden say silly things more recently?
compos mentis1Ah. Thanks. I rarely see it written down so I took a punt!
Many of the things he's said, especially during his presidency when his publicity was at its highest, strongly suggested that his grasp on reality was tenuous at best. Are you sure that you're comparing the two fairly, rather than falling for the trap of hearing Biden say silly things more recently?
We had 4 years of Trump before and although I tired of his nonsense the world didn’t fall apart.
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
you may be able to find some of instances in which i don't seem too bright.Well, this ^ post would be one of those instances.
has there been a policy breakdown somewhere? or any material consequence you can point to?
fwiw i don't give two shits about biden, i just think this whole line of thought is weird.
compos mentis1Ah. Thanks. I rarely see it written down so I took a punt!QuoteMany of the things he's said, especially during his presidency when his publicity was at its highest, strongly suggested that his grasp on reality was tenuous at best. Are you sure that you're comparing the two fairly, rather than falling for the trap of hearing Biden say silly things more recently?
I largely agree that Trump has little grasp of reality but I think it’s in a different way to Biden. Trump doesn’t seem to know or care what is true, and I agree that’s not an ideal trait in a president. And I basically hate everything he says and stands for. But I think he’s basically mentally all there. He talks bollocks but does so because he’s an idiot and a narcissist. He’s not actually demented.
How about the border?
How about radical inflation?
Well, it is obvious he does not know where the border is, for christ sake.How about the border?
How about radical inflation?
those are policy positions you don't like, not examples of biden's supposed mental deficiencies. unless you're saying he forgot the border existed or something? idgi.
i'm not taking a position on biden's policies, it's cool if you hate them. not my point.
Well, it is obvious he does not know where the border is, for christ sake.How about the border?
How about radical inflation?
those are policy positions you don't like, not examples of biden's supposed mental deficiencies. unless you're saying he forgot the border existed or something? idgi.
i'm not taking a position on biden's policies, it's cool if you hate them. not my point.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/feb/09/israeli-offensive-on-gaza-over-the-top-says-biden-video (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/feb/09/israeli-offensive-on-gaza-over-the-top-says-biden-video)
So... Mixing up foreign names means he doesn't know where a border is?What name did he mix up?
Does that mean that if you mix up your coworker's name, you don't know where you work?
The Egyptian and Mexican leaders. As your link states.So... Mixing up foreign names means he doesn't know where a border is?What name did he mix up?
Does that mean that if you mix up your coworker's name, you don't know where you work?
What does my coworker have to do with the border?
He only mentioned one name. In the same press conference where he was scolding the special counsel who stated the reason why he wasn't charged with lying about and mishandling classified documents was because he was (effectively) senile and he doubted he would be convicted.The Egyptian and Mexican leaders. As your link states.So... Mixing up foreign names means he doesn't know where a border is?What name did he mix up?
Does that mean that if you mix up your coworker's name, you don't know where you work?
What does my coworker have to do with the border?
As I pointed out (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17706.msg245947#msg245947) a couple of years ago, the Corn Pop story has been corroborated. Intuitively you feel that it isn't true, but the evidence shows that it actually is. Not a great start if that's Exhibit A of Biden's supposed mental incompetence.Wearing your hard hat backward is an important first step in challenging vicious men named "Corn Pop," on the mean streets of Wilmington, DE.
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside. He's certainly a narcissist and I suspect he mostly wants to be president to go down in history and as a route to making ever more money. His physical health probably isn't that great, I think mentally he's mostly all there, but in other ways he does have a somewhat tenuous grip on reality. I was reminded earlier about Trump's rambling about Covid - his thoughts that they could just shine UV light into people to eradicate the virus. Chuckle. But, overall, I don't think the world will fall apart if (I'm coming to the depressing opinion that it's "when") he's president again.Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.
* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside.Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.
* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside.Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.
* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
Interesting take, that the man who literally led a violent effort to subvert our Democratic process isn't "actually malicious". I'm sure a lot of people who aren't crazy about Trump but can't stomach the thought of 4 more years of Biden are rationalizing things the same way.
It's demonstrably wrong, of course...
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside.Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.
* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
Interesting take, that the man who literally led a violent effort to subvert our Democratic process isn't "actually malicious". I'm sure a lot of people who aren't crazy about Trump but can't stomach the thought of 4 more years of Biden are rationalizing things the same way.
It's demonstrably wrong, of course...
He strongly encouraged others to do a thing. Not really leading, per se.
That being said, maybe he's so delusional with rich man privledge that he honestly thinks he won?
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside.Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.
* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
Interesting take, that the man who literally led a violent effort to subvert our Democratic process isn't "actually malicious". I'm sure a lot of people who aren't crazy about Trump but can't stomach the thought of 4 more years of Biden are rationalizing things the same way.
It's demonstrably wrong, of course...
He strongly encouraged others to do a thing. Not really leading, per se.
That being said, maybe he's so delusional with rich man privledge that he honestly thinks he won?
Dave, he was asking for it for months. His followers wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been asking for it. He was the leader of our country, and for a lot of people he held, and still holds, the power of a cult leader, and he encouraged his followers to lead an insurrection to subvert our Democratic process and install him as a dictator.
I can't imagine how it can be argued that he didn't literally lead it.
And therefore not a leader but a spokesman or figurehead.
And therefore not a leader but a spokesman or figurehead.
Wow. Ok, look up the definition of the word "president" as it pertains to our government and get back to me. This isn't the fucking Royal Family we're talking about here.
Wow, I hadn't heard that he did this.Because he didn't. The RNC is really bad at april fools jokes. And you're really bad at spotting them.
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1774840447380189243
On the 28th they were planning Easter Egg hunts (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/28/white-house-announces-theme-and-activities-for-the-2024-easter-egg-roll/) for Easter, so they clearly knew what day it was.