What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
Can we call suspending the construction of the border wall a success?
Former President Donald Trump promised his supporters an “impenetrable” border wall between the United States and Mexico. Instead, the $15 billion wall was reportedly breached thousands of times in areas where it was completed, and the smugglers who cut through it were able to do so with cheap power tools available in retail stores.
Unpublished data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection obtained via the Freedom of Information Act showed that Mexican smugglers cut through the wall 3,272 times over three years, according to The Washington Post. In some cases, they replaced the areas they cut with tinted putty, essentially creating secret passages.
“You have to look really closely to see it,” one source told the newspaper.We're seeing this a lot around here...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … n-succeed/Interesting -- I have not myself noted that attitude here on the forum.
It has me pondering the win-lose scenario altogether. Actually factually the US is not at war or did we deter it from happening. So, if we were to be keeping score, it scores poorly for the Biden administration, as well as NATO.
It is clear many nations, as well as the US, are unity in a Foreign Policy Crisis, but Questions Still to be Answered ---
President Biden emphasized allies’ resolve in his State of the Union address. However, in the next breath, acknowledged Russia may not be deterred from further efforts to reconstitute the Soviet bloc.
His very words sound as if he is resolved to not do anything at all. Next China, where he will most likely repeat this very attitude.
He does what he does best -- ignore.
It would appear in regard to what's being reported Putin is destroying a country. Could one say he is winning? Could one say, Biden is losing when he actually is not at war?
Biden Now Needs a Plan to Deter China --- will he or will he ignore their aggression?You are the epitome of the point of that post.
No, Sharlee, it is brownie points for Biden in bringing a United NATO to a resounding resolve. The previous administration had alienated member states of this organizations and that disarray, disorganization and uncertainty among allies fit snugly into Putin's backpocket. It could do nothing but encourage him in his military adventures.
Everything that could have been done has been done and the entire world gave Putin a resounding NYET
Biden is right, there is no certainty that Putin would not try aggressive tactics on the now independent parts of the Old Soviet empire. But we have a far better chance of enlisting a posse rather than thinking that the US has to confront Putin alone within his own back yard.
Republicans always talk tough, what are their reasonable solutions to either Putin or Taiwan short of blaming Democrats?
By treating the members of the posse with respect, Biden was able to call upon them in this crisis and it just may well be the difference the takes us away from the brink.I agree. Biden has done an excellent job of managing what turned out to be a forgone conclusion. My only criticism is he could have done what he did somewhat sooner.
The fact that he (and the West) was not able to deter Putin from his plan doesn't mean, as some seem to suggest, he shouldn't have tried.
Clearly, President Biden is not ignoring a damn thing, he is on top of what is happening and reacting to Putin's in real time.
To think that America and the West are not at war with Putin is, in my opinion, dangerously naïve. To those with their eyes open, the battle is between the civilized world and a world of cruel dictatorships. To Trump Republicans, it is an annoyance.
(BTW, Putin just set Europe's largest nuclear power plant on fire! But, Trump Republicans say "who cares? If it isn't here, it doesn't exist"
I wonder if this will goad the West to establish a no-fly zone?)I don't think NATO can stop an aggressor that possesses nuclear weapons if they have come to the point of using them as an "it's my way or else"...
NATO is in my opinion at this point in our history void of power. The one holding the power is a man that has threatened to use nukes on a sovereign nation. He has the entire world on edge. It's clear he will use sheer power to get what he wants. This certainly scares me. I can see he is not being stopped. It would seem very naive to think he will stop in Ukraine. Why would he, he can threaten any nation with nuclear weapons, can he not?
I would think all rogue nations that have nuclear power are watching very closely. And, can see just what little power NATO has. This man does not play by rules, he makes them. He is not afraid to enforce them.Are you saying we should appease him? Give him what he wants? Don't bother with any sanctions whatsoever?
Yes, that's the more accurate term for what some seem to be suggesting. The message seems to be that Putin is too strong, can't be deterred so we should simply give up any efforts to end this conflict.
I don't see any reason to jump to the appeasement question. Sharlee's statement seems fair to me. It was only an opinion of the situation, not a recommendation of action.
I disagree that NATO is "void of power." I think its real power is the power of unity, not their individual military power. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with her description.
GAHopefully, you picked up I feel NATO is void of power at this time in our history. Meaning this present crisis. A unity that unites the better part of the world is wonderful in its own right. But will it work to alleviate the present killing and destruction in Ukraine? Will our unity, and sheer hopes, in the end, stop the killing and destruction in Ukraine? I have faced what I feel will be the outcome of this horrendous Russian war.
This crisis really made me take a long look at society as a whole. I have no words.Okay, got it. Relative to stopping Putin in this crisis, I agree, NATO is powerless to forcefully stop him.
GAI just hoped to clarify my statement. Note the words "void of power".
NATO certainly "forcefully " try to stop Putin. They could start a war and forcefully try to stop him. We have no way of knowing who would win world war three. I feel NATO is powerless in regards to stopping Putin with sanctions or negotiations at this point."I feel NATO is powerless in regards to stopping Putin with sanctions or negotiations at this point." - What is the point you are making by saying that? What follows? The tone implies that since NATO cannot stop Putin, they shouldn't even try.
THE POINT --- it is my realistic opinion --- period.
I did not imply NATO should not try. I am being very clear, I don't think there is anything short of starting a war they can do.
Have the current sanctions helped? Do you have a suggestion of what NATO can do at this point?
Do you feel sanctions will work? I 100% say they won't.
No --- As I bluntly said, (and truely believe) I don't think NATO can stop an aggressor that possesses nuclear weapons if they have come to the point of using them as an "it's my way or else"
And Putin could most certainly come to that point. He will not take a defeat at any cost IMO.
I am saying there is nothing that will appease him, but Ukraine's defeat or surrender. And I truely feel, NATO is in my opinion at this point in our history void of power.
Yes, they could commit troops at this point, I do not feel in any respect that would stop Putin. It would become a world war.
I find it funny many seem not to realize we have no hand to play but full-out war.
Hopefully, this does not come about. I bit back I made a statement that shocked some --- I said I hoped Ukraine would just surrender to save civilians' lives. I feel this is the only way to save lives at this point. I also see these courageous people will die for their country, their freedom.
These people give me hope and proof there are people in this world that are courageous and will stand for a true cause, even give up their life in fighting for that beliefs.
Here in the US we have a congress that went home the weekend and put off voting on the aid package for Ukraine... While people are running out of food, water, and weapons our Congress takes a weekend respite.
This is another reason so many looked for another option in 2016. We are sick of the bureaucratic, phony do-nothing politicians.
And that's what many will be looking for once again in 2024 in my view.
."I am saying there is nothing that will appease him, but Ukraine's defeat or surrender. And I truely feel, NATO is in my opinion at this point in our history void of power. " - [Since you don't like anything Biden and the West has done to deter/punish Putin, I ask for the THIRD time, what is it that they should have done to avoid the situation we are in?
My impression from all you have written is they should have done nothing since Putin wasn't going to be stopped anyway. That is how you come across anyway.[/i]
"I don't think NATO can stop an aggressor that possesses nuclear weapons if they have come to the point of using them as an "it's my way or else"..." - So, what is YOUR solution?
Sadly, this opinion of escalation is rampant within the West's leadership.
The #1 matter, and nothing else comes a close second, is avoiding nuclear war.
The #2 matter is ending the conflict, if that is with an Armistice, if that means Ukraine loses two or three more provinces, so be it.
Ultimately Putin one day will pass away.
Eventually Russia will have new leaders, with new agendas, and maybe then we will welcome Russia with open arms (Of course Gus is certain this will never happen, the MIC will never allow it ;-))
We need to get past this moment in history, without it going nuclear.As I have been saying, there is no solution. I have been so very blunt. Putin will not be stopped, he will fight until he takes Ukraine or starts a world war.
Sanctions will not work with this kind of tyrant.
It seems very useless to talk strategy when it is to be very clear what the outcome of this crisis will ultimately be.
Do you have a solution that will stop Putin? I don't think he can be stopped at this point or actually at any point from the moment he decided to take Ukraine.
At this point, it's my hope NATO and the rest of the world continue to help with aid and weapons. And all do this quickly.
There is no solution to stop Putin but full-out war, which will always be the only solution. Because it's possible he won't stop in Ukraine.OK, so it seems you are saying continue the material support to Ukraine but stop the sanctions, stop punishing Russia since they won't stop Putin. Do I have that right?
By the way, Putin has lost this war in the long-term. Just like Afghanistan did, Ukraine will prevail in the end.I have never said 'stop sanctions" I have said in my view sanctions will not WORK with a tyrant like Putin. I have said this numerous times. I don't think it matters to Putin if the sanctions are lifted or not. I certainly also have stated I hope the entire world will give weapons and aid to Ukraine. I think this is all we can do short of starting a world war. I do not want the US to become involved in a war with Russia, period. If the world finds itself at war with a mad man, I can't imagine the results. I think from the first days we have been discussing this subject, I have shared at this POINT (I mean the present) we hold no cards but a world war. Could things change? Yes, most defiantly. Hopefully, this clarifies the thoughts I have shared.
In my view as of today, No Ukraine will not prevail in the end. I am being realistic, considering if they continue to fight this was on their own. They will ultimately lose.
We can't afford to become involved other than supplying weapons and aid, if we did become involved we would most likely start a world war. --- So odds as they stand now, and the man conducting this takeover. Putin will take Ukraine IMO.
This to me is a sad reality. It is a very eye-opening reality that I don't think many are facing. It would appear we have come to that wall we so dreaded where a country has threatened to use a nuclear weapon, and this country now holds all the power, unless we want to see nukes flying across many Continents.
Gosh, the writing is so clearly on the wall. But you hold on to whatever suits you, and I will be praying for a miracle.
Europe does have one huge move, shut down the three pipelines that run through Ukraine and stop Putin's current cash flow. Ukraine could also blow them sky-high. But, this could anger Putin into using a Nuclear weapon... So it would seem as I said we have no cards to play when the threat of nukes hangs over our heads.
No, NATO cannot stop a determined aggressor, but it has contributed to being a viable deterrent against it.
What was the purpose of all the "Detente", "SALT" and arms control agreements during the last half of the 20th century?
The concept of a "balance of power" and mutually assured destruction for the aggressor is what has kept the peace in this nuclear age. As Captain Kirk once said in a Star Trek episode, "Balance of Power, the trickiest, dirtiest game of all, but the only one that preserves both sides"
Unless you are suicidal, you dare not press "that button".
I agree with Emge, that we should return to the idea of this balance that has kept the peace for so long.
Where I may differ in my view from Esoteric, is that acknowledging the need to work with Putin is not capitulation. Ken is right in his saying that it is not 1939. The greatest threat has gone beyond just dominating a continent with armies using conventional weapons. Now, this time, without the deterrent that was provided in the past with mutually assured destruction as its foundation, desperation in fear of its very survival would have an adversary go over the line as having nothing to lose. When that happens EVERYBODY dies, from pole to pole, from the Faroe Islands to the Solomans. That was not possible in 1939, but it is today. So, we all need to step lightly and avoid putting this adversary into a untenable position, so that we need not find ourselves in one as a result.
I do not advocate coddling Putin, just establish boundaries between us that are mutually observed and respected. What it takes to do that may well be beyond my pay grade. In this case, short of actual attack and invasion of NATO, we should always be reluctant to consider any form of nuclear defense or offense.
Sharlee, the world has been "on edge" before, it is only the fear by the aggressor of bringing certain death upon themselves that have kept the peace between superpowers. It has worked for quite awhile and it can work again."I agree with Emge, that we should return to the idea of this balance that has kept the peace for so long." - Just how do we get to that "balance" if Putin won't play? He doesn't want such balance, he wants a return to the cold war boundaries and nothing short of that."
"Where I may differ in my view from Esoteric, is that acknowledging the need to work with Putin is not capitulation. " - Given that Putin does not want to work with you until you agree with ALL of his demands, what would you have the world do? His actions and words have left us a binary choice: beat him or capitulate. He has left NO ROOM for middle ground, in my opinion. That is why we use the terms "appeasement" and "capitulation" - you have to do one or the other to get Putin to a cease fire
"It has worked for quite awhile and it can work again." - But ONLY if Putin is gone from the scene and a rational person takes his placeCred must agree with much of what you said... And yes we have been on the verge before. I don't feel Putin will use the Nuclear option unless he finds he is being beaten. I feel he will use it if he needs to.
He is a killer, and will not take a defeat. he will not negotiate and is going full steam ahead.Yes, but he had better be careful about "needing it", as it just might result in his own annihilation. Self preservation is still a pretty powerful incentive.
Oh, you said a mouthful... It is right where we all stand today... And Putin fully realizes this. So, ya think he won't push on with his war... He has already threatened to use nukes.
And keep in mind if he is annihilated he will take us all with him. I am off my pedestal and have well faced some sobering facts. The one that stands out the most, we are dealing with a man that is a man with a mission.And therefore a "man with a mission" should be allowed to conquer the world with no resistance at all? It sounds very much that is what you are suggesting.
To put it another way:
Some of you would rather be "Red than Dead"
While true patriots would prefer to be "Dead than Red" and have the same spine the Ukrainians are showing.
This seems like where this discussion is going: patriotism vs submissionSO what would you have us do? No really... It's odd you can't see what a predicament we are in. What cards do we hold? Do you think sanctions will work? Has Putin stopped his shelling and killing? When will he do that? Do you feel we can stop Putin any other way but a world war? Are you ready to commit to a war?
I am weary of all the talk --- we are in a huge crisis, one that we can't handle in any respect. All the rationalizations will not solve this horrendous problem. Maybe answering my questions will help.
Yes it would appear right now Putin has the keys to the world, and he is making XI a set of those keys.
Any suggestions? WHAT YOU HAVE SUGGESTED IS WE START A WORLD WAR.
After her fellow Republicans booted her from party leadership last year, Rep. Liz Cheney posed a question: “Do we hate our political adversaries more than we love our country?”
Now, with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Republicans are answering that question — in the affirmative.
Again, I think it needs to be made clear that Cheney is talking about Trump Republicans. As much as I disagree with Cheney-style conservatism and think it is bad for America, I will say they are true patriots.
That is not the case with Trump Republicans. Their words and actions clearly set them against democracy and American values.
That is why I say there should be accommodation with Russia. You can't have a confrontation like at the moment . We must remember that right from the time of Kennedy to Reagan there was a detente with the USSR and things were fine, why can't be done now?
.678,000 jobs added in February and Unemployment falls to 3.8%!!! GREAT JOB JOE!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/economy/ … index.html"Capitulation," "appeasement," I don't see it. What I do see is that anyone that doesn't have their head in the sand—relative to Putin's actions, is defending Putin, (or suggesting appeasement). That's baloney.
I don't see any possible appeasement solutions available. Things are well beyond that. I think all we can hope for is that someone is smart enough to find a way for Putin to get out of this without total surrender. Getting our `pound of flesh' isn't going to be very satisfying if it's our body it comes from.
Short of the U.S. entering this "war," I don't know what else the U.S. can do. Arming and supporting Ukraine looks like the only non-go-to-war thing we can do.
GAI am hopeful that the Russian people can become an additional source of pressure potentially even initiating a "palace coup" Citizens can be arrested or jailed by the thousands but not by the hundreds of thousands.
I am also an optimist Faye, but not that optimistic. My first thought was that, in the middle of this action, if the people did try to force opposition to Putin he would treat them as enemies of his government—complete with military enforcement of Martial Law.
Maybe hundreds of thousands can't be jailed, but they can be cowed by the force of example. Between deaths, (murders), disappearances, and imprisonment, Putin will clearly respond in large numbers carrying a clear message.
However, I agree with your thought that they can be another mounting pressure on Putin, I just don't think it would affect him very much.
GAThe worst possible scenario is Putin launches his ICBM's towards us. Unless he is totally insane I don't think he would do that nor would we do that with Russia. So I think the balance of power is still there. He is pushing the envelope to see how far he can go because he has implied the nuclear threat, we have not and he is using that as shield so that can he do what he wants to do.
He knows we have hundreds of Minuteman Missiles sitting in silos and submarines with nuclear and cruise missile capability probably prowling the Black Sea right now, plus stealth aircraft with nuclear capability.
I worked on the Minuteman missile fail safe systems back in the 60's and those missiles are probably sitting in silo's in a "cocked pistol" configuration ready to be launched. They have Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) war heads on them and targeted for multiple sites.
I'm sure Putin knows all of this and I'm sure he has the same capability as we do. Only he has implied the threat, we have not. We are working with sanctions, but behind the scenes, we are as capable as he is. Both sides have enough nuclear power to wipe mankind off the face of the earth. Unless he is insane I don't think he wants to do that. It is a very sad chess game and he is using Ukraine and the threat as a pawn to push back NATO.
Yes, I agree with your last statement. However, those that want to capitulate don't even want to do that much - they just the West to turn our backs on Ukraine and let Putin have it.
I don't know who your "those" are. I have probably followed the same threads of comments that you have, and I haven't seen any stuff I would read as advocating appeasement or capitulation. Or even turning our backs.
GAI can't name names without getting booted of Hubpages again, so I will simply provide quotes:
"As I have been saying, there is no solution. I have been so very blunt. Putin will not be stopped, he will fight until he takes Ukraine or starts a world war."
"Sanctions will not work with this kind of tyrant."
"It seems very useless to talk strategy when it is to be very clear what the outcome of this crisis will ultimately be."
"That is why I say there should be accommodation with Russia. "
"The #2 matter is ending the conflict, if that is with an Armistice, if that means Ukraine loses two or three more provinces, so be it."
lies like " the West isn't trying to talk him off the cliff, the west is trying to push him off it... leaving him no choice but to retaliate." don't help
"Those who play with fire get burned themselves. NATO and the USA have played with fire by not giving simple guarantees to Russia and they will pay the price."
and so forthIt appears I am also one of your "those." Generally speaking, I have said similar things. The "scenario" that I ended with speaks to almost all of your quotes, not as support for or admiration of, but as speculation about the crisis.
I do agree with statements that speak to the dangers of forcing Putin into a do-or-die situation, but that isn't appeasement, that is the reality of this crisis. I am beginning to think my proposed scenario is the most likely end of the crisis without it going nuclear.
But that doesn't mean that it should end that way or that I want it to end that way.
GAYours' is speculation. Theirs' is a position they take. Big difference.
Is Putin a "bad guy"?
If an overall definitive yes or no is required... yes, he is a "bad guy".
But that "bad guy" controls Russia, the Russian Army, Russian Nukes.
The West has made a whole slew of miscalculations, bad decisions, and even some greedy decisions which have led us to the brink of nuclear war.
Credence has the best post regarding this whole matter:
"Where I may differ in my view from Esoteric, is that acknowledging the need to work with Putin is not capitulation. Ken is right in his saying that it is not 1939. The greatest threat has gone beyond just dominating a continent with armies using conventional weapons. Now, this time, without the deterrent that was provided in the past with mutually assured destruction as its foundation, desperation in fear of its very survival would have an adversary go over the line as having nothing to lose. When that happens EVERYBODY dies, from pole to pole, from the Faroe Islands to the Solomans. That was not possible in 1939, but it is today. So, we all need to step lightly and avoid putting this adversary into a untenable position, so that we need not find ourselves in one as a result."
We need to avoid Nuclear War... that is the primary goal... not making Putin pay, not making Ukraine whole again.
We need to get past this crisis, this moment in time. Not escalate it.
Here is another bit of "capitulation" for you.
"We need to avoid Nuclear War... that is the primary goal... not making Putin pay, not making Ukraine whole again."
Sounds like that is what Russian propagandist would say, doesn't it? "America - GIVE UP"Speaking of "sounds like," the context of your comments sounds like you think punishing Putin is more important than avoiding a nuclear war.
I do want Putin to be stopped and punished. But I want our world to survive more. I don't really know if the unspeakable is a real threat or just an alarmist position, but I do know I wouldn't have considered that thought a real possibility prior to this crisis.
GAYou are presuming Putin will be allowed to "push the button" regardless of the reason. I don't presume that. I don't think he will be allowed to go nuclear without an actual invasion of Russia proper.
I don't think he is suicidal.
You don't beat a bully by backing down at the slightest provocation.For some of us, the threat of Nuclear War is more than just a slight provocation.
That logic leaves us to sit on our hands indefinitely then if he continues to want to invade other sovereign Nations. His threat has essentially given him a key to the world?
SO what would you have us do? No really... It's odd you can't see what a predicament we are in. What cards do we hold? Do you think sanctions will work? Has Putin stopped his shelling and killing? When will he do that? Do you feel we can stop Putin any other way but a world war? Are you ready to commit to a war?
I am weary of all the talk --- we are in a huge crisis, one that we can't handle in any respect. All the rationalizations will not solve this horrendous problem. Maybe answering my questions will help.
Yes Faye it would appear right now Putin has the keys to the world, and he is making XI a set of those keys.
Any suggestions?No it has not.
The Facts Matter.
Ukraine is not an ally, not a member of the EU, not a member of NATO.
Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy was going around well in advance of this invasion, not looking for aid to compromise with Russia, but looking for support from the EU to retake Crimea and push Russia out of the contested territories. Zelenskyy has never given an inch in what he considers "acceptable" and even now will concede nothing.
So Zelenskyy is just as much an "all or nothing" perpetrator as anyone, he is just as stubborn and unwilling to compromise as Putin.
And he seems quite intent on chastising, berating and accusing the rest of the world to join him in this fight. But its not the rest of the world's fight. Its not our fight, its Ukraine against Russia... its Zelenskyy against Putin.
And its not worth Nuclear devastation on any scale to intercede in what is a regional conflict against two nations with THOUSANDS of years history of doing such.
The War needs to be de-escalated NOT escalated, the chance of Nuclear disaster needs to be decreased, not increased.
Whatever could have been done to prevent this... whatever part America played in escalating it to this point in the past doesn't matter.
What matters is ensuring we don't all end up dead because our 50,000 SPF Sunblock wasn't good enough to protect us from nuclear fallout.
Right now the best way to do that is to stay out of this fight, so long as it remains in Ukraine, and try to get an armistice. Give Putin an out.
Then wait for the time for change to come to Russia, however it occurs, Putin is 70 years old... he's not going to live forever.Why would you compromise or cooperate or negotiate with someone who wants to take all or part of your country? Would we be viewed as stubborn or unreasonable if Canada decided it was entitled to Montana?
We would be forced to negotiate that?
I'm sorry I do not understand your logic whatsoever. Additionally, diplomatic avenues were exhausted especially when Russia was not negotiating in good faith. I mean how does that even happen when he had amassed that number of troops on the borders.The key here is I am using logic.
When we were involved in the Korean War (still are, because it is in a state of Armistice) we chose not to use Nuclear Weapons, not to carry the war into China, but to accept a truce.
Yes, the unfortunate people living in North Korea today are the worse for it, but it is likely that tens of millions of lives (at the least) were spared by not escalating that fight.
We are currently putting pressure on Putin, but none on Zelenskyy.
I don't care what Zelenskyy wants, I don't care what he thinks is right.
I ignore his rhetoric about this being a war against all the world, against democracy, etc. etc.
If I am making the decisions for the EU or America I am telling him he is going to accept a compromise, he is going to negotiate an armistice that is very favorable to Russia, or we are going to let Russia continue to roll through the Ukraine.
Because I am not willing to entertain the possibility of escalating this into a Nuclear War, and because we are not obligated in any way to defend Ukraine.
The USSR collapsed less than 50 years after WWII ended.
East Germany, Poland, Romania, etc. etc. were freed without a WWIII.
Ukraine will find its freedom without a WWIII, without being turned into a Nuclear wasteland, if we don't try to solve this matter today.
If we refrain from listening to the hysterics of the warmongers who are trying to claim Russia will continue to roll into the rest of Europe (literally impossible as the Russian army is barely mobile in Ukraine, which is right across the Russian border)... and work towards an Armistice things will work out.
and that . . . is the West's current conundrum.
GANot really.
Not if we are following precedence, law, and treaties.
Ukraine is not a member of the EU and not a member of NATO.
We may not like what is going on, it is tragic, it may have been unavoidable, Putin may have made up his mind long before the invasion began.
That said, we do know where we stand if he invades a NATO country.
We do understand Article 5 and what is known as "the principle of collective defense."
And I am willing to bet Putin understands it as well.Yep, that is the basis for my belief that Putin's goal is not to reestablish the great Soviet Union. I don't believe he will invade a NATO nation.
GAPutin is aware that any attack on NATO will be a provocation that he cannot come back from. I really doubt that he would wage a large scale war on the West as he has shown the inept state of Russian troops and military in a confrontation within the Ukraine that they should have be able to win handily. And then again, there was Afghanistan, where "mountain goats" defeat a world power. The only real threat is the nuclear trigger, and like you, I am willing to bet that he won't use it.
Russia and the Soviet Union have taken similar actions in the past in Czechoslovakia, Soviet Georgia and Hungary to name a few. Soviet Leaders, including Putin himself, have never seriously entertained the idea of a larger scale war. Why is now any different?I agree.
I also think we need to give this more time.
We are already pushing the borders of what is "acceptable" so long as we officially have no troops and officially do not interfere either in air space or in the Black Sea it should not provoke Russia/Putin to expand this beyond Ukraine or to retaliate in some horrific fashion.
While I see that the Russian army has made an encircling movement from the south east towards Kyiv I don't believe they will be successful in keeping those supply lines open, their strategy is not sound in my opinion.
They have bypassed key cities, which ensures resistance from behind, they have too much space to cover and too much resistance, behind and on their flanks.
If the attack on Kyiv had been a feint and the focus and intent was to secure the Donbas region and the coastline and interior between there and Crimea I would have considered that a sound strategy with a large chance of success.
The next step would have been to continue the campaign until Russia gets the concessions wanted and an armistice, one that includes the key areas in the South/East critical to control the Natural Gas deposits found in this region, which in turn secures the Russian economy for years to come, if Ukraine had developed those resources, it would have been able to cut Russia out of the business of supplying the EU.
It seems that is not the plan, it seems the intent is to take all of Ukraine, and they are moving to encircle Kyiv. I am fairly certain this will fail, I think this is a serious miscalculation.
The Russian army needs to be crippled badly enough to be unable to continue the conflict, I believe Ukraine without official outside aid can do this.
The pressure as well back in Russia will continue to grow, Putin will be forced to look inward soon enough to maintain his control, and he may be the one seeking the armistice.
This is where I hope wiser, cooler heads step in and let Russia/Putin slink out of Ukraine, even if it means conceding territory and lifting sanctions.
Putin will not live forever... we just need to get past this moment in time without allowing it to escalate to the point where there is no recovery from it and there are no winners... only losers.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589
I have read Putin's terms and demands, they are basically non-starters. As we stand now, his demand for a demilitarized zone for those that joined NATO after 1997 will not happen. Maybe it needs to to keep the peace? Putin is full of manure in regards to denazification, as the Ukraine enjoys a Western European style democracy. Seems like he is just venting knowing that the alliance with never allow itself to be marginalized. It is interesting how quickly these nations, all of them, embraced NATO, as having been politically affiliated with the Soviet Union had to have been unpleasant. From the standpoint of your military and diplomatic assessment, what is your take on it?
There are going to have to be major negotiation and concessions from both sides, Putin may be considered a "wounded animal" and how he reacts to all this may not be rational.This is my biggest concern. I have analyzed enough information since posting that comment 3+ hours ago to feel confident Russia will fail in its north and north west advances.
I suspect it to be a severe rout that they will not be able to hide for much longer. The South - South Eastern efforts are having more success and have better supply lines, but this is also where the serious efforts had been expected.
Its not the conventional efforts that concern me, its what Putin might do as things turn very bad, very quickly for him/Russia.I'm not sure about this `Putin isn't rational' line of thinking. It is the claim of most of the "experts" in the media, but I'm not convinced.
Consider the prophecy; Putin is in this for the Black Sea resources and cement his claim to Crimea, (which shares ownership of those resources with Ukraine and which Ukraine has vowed to reclaim). His primary `real' goal is to separate the breakaway regions, and, declare the southern coastal region also a breakaway region. (this region controls the access to the water supply for Crimea).
Now, look at today's, (3/5/22), current media presentation of the facts on the ground:
The original breakaway regions are more firmly under Russian control via the Russian-supported rebel army than ever. And that southern coastal access region is under Russian military control now. Putin will install a rebel force in that southern region to make sure it turns into a breakaway region.
All other "demands" will just be there as throw-aways or Red Herrings. This is his primary goal. I bet that he is even willing to give-in on the southern coastal region as his great sacrifice, (although he will have established `de facto' control of this area by replacing his `withdrawing troops with "rebel" troops.
Now, the final piece. It is only now after he has succeeded in those primary military goals that he has started doing all the death and destruction stuff that were the early pre-invasion predictions.
Now, he is wrecking Ukraine. Now, civilian suffering has multiplied. World response has unified against him. There is talk of nuclear conflict. And even open talk about Ukraine voluntarily giving-up those breakaway regions.
And then, (this is 3/5/22), say, in 3 or 4 more days of destruction and death, Putin will defiantly, (as the victor), accept Zelenski's pleas for negotiations, or at least to talk with Putin.
And there is the negotiation table that The West will join with Zelenski. The West will want a de-escalation, almost no matter what Zelenski wants and if all it takes is giving away a couple of breakaway regions, then that's that. Zelenski will be forced to agree.
Bingo! Russia wins.
It sure looks like Putin might deserve all of those unpatriotic things that have been said about him. Maybe he is completely sane, (only relative to this invasion plan), rational, smart, and shrewd. It looks like he is going to get what he wants because The West is in the position that he wanted them in—fearful, (of nuclear war), and desperate, (to find any way to stop the death and destruction),. The West will agree to his main demand and think they won.
GARational people do not murder masses of innocent civilians.
Do you mean in "I'm not sure about this `Putin isn't rational' line of thinking. It is the claim of most of the "experts" in the media, but I'm not convinced." - Did I misinterpret that?
No, you got that part right. The chorus hasn't convinced me, but the facts on the ground are persuasive. And that is where the conditioner came in: "(only relative to this invasion plan)"
GA
Those other examples were regarding nations already conquered by the Soviet Union, they were not sovereign nations. There is no comparison.
Ukraine IS a sovereign nation just like America is, with the same rights and protections. That is the difference.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are also sovereign nations that Putin has designs on. I don't think being part of NATO will stop him from trying and bringing the world to today's delemma.
Then I am thinking you haven't been listening to what Putin has been saying. He has been very clear about what he intends on doing. And to accomplish that, he will need to invade (or threaten to) in order to accomplish his objectives.
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-wants-re … rns-714301
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … 7627e20317
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/artic … fense-says
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/1 … ato-527207
Those articles cover a long period of time and it would seem you are in a distinct minority.
Oh my. So the laws and treaties go only one way? We have Putin bombing nuclear power plants, which is a war crime, but it's important for us to stick to laws and treaties?
I for one am not for kicking this particular bully in the shins. This kind of thinking is so dangerous in my view it's showing how skrewed our society has become.
You are right, I do presume that Putin will be "allowed" to push the button.
I am aware there are protocols for launch, just like in the U.S. However, I recall hearing that those protocols were recently changed, and I feel certain Putin has considered the possibility of his order not being obeyed.
But hey, I am not saying he will press the button, or that his order will be followed, but I am beginning to worry that he might and they would.
GA
It appears to me as a very good option knowing what we face. Very realistic.
Do you think we need to make Putin pay if it would initiate a nuclear event? Do you feel at this time we can save Ukraine any other way but send in NATO troops --- war?
The context of this statement is clearly an opinion, what we should avoid in this crisis. Offering an opinion on a goal to concentrate on, avoiding Nuclear war. And what could be destructive to that goal .
NOt --- America give up --- But America takes the best options not to end up in a Nuclear war when our options are few.
What do you think America can do to stop Putin at this juncture? What are you seeing that even strategists are not seeing?Giving Putin carte blanche to rule the world is a "a very good option "???? The mind of a Trump Republican will never seize to amaze me.
So, to Trump Republicans it would be a better outcome for Putin to take over America and Europe than have a nuclear war? Do I have that right?
Also, like GA, you seem to presume Putin will destroy the world when Russia has not been invaded. He is certainly crazy, but not suicidal when his nations existence is NOT at stake.This has nothing to do with Trump or his Republicans!
SO what would you have us do? It's odd you can't see what a predicament we are in. What cards do we hold? Do you think sanctions will work? Has Putin stopped his shelling and killing? When will he do that? Do you feel we can stop Putin any other way but a world war? Are you ready to commit to a war?
I am weary of all the talk --- we are in a huge crisis, one that we can't handle in any respect. All the rationalizations will not solve this horrendous problem. Maybe answering my questions will help.
Yes it would appear right now Putin has the keys to the world, and he is making XI a set of those keys.
Any suggestions?
"Yes, I agree with your last statement. However, those that want to capitulate don't even want to do that much - they just the West to turn our backs on Ukraine and let Putin have it."
"Those" --- Come on. Each and every statement that you have used as an example of what you call users capitulating holds no water. All are hard-felt well-derived opinions. You do realize we all are at a loss for answers and are trying to formulate how the hell this all happened, and how the hell or if it can be solved. Just sharing our thoughts as a group, not looking to be bashed for our thoughts. It shocks me to think you feel anyone wants to capitulate or as you have also inferred, side with Putin. Offering a realistic view is not in my mind capitulating.
You don't play nice...
Here is the dilemma Biden and NATO face
- Establishing a "No-Fly Zone" in Ukraine now COULD lead to a full-scale war
- NOT establishing a "No-Fly Zone" in Ukraine now WOULD lead to a full-scale war a little bit later.
This is called a Hobson's Choice.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics … index.htmlI agree with that "dilemma."
I don't know what to think of this nuclear war threat. For all of my adult life, I have believed it to be the ultimate boogeyman. `Yeah, sure, the bad guys have the nukes, and it could happen, but it won't really. MAD works'
Now, I find myself looking for reassurance. For instance: the Cuban Missile Crisis—declared the closest we have ever come to nuclear war. Krushchev only faced a little loss of face and an expansionist plan was thwarted if he backed down. I wouldn't have really been concerned with the boogeyman then.
Now? Putin is a different situation. If my thoughts about his moves being all about the Black Sea resources, (and the reasons), are right, then this is not a loss of face or thwarted plan situation, it is a national economic survival, do-or-die situation for him.
A loss for him will cement the view of Russia, (not just Putin), as the world's boogeyman. It will be, as they say, a pariah state, ostracized by the world for decades as they are forced to crawl humbly back to the world's table.
If Ukraine develops those Black Sea resources it will diminish Russia to a lower-tier energy state. That position, along with the newer pariah state shunning will slowly crash Russia's economy.
With those possible consequences, it is harder to hold on to that pre-Putin MAD comfort.
And to your point, if he does succeed he will probably make another move down the road which will almost certainly bring a superpower conflict that may bring nukes into play.
Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
GA
You want proof that Trump Republicans are behind Putin's invasion? Here, read this as they join Putin's propaganda machine.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/05/politics … index.html
I wonder how close to the line this is to "chargeable" treasonous behavior?The Ukrainians remind those American's shaking in their boots with fear of what Putin may do are getting a lesson in courage from the Ukrainians. Remember America's Minute Men? Minute Men they are not. Remember how France saved us from the British and King George (and are doing their part in helping Ukraine). Well that lesson seems to be forgotten as well by some.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics … index.htmlDo you realize what century we are in? Do you have any conception of the threat this man is posing to not only Ukraine but the world? Minutemen, King George...My Gosh
You should learn to not ensconce yourself in a bubble that is only one-hour in size. History can teach you a lot if you only open your mind up to it.
History is wonderful, and it is all that got us to this day. I tend to see you left out --- perhaps you tend to selectively pick and choose the history that suits your mindset.
"August 6, 1945, the United States becomes the first and only nation to use atomic weaponry during wartime when it drops an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Approximately 80,000 people are killed as a direct result of the blast, and another 35,000 are injured."
I must consider where we have evolved in regards to Nuclear weapons, and the fact that we have a world leader threatening to use one. Sorry, that smacks me as more important than Rah Rah BS.
My mind is open to today, your very statements indicate you are entrenched in the dreamy history of old that has little to do with the crisis the world faces today.
Trump is, of course, on Putin's side (and therefore so are Trump Republicans)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics … index.htmlAside from the article, you have shared. This form of statement is uncalled for. Yes, you have the right to free speech. Luckily so do I.
My God --- talk about disgusting propaganda. laden statement.And exactly why is the TRUTH uncalled for simply because it is uncomfortable.
Virtually everything Trump says about this subject is on Putin's side. And, since Trump Republicans slavishly follow their chosen leader, the analysis applies to them as well.
Virtually means he occasionally supplies "lip service" saying ONCE that the terror attack by Putin is bad - without condemning Putin, BTW (sort of like saying ONCE to, lol, peacefully, lol march to the Capitol."And exactly why is the TRUTH uncalled for simply because it is uncomfortable."
What truth? Do you have any facts that could support such a ridiculous statement? As I said you have a right to free speech. Your statement is a view and holds no truth. Oh forgot, you have made it clear when you say something it just becomes true to you.
Just wanted to point out your disingenuous statement.
'MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
Trump is, of course, on Putin's side (and therefore so are Trump Republicans)"The facts are in the article and statements Trump has made and the fact that he HAS YET to condemn Putin himself.
BTW - "Propaganda" is a set of lies. My statement isn't that. In case you forget how wedded Trump is to Putin (one thing the article forgot is all of the property Russian oligarchs have rented/purchased from Trump)
Let's see now:
- For years, relations between Russia and the celebrity real estate executive were lubricated by money.
- He sought to place a Trump Tower in Moscow even as he ran for president. In 2013, when he staged a beauty pageant there, Trump asked on Twitter: "Will (Putin) become my new best friend?"
- Putin seized Crimea from Ukraine the following year. Protests in Kyiv had forced a Kremlin ally to quit the presidency. The ousted president, who fled to Russia, had been advised by an American political consultant. That consultant, Paul Manafort, subsequently became Trump's 2016 campaign manager.
- Candidate Trump spoke forgivingly about Russia's violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. He mused about lifting sanctions to smooth relations with Putin.
- "The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were," (Well, if the people of Crimea are the same type of Russian-speakers elsewhere in Ukraine, that is certainly a lie)
- President Trump sought to undo one punishment imposed on Putin by proposing that Russia rejoin the G7
- His administration implemented some new sanctions on Russia at the insistence of national security officials and Congress. Trump himself objected.
- Russia menaced Ukraine throughout Trump's term. He strengthened Putin's hand in several ways. (i.e., he emboldened Putin to do what he is doing now)
- Trump cast doubt on America's decades-old commitment to defending European partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
- He fomented discord at home, advancing Putin's objective of sapping American resolve. "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people," his former Defense Secretary James Mattis said in 2020.
- Trump shielded Russia from opprobrium. Echoing Russian propaganda, he led fellow Republicans in smearing Ukraine by falsely suggesting that Kyiv rather than Moscow had interfered in the 2016 US presidential election.
- Republicans protecting Trump cast the impeachment as Democratic partisanship. But it traced back to Trump's alignment with Russia against its vulnerable neighbor.
- Congress had voted to provide Ukraine nearly $400 million in military aid. Trump delayed sending it.
- "Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?" Pompeo shouted at National Public Radio's Mary Louise Kelly.Oh, when cornered about your untrue statement you turn to rump, and a list of unproven accusations, and all-out CNN BS. Don't waste your time. I have long ago addressed all you have posted here.
I don't ruminate sorry about that. Your statement clearly said Trump is on Putin's side, and so is nay that supports him on Putin's side. The context is perfectly clear.
"'MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
Trump is, of course, on Putin's side (and therefore so are Trump Republicans)"Trump Republicans will deny any of these things happened because they are unable to acknowledge anything that portrays Trump negatively.
Case in point, they say Trump had the greatest economy ever. They ignore multiple Presidents with better GDP and job growth, and act like 2020 never existed.As a rule, an intelligent person will look for truth in accusations, and not condemn a person on unproven accusations. Each point that ESO listed was very much conjecture, the opinions if comes... Most are ridiculous and total conjecture and assumption on his part.
"- Trump cast doubt on America's decades-old commitment to defending European partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."
Really, how could one prove such a statement? This is downright silly.
"- Russia menaced Ukraine throughout Trump's term. He strengthened Putin's hand in several ways. (i.e., he emboldened Putin to do what he is doing now)" And who ultimately sold Ukraine the Javelin system? Many strategists have shared why they feel Putin made his move at this point. I would find it very hard to say with confidence why Putin made his move at this point. I feel China will also make a move on Taiwan. Can I 100% say I feel these nations moved due to the US at this point having a weak Government? I guess I could do the same ESO has done -- blanket a huge part of our society, and just presume what they are all feeling. It's so very clear the differences left and right have today. But, the right, as a rule, does not tend to presume guilt as easily as those on the left. In my view, the left work hard to place blame, they do it to an extent that makes them look hypocritical. This is why I pointed out ECO's statement. ("'MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
Trump is, of course, on Putin's side (and therefore so are Trump Republicans)" This statement jumped out to me and gives proof to my view. that some on the left seem to play the blame game frequently, and have no problem blanketing a huge part of society.
I certain;y realize we have different types of people in our society, and many do accept accusations that are built on conjecture. I just don't happen to be that sort.
Many do feel Trump had the greatest economy ever. His economy was very good, it certainly beats what we are seeing right now. Was it the best ever, it would appear stats show it was not?When you don't read (or remember things you don't like to hear) the news, then you ask silly questions like "Really, how could one prove such a statement? This is downright silly.". How do you prove it? You have to read or listen to what he says, then you have your answer.
BTW, I "FEEL" the moon is made of Blue Cheese. While I "feel" that way, it doesn't make it true - it just makes me look like an idiot. Same with those who FEEL Trump's economy was the best ever.
It would really be helpful if people "felt" things or had "opinions" that are based on facts and reality and not wishful thinking.
As to the Javelins - that is another example of the rare things Trump did right. They are few and far between, but I do admit they exist. Someone can't be a total idiot, although Trump tries hard to be #1 at it..
Obama was apparently like you guys - afraid of war with Putin, which is why he didn't provide lethal aid to Ukraine. Look at where being afraid of what Putin will do has gotten you.I guess you "forgot" these reports:
https://www.npr.org/2016/07/23/48715146 … es-nato-al
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN18J21J
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07 … montenegro
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … -from-nato
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … reelected/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … o-ukraine/
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … nyt-mattis
As you can see, the reports about Trump putting NATO membership in doubt are long-term and covered by everybody but Fox. Not sure how you missed it.
"And who ultimately sold Ukraine the Javelin system?" - Is that all you got? It doesn't stack up very well against the mountain of proof, not the LEAST of which is Trump telling Ukraine that Crimea probably should not belong to them anyway.
You seem you are willing to go to any lengths to defend a man who many FEEL is a traitor to America - certainly to democracy.More for your reading pleasure from those who feel (backed up by facts) Trump does not have the best interest of America in his wheelhouse.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 040603002/
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/01/ … a-traitor/
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 … an-traitor
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09 … -a-traitor
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 … democracy/ - The author gives a "qualified" no but presents a lot of disgusting things about Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics … index.htmlWhat a bunch of crap. You need to find better reading material. Buch of opinion pieces by far-left rags.
They are the same sources you site. Because I do, now they are far left? ROFL. That seems to be your go to answer when faced with facts.
I do give some credence to Brookings, the rest sorry would not site them. Your sources as I said are all opinion BS, nothing of any substance.
Again, you are speaking of Fox and the other right-wing propaganda outlets. You are in the distinct minority in your false view.
And, as I said, YOU have used each one on several occasions; well, maybe not the Ohio paper which you probably condemned with no research. Isn't that called being a hypocrite?Fox? I made no mention of Fox. Brookings is a left-leaning think-tank. You make no sense whatsoever.
I was polite enough to read your multiple links. all were opinion-oriented, and I did find them as such.
As a rule, I try to use sources that are less OP, and more factual. Brookings is such an outlet.
I don't feel at all I am in the minority in regard to Americans' political opinions. 99% of the time I am with the majority when it comes
to political questions. For instance, I am in the majority when it comes to being disappointed in all that is Biden. So, sorry technically it would be you who is in the minority.
Source Gallop --- https://news.gallup.com/poll/390086/bid … -near.aspx
The response to the coronavirus 47 52 disaprove
Overall job performance 41 55 disapprove
Foreign affairs 40 56 disapprove
The economy 37 62 disapprove
The situation with Russia 36 55 disapprove
And then there are the independents, they also show disappointment in Biden. Hey, they are right with me, in the majority.
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-approval … ts-1685423It seems there is nothing published in the media that isn't "opinion" by your definition, regardless of how many facts are presented to back up those so-called opinions.
I give you facts, you give me polls.
Why are you linking to a left-wing rag?You may consider Newsweek a left-wing rag, I don't I feel they publish left and right-wing perspectives relatively equally.
I feel polls are a form of study which after devising questions
and presenting them to subjects, one can derive what the public feels about the given questions. Ultimately polls are opinions oriented but hold weight due to the majority's opinion.
.Many journalists use facts such as names they can quote, states which they can prove with sources, past and present events that can be clearly proved not with assumptions, put factual evidence,
such as documents. There certainly is a big place for opinion articles, but one should not claim the information as truthful if the article is built on assumptions or accusations. I think it is proper to discuss such articles, but preference this type of information as assumption-oriented information.No twist and turns, just trying to get across the point --- I have no problem with opinion sources, just so the info is used as such --- opinion, not factual in nature.
I certainly offer opinion articles, but I do not put the info in the context of being factual.
Friends you all are aware that I am an amateur astrologer also. I'm not saying that astrology is the exact science but it certainly shows trends and the planetary combinations which I have worked out show that there will be a world war by 30/31 and lead to the destruction of Europe. Sadly Ukraine is going to be devastated and all because the Ukrainian president was a novice and played into the hands of the Americans.
The irony of the argument about looking at the facts had me rolling.
Facts - both Biden and Trump flushed the economy with stimulus money.
Facts - oil production declined in mid-2020 when Trump was president.
Facts - someone's been on here noting how oil production has actually increased under Biden to claim environmentalists should dislike him.
Facts - the international supply chain has been damaged since mid-2020 due to the pandemic.
Now, if someone wants to blame Biden for policies that opened up our economy that led to inflation, go for it. But claiming that policy is a negative and that an open economy is a bad thing would be an outright lie.
At this point, those that make the case that Biden is solely responsible for inflation or rising energy costs are just partisan hacks who show their own lack of education.
For those saying "Open Keystone Pipeline" here are a few things you need to know...
1. IT IS OPEN. It currently transports 540,000 barrels of oil per day.
2. Keystone Pipeline carries "tar sands oil" which IS NOT used to make gasoline
3. The oil it carries comes from Canada, not the United States. It is still imported.
4. Keystone Pipeline is privately owned by a foreign company by the name of TransCanada.
5. What you are referring to is Keystone Pipeline XL. The XL portion is an extension to the existing Keystone Pipeline.
6. Keystone Pipeline XL was 8% constructed. It is still years away from 100% completion.
7. TransCanada has canceled the project completely. That means the OWNER is no longer building or looking to finish the project.
8. TransCanada obtained the land to build the extension on through eminent domain lawsuits. A private, foreign company, stealing land from American citizens who did not want it on their property.
9. TransCanada, the owner of both Keystone Pipeline and Keystone Pipeline XL admitted that the XL portion would INCREASE fuel prices in the Midwest.I appreciate the post on this piece of the complex oil sector. Many Americans have an overly simplistic understanding oil. I'm not sure how many Americans remember that there was a ban on most crude oil exports from the United States to other countries that was implemented in 1975 and lifted in 2015.
There's a lack of understanding that as long as we are dependent on oil that we will always import oil.
I partial blame media that push headlines of "energy independence" and then barely scratch the surface of the comex manner in which the oil industry operates. Sadly, most don't seem to educate themselves further. I suspect that if you took a poll , you'd find that a majority in our country believe this country's oil is nationalized.
I'd love to see a simple, concise piece on the American oil industry, How it operates, The factors that impact it and have no/limited impact on it (such as the president). I will keep searching. If anyone knows of such a piece, please post.While I find that the MSM reports in a relatively unbiased manner, presenting legitimate information that is positive and negative about both sides of a controversy, I DO NOT appreciate their almost universal use of misleading headlines to get you to read the article. I expect that of organizations like Fox, but it pisses me off that legitimate outlets like CNN do it to.
You forget Valeant - FACTS don't matter to Trump Republicans.
In an earlier post, we have someone on the right admitting that they know big oil is price gauging Americans. They also admit most Americans still blame Biden instead for that. Basically, it's an admission that no matter who is responsible for their issues, they are going to blame Biden.
It's the same disconnect we see with Ukraine. Putin is the one causing this issue, but it's more important to the right to turn against their own country and blame Biden.
At this point, why should anyone listen to people that cannot process cause and effect?This is the most deeply disappointing and confusing aspect of our political landscape in recent times. We have a number of people that have pledged allegiance to a politician and will absolutely twist themselves inside out and into knots too find ways to discredit the opposition or "other side" Even when it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's a complete cult of personality beyond any reason or fact.
I also note people must be realistic in their solutions. For example, the US cannot produce very much lithium, it must be imported (Australia and Chili)
Same for nickel (Indonesia, Philippines, and Russia is a major sources)
Bottom line, we have to have it in the first place in order to produce it ourselves.That is the beauty of American politics... no one cares what the facts are, what the excuses are... if things are going bad, the President is going to take the blame.
And why shouldn't he, he is the one at the helm, he DOES have some impact on energy policy, on regulations, on foreign policy, on war.
If Americans can't blame the President for the economy going to crap, for WWIII breaking out, who the heck do you expect them to blame?As usual, a bit overstated since we have some inflation paired with amazing job growth. Sanctions on Russia, but no world war.
And this does seem the trend. Everything is overstated on the right. Everything is a crisis. Here I thought Covid would pare the party down - I'm more worried it's going to be hypertension from all the inflated crises in their minds.I am intelligent enough to look for and blame the real culprits and not some politician I don't happen to like - UNLESS, of course, they ARE the culprit like Trump was most of the time.
For example:
- the CURRENT inflation is fundamentally the result of the supply-demand imbalance caused by the fast economic recovery under the Biden administration
- FUTURE inflation will be caused by child-killer Putin's war.
Can you name the specifics in terms of how the current president could affect change on our American oil industry which is a private industry? Currently I am not seeing any policy changes other than the changes in methane release from Mr Trump to President Biden. Which specific policy currently has more control/influence over the oil industry than its own well documented drive to reward shareholders and continue buybacks?
Is your post facetious?My post is spot on.
At the end of the day, when things are going badly the President is going to take the blame... and by extension the Party of that President.
The less charismatic the President, the more this is so. While Obama could carry the day and be re-elected (in a tight race) that was because he was a VERY popular President. Biden isn't popular, or charismatic.
Show me where this HASN'T been the case in the last 50 years.
Or are you being sarcastic with your questions?No not at all. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what are the specifics that people feel President Biden has contributed to inflation or other issues we are currently experiencing.
You seem to be saying that if we have a smooth talking POTUS, who can deliver a nice speech, regardless of content, we are all good? People are satisfied? That it comes down to a popularity contest?
Yes, I do agree that at the end of the day a president will take much of the blame even for things that are out of his control because many citizens won't look at all of the factors involved in any issue. Too many will go for simplistic headlines or downright misinformation. I think there's a lot of reasons for that. How many have the aptitude or appetite to dig through hundreds of pages of government documents? Easier to grab a news blurb. Warring media does this country a great disservice in the end.I think that to a large degree, that is what it is, a popularity contest.
Obama was very popular, a very charismatic individual who could articulate his message very well to Americans. He couldn't help his party much, and the Dems paid the price for failing to address the problems in the country quick enough in the mid-terms and in 2012.
After he was re-elected he became a more divisive person, but still was popular with the "left".
Biden didn't win because he was popular, Biden didn't win because he was charismatic... Biden was a flawed candidate. Biden couldn't get a stadium filled with people to come see him if his life depended on it.
Obama could. Trump could.
Biden won because of non-stop negative MSM campaigning against Trump and because of a year of Covid lockdowns and riots... Even then he got 75 million votes... the most votes ANY candidate ever got in history, other than Biden's Mail-In-Ballot victory amount.
But now Biden has skyrocketing inflation, the flight from Afghanistan and the Ukrainian war on his watch... and we haven't even hit the two year mark yet.
He will take the blame for those things whether the MSM tries to give him a pass or not. Americans will look to someone else for answers.You're making a case for simply installing an actor into The White House. Obama was the Democrat counterpart to the Republicans Reagan?. Smooth. Makes people feel good.
In terms of President Biden, He was a result of and a reaction to Donald Trump.
And Inflation is supply and demand. With the continuation of dealing with the covid crisis at the beginning of the Biden presidency, I'm not sure how you could see inflation as anything other than related to those factors. But please, if you have specific policies that relate to the contribution to inflation I'd be interested to hear them.
The Ukrainian war on his watch? This takes Putin out of the equation altogether? He could have stopped Putin? How is this?Very good questions to which you probably won't get cogent anwsers.
I feel you are trying to bring rationality and logic into something that is not, and never will be, based on logic and well researched decision making.
Ultimately people will be left with two choices... Biden (or an even more disliked and incoherent speaker in Harris) and whatever alternative the Republicans put up.
It doesn't matter what the facts are regarding Inflation, disappearing supplies from shelves, skyrocketing energy (Oil, Gas) prices.
Biden is going to be blamed for it by 75% of Americans, more or less.
It doesn't matter who caused the Ukraine war. If it doesn't end in stellar fashion for Biden: No Americans involved, No Nukes going off, and Ukraine soundly defeating the Russians, he is going to take SOME blame for how-ever bad it gets.
And then, he is going to be a spry 82 years old... he was given a pass from campaigning in 2020 because of Covid, he will be expected to do twice as much as he did come 2024.
The charismatic part I agree with. Biden's not as abrasive as Trump, but he doesn't know how to combat the negative media attention any president seems to be getting these days.
Nor can he seem to control his gaffes. While they almost always insignificant in and of themselves, they do provide Red Meat to Trump Republicans who have a decided aversion to Truth, Honesty, and Facts.
And it is so easy to compare our four years under the last president in regards to the economy, energy, foreign policies, and just downright feeling good about where one felt the country was headed. It is very much a societal norm to compare presidents.
I was very content in Trump's final three years, even with COVID, I felt very good about having him at the helm. The new guy, I could not be more displeased with what I perceive the way America is heading.
.I don't believe Trump to be popular enough to make a viable candidate in 2024.
I don't believe he would get any MSM coverage that is positive, he would still be banned from Social Media and his supporters silenced.
But I do want Biden replaced, he is too old, to frail, and the thought of that nutcase Harris taking control is just downright frightening to contemplate.
Watching her in Europe the past couple of days, I really am rather amazed they allow her into the public eye at all.I hope Trump does not run in 2024, I can only feel if he ran we would be in for much more of what we have witnessed for the past five years --- a media blitz that would keep the country well divided. I in no respect could support 4 more for Biden. If it was up to me, I would show him the door right now. But would we want Harris? I don't think so.
In my view, she sounded incoherent, not able to answer questions, and just veered off with non-sensical words that put together made little sense in regard to what was asked."In my view, she sounded incoherent, not able to answer questions, and just veered off with non-sensical words that put together made little sense in regard to what was asked." - Again, you are talking about Trump and not Harris, a very successful prosecutor who knows how to stay on point.
No, I am talking about Harris. she did not stay on point. She dodged questions and went off subject. She is a very very poor speaker. She appears overly nervous, and frequently can't answer questions that are direct.
Not sure why you felt her to be a successful prosecutor. She had a complicated history as a prosecutor. But that is water under the bridge.Oh, do you mean when she was asked about giving planes to Ukraine? She was supposed to not answer that.
As to nervous looking - yes.
As to poor speaker - I am not convinced yet (and don't particularly care)
I will also agree that Trump does not look nervous when speaking. Sometimes he looks like a clown, but not nervous.
I don't "feel" she was successful - she was successful as any review of her record shows clearly. Were there controversies? Sure. But her ability to prosecute effectively is there for all to see.I wished Harris could have come forth with an answer about Poland's offer of the migs, and the US's reluctance to send them. And, I can't fault her for being nervous. She seems to always be taking the mud ib the eye for the administration.
And I have shared this many times, I feel Trump has little to no ability to give a speech, he is a disaster. However, he does well off-script
at rallies. However, it's when he is off-script he becomes transparent., and offers up his own views. Which gets him in trouble with some.
I think the right media dug up dirt on her, as they do on all Democrats that run for office. And to be fair the left media do the same. They both twist and turn candidates' histories into a big mess of ugly.
My feeling is --- I just don't think she had the experience to be VP.
A job that is mostly just representing their administration on the world stage. One needs to be articulate, and fast on their feet.
I think on many occasions Biden tossed her to the lions unfairly. And credit is due, that she prevailed the best she could."And to be fair the left media do the same. " - To be fairer, the Right-media rarely finds and reports anything negative about the Right. On the other hand, I see the MSM criticize both sides; maybe not equally, but they at least attempt to present a balanced view.
I saw yesterday or today, Biden is still trying to save Trump Republican lives by extending the mask mandate on public transportation.
In case you have forgotten, about 1,000 Trump Republicans A DAY are dying from Covid while 40,000 A DAY are catching Covid.
In ten days, America will pass the 1,000,000 mark in Covid deaths. 17% of deaths worldwide from only 4% of the world's population. Why? Because Trump Republicans won't get vaccinated.
Since Aug 1, when most unvaccinated Americans were Trump Republicans, roughly 350,000 Trump Republicans have died just from Covid.Scott: It's all about their freedom to choose. What they don't realize is when they are ending up in hospitals, they are placing tremendous burdens on the hospital staff, nurses, and doctors.
It's to the point where many of them are burnt out from dealing with these people who are dying because they want their freedom of choice. I hate to say it, but there goes their gene pool..
In 2020, these businesses were not making any money due to the pandemic where no one was traveling. Now, with the economy open, the argument could be made that they are making up for their losses of 2020. These problems definitely happened under Trump.
Another misguided attempt to blame Biden for a something that these greedy capitalists are doing to offset something that happened prior to his term.
Either way, there is an acknowledgement that unchecked capitalism is a cause. Again, not really a Biden policy.President Biden should push to restrict federal support of any state that passes laws such as Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law, that oppresses people and creates a false narrative.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics … index.htmlGov. Ron DeSantis and the legislators who drafted the “Parental Rights in Education” bill, also known as the “don’t say gay” bill, apparently were unaware of the Florida Department of Education’s standards that specifically dictate what is taught in public schools. These standards are available for anyone to see at cpalms.org.
As an educator I can confidently say that school districts develop curriculum maps based on the state standards. At elementary schools, teachers from each grade level collaborate in teams to craft lesson plans that adhere to the curriculum maps. The topic of sexuality is nowhere to be found in the K-3 standards for science or any other content area for those grade levels. The governor must know this, yet he continues to combatively assert that “transgenderism or something” could be injected into kindergarten classroom instruction.
The parental rights bill is nothing more than a cynical ruse to stoke the fears and animus of DeSantis’ political base.
To gain any serious support, Republicans are going to need to develop a platform. This culture war is growing old and it's missing the mark for a lot of us to say the least.
Actually, I know one very clear fact from Jan 21 2021 our gas prices started to rise, and inflation took hold and grew steadily. Just never experienced any inflation under Trump. Even though some very bad times such as locking down our economy. But, everyone has a right to an opinion, and that's mine.
I have no hate for Biden, I just have closely watched him ruin the country. Naturally, it is obvious I have an aversion to his agenda. But presidents come and go, so hate him, no. Just want to see all his problems gone with him.Odd that the re-opening of the economy happened right around January 21, 2021. When people started getting vaccinated. One could just as easily say those vaccines led to inflation. Or that the failure to maintain supply chains in 2020 did.
An opinion that neglects to factor in all things is just uneducated whining.Americans do whin and become very impatient, most don't like being hit in the pocket. You can call it uneducated whining... The majority of Americans vote by what they see being added to their pocket or being taken from their pocket...
They are still whining aren't they and being very shallow thinkers if they let propaganda drive their thinking.
I don't agree, I feel more people I speak with denounce media as one of the problems. Most seem to feel it is a big part of why the country is divided.
Many Americans have come to the reality the country is going in the wrong direction, and polls show this thus far.
"Americans' Trust in Media Dips to Second Lowest on Record"
Gallpop -- "WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly has edged down four percentage points since last year to 36%, making this year's reading the second lowest in Gallup's trend.
In all, 7% of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" and 29% "a fair amount" of trust and confidence in newspapers, television and radio news reporting -- which, combined, is four points above the 32% record low in 2016, amid the divisive presidential election campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In addition, 29% of the public currently registers "not very much" trust and 34% have "none at all.""
https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/ame … ecord.aspx
https://www.fox13now.com/news/national/ … onal-media
Hopefully, Americans continue to be turned off on media propaganda.Herein lies a big part of the problem. I feel like most Americans want to stay within their desired news bubble. Most media gives overly simplistic blurbs about very large, dynamic and complex issues and industries. Sadly, I feel like most don't reach beyond the bubble or the oversimplified headline to get the rest of the story. And you know what? I find when you're thoroughly researched you will land yourself somewhere smack in the middle. That doesn't sit well with any media conglomerate that builds ratings on taking a "side"
In terms of Left/Right bias, I do agree that most MSM lean a little to the Left. The rest lean very hard Right.
That said, I have found that MOST MSM do TRY (and mostly succeed) to give a balanced view in their News reporting. Much less so with their opinion pieces although most to carry Right-wing articles as well, while Fox rarely carries Left-wing opinions.
What I hate about all of them is using "sensationalist" headlines that often mislead about the actual content.
I also find that most of the "analysis" articles I read do dig somewhat into the weeds, unless we are talking about magaizines like The Atlantic, Vanity Fair (which surprised me with the quality of their work), and The New YorkerIn terms of Left/Right bias, I do agree that most MSM lean a little to the Left. The rest lean very hard Right.
That said, I have found that MOST MSM do TRY (and mostly succeed) to give a balanced view in their News reporting. Much less so with their opinion pieces although most to carry Right-wing articles as well, while Fox rarely carries Left-wing opinions.
What I hate about all of them is using "sensationalist" headlines that often mislead about the actual content.
I also find that most of the "analysis" articles I read do dig somewhat into the weeds, unless we are talking about magazines like The Atlantic, Vanity Fair (which surprised me with the quality of their work), and The New Yorker who dig a lot deeper.Great common sense Faye... I agree, and the middle is where I feel pretty comfortable much of the time.
The country is going in the wrong direction? You say that as if that is a new phenomenon - it isn't.
The last time it wasn't going in the wrong direction was shortly after President Obama was inaugurated (it was pretty bad before that as I recall). It has been in the dumps ever since. Particularly bad times were: Nov 2011, Oct 2013, Jul 2016, Oct 2017, Aug 2020, and today.
I wish they would stop watching and listening to Fox, Newsmax, Brietbart, ect, America would be much better off and less divided as a result. The MSN needs to keep doing the relatively honest job they are doing and continue telling the American people the TRUTH.The problem with the number you report is that it is aggregate. The REAL story is when you peel back the onion.
While trust in the news media has declined since 2016 in each demographic, it has only declined substantially among Republicans (and no wonder with Trump lying to them all of the time about how bad the media is).
According to Pew, people who are "left leaning" have fallen from A Lot or Some trust in the media has fallen from 83% to 78%, a 5 point decline..
On the other hand, Republicans have declined 35 points, from 70% to 35%!!
So, when you say In all, 7% of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" and 29% "a fair amount" of trust and confidence in newspapers, television and radio news reporting , you are not talking about most Americans - just "right leaning" ones.
The rest of us have a lot of trust in the MSM.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … publicans/"So, when you say In all, 7% of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" and 29% "a fair amount" of trust and confidence in newspapers, television and radio news reporting , you are not talking about most Americans - just "right leaning" ones."
One can't dispute that if one is to believe this poll. Which I do feel could be accurate. Conservatives and those that lean right just ultimately don't like the direction the country is headed.
One could write a book on all the whys of it. In my view, the lefts ideologies have just become too far out there (or too foreign) for conservative and right-leaning folk to accept."One could write a book on all the whys of it." - I think it would contain 3 chapters: 1-Right-wing propaganda, 2-Trump, 3-Afghanistan.
You think President Joe Biden, Sen Joe Manchin and Sen Kyrsten Sinema and most other Democrats' ideologies are "far out there"? Not all Democrats are like AOC. She had her group are in a distinct minority.
You know who elses' ideologies Trump Republicans can't accept?
Eisenhower
Nixon
Ford
Reagan
Bush 1
Bush 2
Collins
Murkowski
Romney
The Cheneys
Kitzenger
Any Republican who supported (or voted to) impeach TrumpYes, we have a huge split in the Republican party. The poll I offered was meant to show general dissatisfaction with Biden. And naturally far fewer Democrats would be upset with Biden, and it shows in that poll.
In general, the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with Biden all around job performance. The poll shows independents are coming out in the majority against his job performance.
It is very true your list gives proof that some Republicans do not support Trump. However, one must ask WOULD they support Trump against Biden in 2024? We have little way to know what Biden's last three years will bring. So, it would be hard to determine who the majority of Americans would vote for, and harder to guess who the ones that are alive would support. Politicians are a different breed. I would venture to say many you have listed would not vote or support Trump.
But, ib my view, these Republicans don't have much pull in the party and will consider the cries of their constituents. Politicians have a way of doing that, after all its their constituents who keep them in office."In general, the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with Biden all around job performance." - You left out a key word, as I have pointed out before, "Perceived". A "perception" does not necessarily correlate with "actual" job performance. In the case of Trump, it does; in the case of President Biden, for MOST areas, it does not. The only REAL reason the Democrats show a decline is that President Biden won't cow-tow(?) to the far Left. If people took an HONEST appraisal of how President Biden has done, they would find he has ACTUALLY done a pretty good job with those things he can control. The problem is that most people do not take into consideration whether a leader has control over something or not. For example, If an asteroid hit the earth tomorrow, the Trump Republicans would blame Biden for it, lol
I think you did not put my entire thought into context I also said this --- "We have little way to know what Biden's last three years will bring. So, it would be hard to determine who the majority of Americans would vote for, and harder to guess who the ones that are alive would support. Politicians are a different breed. I would venture to say many you have listed would not vote or support Trump."
And I very much disagree, Biden has "cow-towed to the left from day one. And still is. What did he do every week when we have a huge crisis brewing that involves nuclear weapons?
He is begging the nations for oil --- Instead of producing here in America, he is off to buy oil out of America. This is just him bowing to his far-left nut jobs. Half ass-backward Biden may not realize we are one planet, ya pump it here or there it has some effect on climate. But it makes his left wack-jobs feel good to see we are not pumping here... Oh well, many do have the sense to see the reality of one atmosphere.
https://fortune.com/2022/03/09/biden-sa … a-ukraine/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/0 … n-00014803Sharlee, of course he supports the left, he is not a Republican and I did not elect him to cower to the desires of the rightwing, that is my biggest problem with him today. No more than I expected his predecessor to pay attention to the concerns of the LEFT.
Eco and were going back and forth on Biden --- does he cow-tow to the left in his party. He claimed no, I claim yes. We were not considering his stance on cowering to the rightwing. Respectfully, I disagree with you if you are saying he cowers to the desires of the rightwing. I think he ignores them. Cred, Have I missed something?
Eco's comment seems to see things a bit differently. He feels Biden is not Cow-towing to the leftwingers in the party. I certainly feel he is at present. Not sure what the future will bring. Biden in my opinion bends whichever way the current wind blows.I think Biden is a moderate, far too much for my taste. I think that he has resisted most of the wish list of the far left. You haven't missed anything.
I don't say he cowers the desires of the right wing, but takes them into consideration far too often, when for the most part they are opposed to his agenda. People elected Biden in resistance to the policies of Donald Trump, the majority of the American electorate.
I voted for Biden to see the wind blow toward another direction from where it has been.It seems both sides have split into many directions. As I shared before, I hope we find ourselves with candidates that are really worthy of being president. Two good choices. Would this not be wonderful?
I told you Biden was not that.
Biden was a return to the worst of the corrupt cronyism in DC.
The reason MSM vilified Trump beyond all reason, the reason why they went to the lengths of shutting down Trump and his supporters on Social Media, the reason why they flipped voting laws in swing states upside down so they could count ballots that had no viable tracking validity of their casting was to remove Trump and restore the corporatocracy.
Yes, to your point of view Biden was a step in the right direction from Trump, but he was never going to be a major instigator of change, he was going to be a return to what was, before Trump. That is all.
The Covid lockdowns, the Riots, the endless accusations against Trump, all part of ensuring America would be willing and ready to get rid of Trump and move on to anyone else.
You yourself said in another thread, how impossible it is to get an incumbent out of office... unless some major events are occurring at that time. Well our MSM pushed those issues into the negative and against Trump as much as possible.I would argue Trump brought any vilification on himself with attacks on the media after they refused to go along with his easily disprovable lies. Lies that started on day 1 when Trump's narcissism needed to push the false narrative that his crowd sizes were the largest ever.
And social media shut down Trump for pushing Covid lies and inciting violence at the Capitol. Voting is always adjusted to make it easier during times of emergency and Covid qualified as one of those. Only when Trump loses is this suddenly a new norm to never think of adjusting things. Oh, and it's also kosher to ignore the Republican states that did the same thing as Democratic states in modifying elections laws to increase turnout, such as Texas whose Governor extended early voting without his legislature's permission.
All the Covid lockdowns and riots showed was that Trump really was not fit to manage the country in times of crises. And the endless accusations against Trump were also self made. He basically flaunted his campaign finance violations, Hatch Act violations, Nepotism Violations, Obstruction of Justice violations and Emoluments Clause violations. Hard to have a rule of law when the leader is so openly breaking the law and using his immunity as a shield.
Trump's own failures, especially in railing against the most basic of preventative measures for Covid, were his downfall."I would argue Trump brought any vilification on himself with attacks on the media after they refused to go along with his easily disprovable lies. " - No truer words were ever spoken about Trump. The MSM didn't PUSH anything and simply reported honestly about Trump. In fact, IMO, they were way too easy on him for far too long when it was obvious to all of us not sucked into his cult that he was a fraud and con artist who didn't have a clue as to how to govern.
"I think he ignores them. " - If that were true, then why did he fight so hard to have a bipartisan infrastructure bill. Why does he always try to include Republicans in his ideas - even though they reject him out of hand?
Nope, I was commenting about your media statement. I was trying to point out there are three types of media: Right-wing propaganda outlets. Left-wing propaganda outlets, and MSM.
The thing is about saying "Biden has "cow-towed to the left from day one. And still is. " is you would say the same thing if he was cow-towing to Eisenhower.
One of the reasons President Biden's numbers are in the tank is because the AOC-types feel betrayed by him as he tries to do the right things for America.
"What did he do every week when we have a huge crisis brewing that involves nuclear weapons?" - I don't know? What? From what I have seen, he has been to a great job trying to manage an insane child-killer without getting us into a nuclear war. I am very proud of him and what he has accomplished in that regard.
"He is begging the nations for oil --" - That is the far-Right view, but it is not reality
"he is off to buy oil out of America" - Prove that. What I see is him trying to get other oil producers (including recalcitrant American energy companies) to increase supply in order to keep YOUR gas prices from rising even more. Seems to me that people who criticize Biden for that are a bit ungrateful.The commodities world is a heavily interconnected one, and oil is priced through a global market. So what happens in one area of the world can affect another.
The problem at hand is that Russia is one of the world's biggest oil suppliers. In December, for example, Russia sent nearly 8 million barrels of oil and other petroleum products to global markets, including 5 million barrels of the crude oil that's used to make gasoline among other items.
And yes, it's true that very little of that Russian supply goes to the United States: just 90,000 barrels of crude oil per day in December, according to the most recent US government statistics.
But remember that oil is bought and shipped around the world through a global commodities market. So in that sense it doesn't really matter who specifically is getting crunched by the loss of Russian oil, because lower supply affects those global prices no matter what. And as we know from Econ 101, when there's less supply of an item in demand, prices rise.
For example, if Europe buys less Russian oil, it will have to replace it with oil from somewhere else, perhaps from the Saudi Arabia-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. That increase in demand for OPEC oil will send its crude prices higher. And guess who else buys hundreds of millions of barrels of OPEC oil?
You guessed it: the United States.
But US oil producers can't or won't fill the supply gap, even though they could make a mint given the high prices and demand.
Like many industries during the pandemic, oil producers are struggling to find staffers and source specialized equipment. Meanwhile, US oil companies are still smarting from the pain of that major oil bust in 2020, which kicked off a flurry of bankruptcies. Major oil companies' stock performances have lagged the broader market since then too. And as makers of fossil fuels, they're wary that future environmental policies could hurt future demand for oil.
All of the above underscores how oil and gas prices are tied to geopolitical events, the pandemic, drilling logistics and so much more. And it adds up to average US gas prices above $4.33 a gallon as of Friday.
In short, it's all a simple case of supply and demand. But of course it's never really so simple."Half ass-backward Biden may not realize we are one planet," - You do realize, don't you, that it is your side who doesn't realize it is one planet and your side is doing everything it can to kill it.
I don't ever think blanketing a diverse group is viable in placing blame. But hey, it's your view, wonder if "your side" 100% agrees with your sentiment?
Why do you nit-pick semantics? You know very well what I mean because you do exactly the same thing from your side.
True, and all I want you to see is who is taking it from your pocket. It's not the government. It's private businesses. Why you seem to be directing your anger at government instead is the ridiculous part of all of this.
And Trump Republicans whine about inflation and lie about its cause, consider that inflation in Russia is 2.2% - PER WEEK. I imagine it is worse in Ukraine.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/opinions … index.htmlPresident Biden did a nice end run around a Conservative court ruling that would have kept forcing America to continue the inhumane Trump policy of returning unaccompanied minors crossing the border.
Title 42, which once had a place in protecting America, but no longer does, is what the court wanted to be continued to be enforced to put children back into harms way. The end-run was to have the CDC announce that Title 42 no longer applies to unaccompanied minors because the data doesn't show they are a Covid threat.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/politics … index.htmlIt's interesting how people who support free market capitalism are suddenly very upset about having to pay the price for free market capitalism. And they blame the government for those greedy capitalists price gauging them.
It's almost as if they are really, really confused and just misguided on who to blame.It would seem high prices are being generated by supply and demand problems. Capitalists are having a hard time getting goods produced and to market. They naturally pass on those costs to the public The costs of running a business. Businesses are feeling the squeeze, and it could come to be a larger problem --- fewer people working, less money being spent --- An economic depression could come about. In this case, the primarily caused could result due to worsening consumer confidence that leads to a decrease in demand for goods, eventually resulting in companies going out of business. When consumers stop buying products and paying for services, companies need to make budget cuts, including employing fewer workers. In my view, our economy is on shaky ground right now, and the capitalists have realized this, and are being very cautious at the time. A new administration might instill confidence IMO.
I have always been appreciative of big business, they provide jobs, and tax revenue via their workers, as well as various company taxes.Your theory seems to ignore the record profits being made by those corporations completely. In fact, you don't even address it. Which also goes directly against your data-free 'opinion' about a shaky economy.
" fewer people working" - More people are employed today than in 2019
"less money being spent" - Consumer spending is at Record Levels
"Businesses are feeling the squeeze," - What Valeant says about record profits
" In my view, our economy is on shaky ground right now, " - As has been proven to you before, in spite of inflation, virtually ALL economic indicators are positive. So, I am not sure exactly why you think the economy is on "shaky ground". There are not enough supporting facts to base that claim on.""less money being spent" - Consumer spending is at Record Levels"
Is consumer spending, per capita, and in terms of 2018 dollars, up or down? My bet is down.
"As has been proven to you before, in spite of inflation, virtually ALL economic indicators are positive."
And, as has been pointed out to you, because of inflation most indicators are positive. GDP, for instance, or personal income. Both are up because of inflation, while individuals struggle to get by because of that same inflation."Is consumer spending, per capita, and in terms of 2018 dollars, up or down? My bet is down." - You lose your bet https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A794RX0Q048SBEA
" because of inflation most indicators are positive." - [i[Since I know that not to be true, you will have to prove it if you can[/i]You're right - consumption, per capita, is up about $100 per month since 2018. I would have thought otherwise - little things like seniors living on SS that has fallen drastically says otherwise, but I guess that the top wage earners have gotten enough raise to make up for it. That and increased "earnings" from massive business profits and stock price increases.
It would be interesting to see that graph broken down by earnings; perhaps with 4 or 5 brackets for the nation. Certainly the upper echelon are spending more; is that also true for the lower or even middle class? And is the spending all going to a few places, like gasoline?So is the lower echelon for first time in many decades.
Given the cries from that "lower echelon", as well as the known loss to many millions of SS recipients, I would question that one very strongly.
While it is certainly true that some of those folks have gone from $10 to $15 (before correcting for near double digit inflation), they are a minority. That leaves an awful lot of people either not working or working at near the same wage they had...while inflation takes a mammoth sized bite from it.
Unless the timeline is being manipulated to reflect those big handouts from government? Is the "spending" coming from the free handouts?
Shocker. A claim made based on flawed views proved wrong by actual data.
" More people are employed today than in 2019" NOT according to the actual stats.
To be fair let's look at the stat starting in 2018 -- In the fourth quarter of 2018, the jobless rate was 3.8 percent—the same rate recorded in the third quarter of 2018. This unemployment rate was the lowest since the fourth quarter of 1969. The number of unemployed people was down by 472,000 over the year to 6.1 million in the fourth quarter.
2019 actually was a great year for employment numbers.--
"Job market remains tight in 2019, as the unemployment rate falls to its lowest level since 1969''
The U.S. labor market remained strong in 2019, as the unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent, the lowest rate since 1969. Both the employment-population ratio and the civilian labor force participation rate increased over the year.
TODAY --- 3.8%
The national unemployment rate decreased from 4% in January to 3.8% in February. The total number of unemployed persons also dropped slightly to 6.3 million. State unemployment rates can be found here. Mar 4, 2022
https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and … nd%20here. This link is a great source for unemployment stas... Note the Obama stats compared to Trump four years.
" Consumer spending is at Record Levels' Stats prove this statement to be true up to today. I would think we will see some great downward spending with inflation growing.
Consumer spending is a result of the cash Biden poured into the economy. Trump's consumer spending was due to people feeling confident to spend the cash they earned from being employed. And once again look at Obama's dismal stats in regard to consumer spending Charts can be sp sobering...
https://take-profit.org/en/statistics/c … ed-states/
Some Companies are making records --- Companies always want to maximize profits, In the current context, they suddenly cannot deliver as much anymore as they used to. And this creates a problem of a company raising prices to offset costs they have to their company. They pass off the new costs they are facing. Are companies being truthful? Not sure, I feel many are having to pay more to get their product to the consumers. With all the current problems of getting supplies to manufacture produces, and problems with workers shortages, and supply chain problems --- this is a perfect storm for business owners to raise prices. Just my view.
"As has been proven to you before, in spite of inflation, virtually ALL As has been proven to you before, in spite of inflation, virtually ALL economic indicators are positive.
I feel all points to real trouble for the coming years. There are certain signs that point toward good growth.
1.Strong employment numbers -- This morning's release of the January New Home Sales from the Census Bureau came in at 801K, down 4.5% month-over-month from 811K in December. The Investing.com forecast was for 806K. The median home price is now at $423.3K.
2. Stable Inflation -- we have the worst inflation is 40 years.
3. Interest rates are rising -- When interest rates are raised, it is a sign that the economy is recovering. (this is not happening)
Interest rates are lowered to stimulate the economy by making consumer borrowing easier so people have more money to spend. Low-interest rates also encourage businesses to borrow money and invest in their business. When interest rates are increased instead of lowered, it indicates the economy is heating up, in some instances too quickly as the rising interest rates are intended to slow things back down.
4.Wage Growth -- here is a chart to show actual wage growth
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth
5.High Retail Sales Higher New Home Sales Down 4.5% in January
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dsh … in-january ---
This morning's release of the January New Home Sales from the Census Bureau came in at 801K, down 4.5% month-over-month from 811K in December. The Investing.com forecast was for 806K. The median home price is now at $423.3K.
6.High Retail Sales
Household spending contributes to the largest part of the Australian economy. Increased spending means more production, which strengthens the GDP. The retail sales report can be used to predict GDP before these figures are released. A strong economy is indicated when retail sales grow by more 3 percent or more. (These numbers remain to be seen. for the spring and summer. I would guess they will plummet due to inflation.). can't consider holiday stats. Spring and summer will show true problems with retail spending. Unless Joe tosses out some more free cash.
7. Higher Industrial Production -- https://www.barrons.com/articles/ism-ma … 1643730381
I will stick with my prediction that we will most likely see a deep recession possibly a depression.
Gallop latest Job approval rate Rep - 7% approve
Dems -- 79%
Ind -- 35%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329384/pre … biden.aspxSharlee:
"The national unemployment rate decreased from 4% in January to 3.8% in February. The total number of unemployed persons also dropped slightly to 6.3 million. State unemployment rates can be found here. Mar 4, 2022
https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and … nd%20here. This link is a great source for unemployment stas... Note the Obama stats compared to Trump four years."
Here is the Labor Force Participation Rate. It is a much better indicator than the unemployment rate.
The Labor Force Participation Rate is defined by the Current Population Survey (CPS) as “the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population […] the participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively looking for work.”
As of Feb of this year, it is at 62.3%
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART63.2 percent
Bureau of Labor Statistics
The labor force participation rate, at 63.2 percent in February 2019, was also unchanged over the month and has changed little over the year.Mar 13, 2019
What your stats show is a workforce returning after COVID. Which is very promising.
this is a good link to show the downward spiral under
Obama, and was somewhat improving after Trump took office.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/emplo … he%20year.What downward spiral? Maybe you posted the wrong chart.
63.2 percent
Bureau of Labor Statistics
The labor force participation rate, at 63.2 percent in February 2019, was also unchanged over the month and has changed little over the year. Mar 13, 2019
What your stats show is a workforce returning after COVID. Which is very promising.
Note 2009 when Obama took office --- 66% participation rate.
I still don't see Obama "spiraling down". What I see (and it seems to be the point of the chart) is that people Retiring had an impact on decreasing participation rate. I also learned in my many economic courses is that the principal of Momentum applies to economics as well as the physical world (you may not be aware of this). Fair mined people would expect the participation rate to continue to fall after the massive job loss resulting from Bush's recession.
It seems that even though Obama stopped the job losses in early 2010, it took until 2014 for the participation rate to stop declining and until 2016 to begin getting better (the opposite of a downward spiral).
Yes, the Participation Rate has been riding rapidly since its low at the end of the Trump era.
What opinion does the majority of Americans have on who is responsible for growing inflation? And is inflation a priority that most Americans think about when going to the polls?
"Almost three-quarters of Americans said they're unhappy with President Joe Biden's handling of inflation, which is now widely considered the country's top priority for voters.
A record high of 70 percent of the general public said they disapprove of Biden's response to inflation, according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll.
The figure, recorded after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has helped push up oil prices globally, is slightly higher than the 69 percent disapproval Biden received for his handling of inflation in previous ABC/Ipsos polls from the end of January and mid-December.
The survey found the same percentage of respondents are also unhappy with how Biden is handling the surges in gas prices, with 70 percent saying they disapprove of how the president is coping, compared to 28 percent who approve.
Conversely, the same survey showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans (77 percent) support the U.S. banning Russian oil imports even if it means higher gas prices, compared to just 22 percent who oppose it.
Handling of Economic Recovery
The poll also found that Biden has an all-time disapproval high in ABC/Ipsos polls of 58 percent with regards to his handling of the post-pandemic economic recovery.
While high gas prices aren't the only manifestation of inflation, they are usually the most visible and painful example of rising living costs for Americans."
News Week - https://www.newsweek.com/biden-poll-inf … es-1687757
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/ … -news-pollI don't believe that it is Biden's fault, but he will get the blame because he is the man at the helm and this is his watch.
Hard to place actual blame. However, I feel some early decision-making increased our slide into the degree of inflation we are seeing today.
I have shared my view on where I think we are headed --- recession. And all the building blocks unfortunately look to be in plays. Today I read The Federal Reserve is expected to raise rates. That was the last piece of the puzzle. This could snowball into layoffs, and all the problems unemployment could bring.
Of well, who knows. We are living in unpredictable times.No, it is fairly easy to place blame. Where it doesn't belong is with Biden or Trump. The ACTUAL blame has been pointed out by several of us on several occasions.
And That would be your opinion, which I don't share, Again, I feel some early decision-making increased our slide into the degree of inflation we are seeing today.
There's no doubt the final (of 3) stimulus payments had to have contributed. But to exclude, which you do so often, the other two and just blame Biden, is where your opinion undermines itself.
We can agree that all three stimuli contributed to inflation. Did we need three, and added cash per child? Did this work to get people back to work or slow down people returning to work?
My view is that this administration lagged in getting people getting back to work due to all the free cash. The cash was a building block to create a problem with supply and demand., a jam up at our ports that has taken too long to fix. The Government has now overspent. And to put a cherry on top yesterday they raised interest rates. We have a perfect storm for a recession. I say we are headed for a true recession this year. The writing is on the wall in my view.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/14/econ … index.html
https://www.wsj.com/video/the-fed-could … F10AB.html
It is not JUST my opinion, it has a basis - the expert analysis of most economists (I am sure you can find one or two conservative ones that agree with you). They don't have the same mission to undermine Biden as you do.
I agree, partly.
The 'man at the helm' and his Administration set the tone for a lot of things.
Trump's trade war with China helped some businesses and hurt others.
Trump threatening companies that were planning on moving their manufacturing out of country helped keep some of those jobs here.
Biden shutting down pipelines and reinstituting tough regulations Trump had rescinded impacted jobs and efforts to create new oil production.
Biden talking up GM as the leader in EV transition while ignoring Tesla and setting government agencies to investigate Tesla has an impact.
Biden being limited in his ability to perform his duties because he has to spend half the day resting and recouperating affects his ability to have a positive impact, and effects how other international authorities, be they corporate or world leaders invest and react to America."reinstituting tough regulations Trump had rescinded impacted jobs and efforts to create new oil production."
President Biden restored limits on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities across the U.S. in a reversal of former-President Donald Trump’s rollback of the restrictions that were intended to reduce impacts on climate change from fossil fuel production.
I'll take the reduced methane levels.I bet President Biden is in better shape than Ken is, and certainly in better shape than I am.
Another example, Ken.
Trump has been accused of mismanaging the COVID crisis from the time it reached American shores and that was the real reason he was denied a second term. Trump was not responsible for the COVID pandemic totally, but that did not save him from taking the blame from the electorate.
From my point of view there was much to be negative about during Trump's tenure. And while he cannot be held responsible for everything, his aura and attitudes set the tone as to what so many found distasteful about his administration. The odor of racism and encouragement of authoritarianism both at home and abroad is something I don't consider positive and negates anything that people say that would be to his credit.
I am concerned about pollution and lax environmental regulations as the big shots are not affected nor care about by oil spills, tainted water supplies or toxic atmosphere as they are likely not to be affected directly. There needs to be a balance and Trump was hardly the man to see matters in that light.
So, considering my example, there may well be something to your suggestion that the "man at the helm" sets the tone.
Oftentimes, life happens and no one can be held directly responsible, 2008 meltdown, but if you were the man "on the hot seat", George W Bush, then guess who gets blamed for it?Again, I agree in part.
Biden came in appearing strong against oil, shutting pipelines down, reinstituting regulations, and the reaction to those moves by the oil industry at large has been higher prices.
When Biden became president, he did things that were insulting to the Saudis, and now when he goes to them for help, they don't have the time for him and aren't concerned about how high prices go.
So yes the President has an impact.
As for Covid and Trump, he was shutting things down and the Democrats came out and called him racist for it, there was even talk of impeaching him for it initially.
Funny how that was politicized against him for over reacting to Covid, then again later for his not doing enough, he got blamed for everything all the time.
Bid n in comparison gets a pass for what he has impacted far more than he is given credit for.You're painfully oversimplifying.
The two primary factors that impact the price of oil are:
Supply and demand/market sentiment ( the futures market). The concept of supply and demand is fairly straightforward except for the fact that the price of oil is we know it is set in the future's market where we have hedgers and speculators. I will not go into and involved explanation of that market. But back to supply and demand. There have been periods of time when supply has increased. Oil production in America was at an all-time high in 2019.
Production was high, but distribution and refinement were not able to keep up with it. The United States has built an average of one refinery per decade (construction has slowed to a trickle since the 1970s). There's actually a net loss: the United States has two fewer refineries than it did in 2009. Still, the 135 remaining refineries in the country have more capacity than any other country's capacity by a large margin The reason we're not awash in cheap oil is that those refineries operate at 90% of capacity. Refiners overwhelmingly agree that excess capacity is there to meet future demand.
Then there's the problem of cartels. Probably the single biggest influencer of oil prices is OPEC.
Collectively, OPEC controls almost 50% of the world's supply of oil. OPEC was founded to fix oil and gas prices. By restricting production, OPEC can force prices to rise, and thereby theoretically enjoy greater profits than if its member countries had each sold on the world market at the going rate.
So, no the President has very little he can do to control these factors.
Rather, supply, demand, and sentiment toward oil futures contracts, which are traded heavily by speculators, play a dominant role in price determination.Faye: Oil is one of the only commodities that can be traded while it is still in the ground. By exercising derivatives in the futures market, they can trade the underlying stock without even taking delivery of the oil.
Yes! Exactly. Those who try to draw a straight line between a president and oil prices/gas prices are missing a WHOLE lot of information in between the two points
You over complicate what is easily simplified.
I kept it simple for a reason, because we were focusing on the impact a president can have.
What other factors there are to supply and demand are irrelevant when we are talking about actions of a president and his administration being unfavorable to oil production, pipelines and the Saudi Royal Family.What then, very specifically, Is the impact a president can have? You would really have people believe that a president's disposition overrides supply and demand? What does President Biden's view of the Saudi family have to do with the global oil market? You believe that pricing oil is based on whim, emotion? Yes, if I "overcomplicate" by knowing the forces that actually effect oil prices, I'm going to stick with that.
You're going to need more foundation to back up your claims.He will probably give you a bunch of articles that still doesn't show where President Biden actually "shut down" an operating pipeline and therefore had no impact on the price of gas.
I already provided plenty of links in past posts.
Yes, the President's actions have significant impact in a lot of things.
With Trump, he had an impact because of his hard stance with China, that impacted certain commodities such as soybeans.
Biden has had a impact on oil and energy prices with his actions. Like this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-m … wsj-2022-3Seems to have much more to do with OPEC and their agreements than anything else....
Saudi Arabia is signaling it isn't willing to pump more oil and won't push for changes to an agreement with Russia and other producers that has kept a lid on oil production levels.
King Salman also said as much in a call last week with President Joe Biden. According to a Saudi readout of the call, the king highlighted the “the importance of maintaining the agreement" that is in place between OPEC, the oil cartel led by Saudi, and Russia.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi … s-82958855
Saudi Arabia has declined requests from the United States to increase its production of oil in order to reduce gasoline prices, instead sticking to an agreement not to pump more oil than the output decided last year by Opec and Russia.
Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman rejected calls to pump more oil and said renegotiating quotas among Opec members risked stoking more volatility in oil markets, according to the Wall Street Journal.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saud … production
So, OPEC had agreements in place determining the amount of oil they were going to pump and they are standing by that. Unless you have a source or a quote from someone in the Saudi Arabian government that specifically said they're not pumping more JUST to spite President Biden. Which honestly just seems ludicrous.
Seems a bit emotion based to infer the inner feelings of anyone actually. I'm not sure of the articles source for inferring that that Saudis felt "snubbed" That's quite subjective whereas their actual deals are quite objective.Fair enough, production will increase from Saudi Arabia in April, I think their "snub" was meant to make the Biden Administration squirm a bit, as prior to this crisis it had been rather dismissive of the Royal Family.
You see it as having more to do with prior arrangements, and perhaps both have merit.
Is it interesting that he keeps repeating the same disinformation - Biden shut down pipelines, plural. Everybody knows that Biden DID NOT shut down any pipelines at all! He canceled an incomplete effort to build an unnecessary and environmentally damaging project that had been cancelled previously.
Hopefully, one day, he will stop passing on false information."Everybody Knows that Biden DID NOT shut down any pipelines at all!"
https://alaska-native-news.com/biden-ad … ion/59587/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli … g-alaskans
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir … ge-leasing
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-shut … ng-1646999
https://clayhiggins.house.gov/media/in- … il-and-gas
Maybe Good 'Ol Joe had a good reason to shut down what he did, maybe it will save the world from climate change, maybe it will ensure we have cleaner water and air.
But the actions he took had an impact on gas prices, on jobs lost in the industry, and higher gas prices effect the costs of most other goods and services.
"What opinion does the majority of Americans have on who is responsible for growing inflation? " - I don't understand what people's "opinion" has to do with Reality. He either IS responsible, IS NOT responsible, or PARTLY responsible. His "responsibility" is independent of people's opinions
Very true it's all about individual opinions. It would seem the majority blame Biden for the inflation we have at this point.
What does "all about individual opinions" have to do with the causes of inflation (beyond the psychological factor that happens to create hyperinflation)?
Are you saying people's individual opinions CAUSE inflation?I am saying that individuals all have a right to their very own opinion on what might have caused our current inflation. I feel a few of Biden's early decisions ADDED to a speedy on slot of inflation, that is now snowballing. You will have a list of different reasons for what you feel contributed to inflation.
I can only assume that all those who blamed President Biden when oil was $130/barrel will thank him now that oil is under $100/barrel, right?
Gasoline where I am (Rapid City, SD) just fell to $4.14 today. The highest I have ever seen it outside of the trip I am currently on.
Yes, I thank Biden for the extra I've spent on Gasoline.Given Biden has little to nothing to do with the gas prices, your comment only proves how unreasonable and partisan you are.
The point is, oil tumbled more than 8% on Monday, breaking below $100 per barrel, amid talks between Russia and Ukraine as well as new Covid-19 lockdowns in China which could dent demand. Like I stated previously, oil prices aren't a force of political influence, they are actually governed by economic drivers and basic laws of supply and demand. So no, President Biden can’t just push a button and let everyone pay $3/gallon again. My previous post was to highlight the fact that some blame President Biden for gas/oil prices that are out of his control but keeping with their line of logic don't give "credit" When oil prices drop.
And Trump Republicans tune out facts and logic. That is why you are not getting through.
Trump Republicans don't have the ability to understand the difference. They will figure out a way to give Trump the credit for falling oil prices, lol.
Why are Big Oil companies price gouging Americans? (Because they can and do). They ratchet up gas prices as fast as oil prices increase BUT. when oil prices fall, like they have recently, these greedy companies keep gas prices high!
BTW, a round of unwarranted applause is due Biden for bring down oil prices since the Biden-haters blame him, without reason, when they go up. (Of course any fair-minded person knows a president has very little control over oil prices.)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/16/business … index.htmlInteresting article on why oil price fell yesterday.
New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/busi … china.html
"Oil prices dropped on Tuesday, falling below $100 a barrel, as China, the world’s largest oil importer, imposed new lockdowns to combat an outbreak of the coronavirus, moves that could threaten demand.
The swing in oil prices, which approached $130 a barrel last week, reverberated through the stock market: Airlines stocks rallied, and shares of oil producers slid.
Brent crude, the global benchmark, dropped 7.4 percent to $99.91 a barrel, its lowest price since late February. West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, fell 6.4 percent at $96.44 a barrel.
Over the past week, crude prices have plunged more than 20 percent, reversing much of the surge after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine added turmoil to an already-tight energy market. Tens of millions of residents in Chinese provinces and cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen are under lockdown amid an outbreak of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus. Travel has been cut off between cities, production lines have stopped and malls have been closed.
The measures could snarl global supply chains that are still struggling to recover from pandemic disruptions by slowing down key factory and transportation networks. Companies in China, including Foxconn, the Taiwanese electronics firm that assembles Apple iPhones, have suspended operations in the country.
Daily business updates The latest coverage of business, markets and the economy, sent by email each weekday. Get it sent to your inbox.
The new measures have hammered the Hang Seng Index in Hong Kong, where many Chinese companies are listed. With a drop of 5.7 percent on Tuesday, the index was down 10 percent so far this week and was at its lowest level since February 2016.
On Wall Street, falling energy costs helped lift share prices on Tuesday. The S&P 500 rose 2.1 percent, with gains led by airlines. American Airlines and United Airlines gained more than 9 percent on Tuesday, while JetBlue rose more than 7 percent. A data analysis released on Tuesday found that ticket sales for domestic flights in February exceeded those for the same month in 2019, a first since the pandemic began. The trend was expected to continue in March, according to early data from Adobe.
Oil producers tumbled. Chevron and Exxon Mobil both fell more than 5 percent, and Valero Energy was down 6.8 percent, making them among the worst performers in the S&P 500.
Gas prices, which have been rising for weeks amid the conflict in Ukraine, also fell slightly on Tuesday. The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline stood at $4.316, down from a high of $4.325 the day before, according to data from AAA.
CNN --- https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/inve … index.html
"What's happening: The unusually sharp pullback has been driven by hopes that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates could boost oil production, and that demand from China could drop due to new coronavirus restrictions in major cities. This would ease the squeeze on the market." Yet analysts warn that we're not out of the woods yet. Oil is still trading significantly above what it costs to produce it, and extreme swings are likely to persist at a moment of huge uncertainty.
"I wouldn't rule out $200 a barrel just yet," Bjørnar Tonhaugen, head of oil markets at Rystad Energy, told me. "It's too soon."
Big oil companies are very much watching out for their bottom line. And are very political. Biden has been no friend to the oil companies as Trump was.Maybe because shutting down travel to just one race of people and not the white people coming from the same country who could just as easily be carrying the virus is pretty racist.
While we live with all kinds of problems -- This is what the Democratic majority House s concentrating on. Any thoughts?
"The House fell short of passing legislation on Monday that would prohibit discrimination against people with hairstyles associated with a particular race or national origin.
Democrats set a vote on the bill, titled the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair, or CROWN, Act under a fast-track process used for noncontroversial bills that required a two-thirds supermajority for passage. While the bill clinched a simple majority, 235-188, it did not meet the two-thirds threshold due to GOP opposition.
It's possible that House Democrats will bring up the bill for a vote again later, but under a process where they only need a simple majority to send it to the Senate".
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5962 … riminationThe take-away seems to be that Trump Republicans continue to find ways to marginalize minorities.
At least 14 states already have a CROWN Act law in effect right now. I agree that nobody should be told how to wear their hair when it’s associated with their culture. People shouldn't be fired because of it or lose promotions because of their natural hair. I honestly don't know how much this happens But I'm sure someone somewhere has all the statistics on it. Obviously hair has nothing to do with competency. We've had quite a number of incidents of teachers taking it upon themselves to cut biracial children's hair recently in the media. Not sure if this bill is a culmination of those factors. The allegations are that Black women have been told their hair was “unkempt,” “unprofessional,” and “distracting” I don't think anyone should be barred from success because of the way they wear their hair.
Almost all laws come into being because one person (or group of people) are abusing somebody else's rights. I have observed in my 74 years that, as a rule, conservatives tend to let the abuse continue while liberals try to mitigate it.
Marginalize? With all that is going on in the world, and our very own country these half-ass fools waste time trying to pass a bill on hairstyles. This is pure pandering. I have never heard of something so ridiculous, and these fools come up with some pretty ridiculous causes. We have laws that cover discrimination in the workplace. I would think hairstyles are covered...
But, hey we all have views, this one we can't share.As far as I can see it was advanced by a handful of representatives. 2 from New Jersey. Just one of hundreds, or actually thousands, of bills proposed. Current laws do not adequately protect against such discrimination. It really seems as if it is being taken up on a state level for the most part.
It is silly that we have to still debate such things. You discriminate against hairstyles, you discriminate against people of a particular race or ethnicity that wear their hair in that fashion or are born with a certain hair texture. Seems pretty transparent to me.
Neat, clean, not posing an occupational hazard or when in the military, hair cuts applied to everyone and it was part of military discipline and decorum. Rejection of this modest proposal is directed at race and ethnicity without apology and is thus, unacceptable in my mind.
The problem remains that "neat" is subjective, but it may have to subject to more than the evaluation from a "Miss Clairol" standard, and that has to be made certain.
Is this sort of termination and denial of opportunity a way to get around equal opportunity employment laws?
The fact that Republicans resist supporting a concept we should not even have to discuss, without any good reasons, confirms what I have always believed regarding their true motives and beliefs, and it is not good.
I do have to give the Republicans some credit for standing up and declaring "lynching" as a federal hate crime. We might still be able to drag them, kicking and screaming into the 21st century.I suspect some here will find that long overdue piece of legislation a waste of precious time. I am glad most Republicans got on board, after opposing it for DECADES.
Here is one reason given why a Republican voted no - "This bill expands current federal 'hate crime' laws. A crime is a crime, and all victims deserve equal justice. Adding enhanced penalties for "hate" tends to endanger other liberties such as freedom of speech.
Does that mean he thinks Lynching is a form of speech?I'm sorry, I know this is off topic for this thread, but it was too good for me to pass up. And Tucker Carlson has been a topic of conversation on this forum before. Tucker Carlson has now become a comrade of Putin's. Tovarishch Tucker.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … rlson-fox/Comrade Tucker Carlson! New Twitter handle.
Yes, Tucker Carlson is an a$$hole, and while I am not apologizing for Putin, the West Still has created a provocative situation for Russia, one that we would not tolerate if we were in the same place. There remains something to be said about that.
I gotta ask again. How exactly how was the West provocative to cause Putin to make war on Ukraine twice?
Interesting article:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-na … ia-ukraine
Putin's demands are for the most part non starters, but is their ANY room for compromise in your mind?
A wounded animal is the most dangerous and since we cannot annihilate the Russian bear without annihilating ourselves, we may need to move away from the win-lose philosophy and attitude, offering some treatment for the wounded animal.
So, what's new, Esoteric? We have had to deal with maniacal Soviet/Russia tyrants before: Stalin, Khrushchev and all the others, including Putin. The idea of American global hegemony is simply not going to move us forward. We know that we would not have allowed the Warsaw Pact to move offensive weapons 90 miles from our shores.
"Let us not negotiate out of fear, but let us not fear to negotiate"
JFK....Too much common sense in that post Cred,
And too little of it from our own leaders.I would think there is room for negotiation with Article 5 and 6 of the treaty with the US and Article 5 for the NATO treaty..
Keep in mind who the aggressor is and who the defender is, vis-a-vis Russia and NATO. NATO expended because of the threat Russia posed to the newly freed nations. Putin has proven he has no problem trying to capture by force territory the USSR lost.
I think it is a false equivalency to use Cuba. Russia was threatening the US with nuclear bombs. Until Putin invaded Ukraine, NATO had not armed any of the ex-Warsaw pact nations with short, intermediate, or long-range offensive weapons.
As to negotiation, we tried that. We are trying that. But Putin isn't having any of it. All he wants is capitulation.I can understand the fear of former Soviet states if Putin continued to threaten them
"Until Putin invaded Ukraine, NATO had not armed any of the ex-Warsaw pact nations with short, intermediate, or long-range offensive weapons."
Does Putin want to die, would he abscribe to the fiction of a surviving a first strike initiative? Would he back down rather than take this gamble?
This was an important point, I did not realize that Putin has made his own bed, with his first attack on the Ukraine. The fear of the other ex Republics was justified based upon this example.Putin, like Trump, is a bully and dangerously narcissistic. He is supremely confident in his own gut and doesn't think he is ever wrong. Further, he and Trump do not have a concept of right and wrong - only what is good for them. They are not rational in the way you and I think about rational beings.
That gives him a great advantage because his opponents (us) are rational and understand the potential consequences - meaning we must tread carefully and lightly, but we must also oppose his desire to destroy democracy in America and Europe.
In my mind, and many other people much smarter than I am, that is what is at stake. Said another way, you give Putin Ukraine, you might as well give him our freedom as well, for he will not stop.
Interesting I just posted a similar sentiment in another thread about this.
If we were to put ourselves in Putin's shoes, cutting off the banks, trade, and supplying Ukraine with billions of dollars of weapons that are being use to shoot down my planes and helicopters and destroy my tanks...
Well I'll leave the rest to your nightmare scenarios... we may be getting closer to such than our MSM will ever suggest.
Well, Esoteric, it is a day late and and a dollar short. Over more than a century a determined minority in Congress in the interest of maintaining Jim Crow and its associated terror, considered extrajudicial murder of black citizens as not worth their time.
Meanwhile, hiding behind the false veneer of "state's rights". These people have always been known to me, they, with slight of hand, may move the pea to another shell, but the pea is always there.
I am not patting anyone on the back for something that should have been addressed decades ago. I am asking why the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was allowed to be "watered down" and not renewed? Where do you think that so many states have the temerity to introduce voter suppression legislation that would not have passed muster under VRA 1965?
Rightwingers will say that it was the Democrats, but no, it was the conservatives just wearing another label and a replacement set of white sheets at that time.
-----------------
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … s-failure/
Cred,
'It is silly that we have to still debate such things. You discriminate against hairstyles, you discriminate against people of a particular race or ethnicity that wear their hair in that fashion or are born with a certain hair texture. Seems pretty transparent to me."
Sorry to hear you feel I discriminate against --- hairstyles, different races fashions. But, hey that's your right.
My comment was more or less not to point out anything BUT ---While we live with all kinds of problems -- This is what the Democratic majority House s concentrating on. Any thoughts?
The article was just a source to prove the House was truely addressing this problem at this point. I can see my post was taken out of context. I felt my lead sentence would have been clear enough to get my point across. I can see it did not.
However, I am glad a few have commented and expanded the subject.
As I shared with Faye, I would love to see congress work on systemic racism. Perhaps start with more opportunities to reach their potential through better education. However, if this is the only perk the Dems have to offer the minorities, I have no problem with it. I guess I see better fixes that should be front and center. I mean if the House wants to adopt a cause -- how about better education opportunities? Just pointing out the small bone they are tossing out. I would like to see them work harder on the big stuff, would not this be more suitable for you? This gesture seems like they are placating, pandering. We need the big stuff front and enter. Is the present Congress helping in any respect with systemic racism, other than words? Very curious to hear your thoughts on that subject. Have I missed something?I also see this bill as not so much representative of the party as a whole as it is to the interests of the Representatives who put it forth. I took a look at the government site that tracks all the current bills (And there's just way too many) But it's interesting to take a survey of what's there and how very wide ranging the bills are. Many states have already passed their version of the crown act. I suppose these reps want to see federal protection for the states that will not enact such legislation. Systemic racism is sure a hot button issue. We have a large number in our country who don't even believe it is an issue. I'd love to see reforms in education and in particularly it's funding. But it seems these days we are rather consumed with diversions like book burnings, CRT , editing history so we don't hurt feelings, suing teachers /districts who acknowledge that their student has 2 moms/dads. Yes, absolutely I'd rather hear about issues that matter like unequal funding, improving our students competitiveness with top-notch curriculum, social safety nets to help kids who come from difficult homes, aging school buildings, enormous classroom sizes & "innovative" charters that funnel off students leaving the rest of the school to atrophy. The problem? One party will advance ideas and the other will stonewall it. Most often, just for the reason of obstructing not even offering any ideas of their own. Our parties would rather fight and vilify then be productive.
" Systemic racism is sure a hot button issue. We have a large number in our country who don't even believe it is an issue. "
Yes, and lots of promises were made. Just feel this particular bill is not at all as important as providing all-round better education. As a teacher, I am sure you realize history is only one subject. I hope we can see all around better education in our school system that produces children that can be proficient in math, and science. Education is a path out of poverty, no good education ultimately won't be a cure-all for racism. But it will be a path to a great form of equality. Yes, hairstyles should not be discriminated against. But neither should children's education.Sharlee, One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that the great majority of teachers fight for their students education everyday, Even when it comes out of their own pockets. They buy those extra materials that makes a classroom, that enriches our curriculum. And we always have that basket of healthy snacks for "everyone" But it's really targeted for the few we know are falling through the cracks. Education is the pathway out, absolutely agree!
"Just feel this particular bill is not at all as important as providing all-round better education." - [i]But why not pass it? Every little bit helps to push back on America's racism. Why do nothing?[i]
Sharlee:
I would think congress could walk and talk at the same time. That's why they have committees and those that sponsor the bills. I don't think the Jan. 6 committee has stopped its investigation to pass this bill. I'm sure congress can multitask their agendas and concentrate on education as well as racism.
In my view the ones that need to be educated are the racists. That's the path to equality to racism. Yes, the path to bring those who are living in poverty is to be educated as well. However, I believe there are those in this country who resent well educated people who have pulled up their bootstraps and risen above poverty. They need to be educated as well.It seems some missed my point --- so I will elaborate offering my clear view.
I think with the country facing a very serious crisis (the war in Ukraine where we are seeing a form of genocide as we did in 2013) It would be more prudent for Congress to perhaps address president Zelinskyy's plead to close air space. Or at best send him a well-constructed response to his plead. Or perhaps they could work on passing -- Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 01/12/2022) S.3488 - Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022
Or --- H.Res.956 - Supporting the people of Ukraine.
Just perhaps with a crisis, we could worry about the Hairstyle bill a bit down the road. We have many bills that protect against discrimination in the workplace. I do realize this administration had hoped to "say look over here not there". This is what they do, and it thus far has been unsuccessful. As the polls have indicated in many respects. 53% of Americans disapprove of Biden's job performance only 43% approve. Only 75% of Democrats approve of the job he is doing. This bodes very poorly for the party... https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/ … opagnqapa/
In no respect do I support discrimination of any sort in the workplace. However, when we have so many pressing problems, could we prioritize? You may feel like this administration can walk and chew gum, many of us out here don't share that view.
In my opinion, education is the pathway to eradicating racism. However, blatantly causing turmoil and pointing a finger will never aid in the eradication of racism, It will only work to keep it alive and well.
I have no complaint about the Jan 6th committee. I feel it is totally political, and this is what political parties do. Most citizens know this and have come to expect this kind of politicking.
I as a rule do follow findings and weed out facts from mere views. Thus far I have seen no evidence, but lot's of opinions.Sharlee:
"I think with the country facing a very serious crisis (the war in Ukraine where we are seeing a form of genocide as we did in 2013) It would be more prudent for Congress to perhaps address president Zelinskyy's plead to close air space. Or at best send him a well-constructed response to his plead. Or perhaps they could work on passing -- Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 01/12/2022) S.3488 - Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022"
The fact is there is not much Biden and the NATO countries can do without risking WWIII. Putin has them between a rock and a hard place as heart wrenching as it is to watch the horrific attacks on Ukraine and its people. The NATO countries have agreed to not allow a no fly zone.
They are supplying more sophisticated arms to combat the Russian's air space. Hopefully their guerrilla style tactics will wear Putin's troops down. As I understand it Putin has put all his eggs in one basket by funding his military as his highest priority. His economy plus the sanctions could be the beginning of the end for him in the near term. He is very unpopular with many of his people as he is still running his country as a dictator and many of his protestors will probably end up in Siberia and/or graves.I am not pointing a finger at Biden in this conversation. I am saying we have many pressing problems in regard to Ukraine. I offered you just two bills that are sitting in Congress that would help the people of Ukraine, and we are putting a hairstyle bill on the floor instead of these bills. As I said I have no problem with the hairstyle bill, just the timing of the bill.
The air space should be voted on, it should have been voted on a week ago... Our Congress is politicking with human beings' lives. Pony up and vote... let's see how individual representatives vote.
Hopefully, Americans will wake up to the fact we are once
again sitting by watching people being killed, that are begging for our help.
But, we have precedence Obama's Syria. Guess we are getting more accustomed to it. We are talking about Russia's economy, gas prices, and making idle threats.
yes, Putin has put his eggs in one basket, he has little to lose at this point but his reputation. Wonder how he feels about that?
So NATO can look the other way, wonder how the people in NATO countries would feel dumping their two-year-old in a mass grave?
Sick of all the BS... We have become lesser human beings
day after day. I am just realistic enough to face it. I have never been so ashamed of the US in my life. I can imagine the pain of these people, can you? When you beg and no one comes... NATO has blood on its hands. They have played God --- who lives who dies. This is not the America I knew.
We are not between a rock and a hard place. We are hiding under a rock.Sharlee: NATO includes a coalition of former Warsaw Pact countries that belonged to the former Soviet Union. Many of them now surround Russia. Putin has vowed, if anyone of those countries steps foot by ground, air, or sea, into Ukraine, Putin said he would consider that an act of war.
So it would be the Russian forces against the U.S. forces, the two most powerful countries the world has ever known both with enough nuclear capability to clear humanity off this planet several times over..
We really don't have any clue what Putin is capable of doing in his present frame of mind.
All of the NATO countries, including the U.S. have agreed they would not invade Ukraine. However, many of them have supplied arms to Ukraine so they can defend themselves. However, if Putin attacks any of those countries, Article 5 of NATO says, "if you attack one you attack all." because we are part of NATO, it is not a matter of just our congress voting. It is matter of NATO voting.
We really don't know what Putin is capable of doing. He is like a person with a hand grenade, saying if you come any closer, I'm going to pull the pin. We are not hiding under a rock as you say. We are doing everything we can to help the Ukrainian people and prevent WWIII from happening at the same time.The house just passed the Crown Act. Now all we need is the senate to do the same thing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60798834As I offered you in my last comment the Senate has more important issues on their plate - urging Biden to give the migs to Ukraine.
The hairstyle bill will need to wait until the Senate gets its answer from Biden in regards to helping prevent the genocide of a Nation.
Sorry I feel this so much more important than the hairstyle bill.Sharlee: I learned a long time ago when you have a list of things to do, you divide the list into priorities and long term and short term jobs. If something is short term and a lower priority, you do that first to get it out of the way, so that you can concentrate on the long term priority.
It's too bad the senate is not capable of doing that according to you. Or is it they think that it is a Black Lives Matter thing, so they are putting it on a back burner or just ignoring it completely?
Biden is not going to give any Migs to Ukraine if NATO voted no. That's how a coalition works. When they go to war, they are all in it together. When they don't go to war, they are still in it together. Yes it is sad about the attacks he is making on Ukraine. But war is hell and so is everything is fair in love and war.
So you would rather risk WWIII with a possible mad man instead of trying to solve the problem by shutting off his economy and giving Ukraine the highly sophisticated arms to bring down Putin's aircraft. Do you think if we created no fly zones, it would be over in a few days with no American deaths? If you think what he is doing now is genocide, you have no idea what he can do to turn their entire people and their country into rubble. There was a famous general who said, "The only way to control a city is to turn it into rubble." And that is precisely what he is doing in Mariupol.Further, I have listened to many military experts on the subject. I would say it is 5 to 1 against transferring the Migs. That said, my personal opinion is to not oppose Poland from transferring them if that is what they want to do.
The caveat, of course, is that Biden has a ton more access to information than I do, or even politically oriented Congress. Consequently, I do not look on him not wanting to do the transfer under NATO auspices as a negative. Despite my personal view, it is probably prudent.Here are two perspectives as to why we are not sending Polish Mig 29's to Ukraine. Both of them make sense to me as being a veteran of the cold war. Those jets require ground maintenance and command and control systems.
It's folly to think Putin is just going to sit there and watch those systems being installed. It will be like shooting sitting ducks for him. Politicians don't have a clue as to what they are asking Biden to do.
https://www.vox.com/2022/3/13/22975269/ … escalation
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/14/uk … -fighters/Until this war, Mike, I would have (and did) think the same thing about Putin's capabilities. But to me at least, he has woefully underperformed which explains why the Ukrainians still contest the air space and are gaining ground in a couple of areas while holding the paper tiger at bay in all the rest.
We do know he is killing innocent human beings... That we know. It seems you did not add that into the equation.
Last I heard we were a Nation that could solely make our own decisions.
8 days ago --- GOP senators demand that the U.S. help transfer fighter jets to Ukraine
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … -rcna19643
3 days ago -- Lawmakers raise pressure on White House to back Poland plan (on both sides) "Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have upped the pressure on the Biden administration to support Poland’s plan to send fighter jets to Ukraine, despite officials’ insistence the idea is moot.
The administration last week called the move to take Warsaw's fleet of MiG-29 fighter jets to then transfer to Kyiv a high-risk and “escalatory” response to Russian aggression, but the demands to reverse course speak to larger pressure to do more to help Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky is likely to ask Congress to back the plan in a virtual address on Wednesday, ramping up more pressure on the administration even as it has insisted it will not budge." https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5983 … oland-plan
2 days ago --- Graham introduces a resolution urging Biden to help send jets to Ukraine
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced a resolution on Wednesday urging President Biden
Republican senators introduce bill to ban Russian uranium imports
Energy & Environment — Ruling blocking climate accounting metric halted
Fauci says officials need more than .5B for COVID-19 response
to help facilitate the transfer of fighter jets and air defense systems to Ukraine.
Graham's nonbinding resolution, which is backed by nine other GOP senators, would throw formal Senate support behind encouraging Biden to "support the transfer of aircraft, such as MiG-29s, and air defense systems to Ukraine" and give Senate backing to efforts by other countries to transfer planes or air defense systems to Ukraine.
"I'm urging the Senate to speak with one voice, to meet the moment. ... If we had a vote on the resolution to supply the Ukrainian military with the MiG fighters and other air defense systems, it would be a shot in the arm to Ukrainian people and their military," Graham said.
"It would be a blow to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. If we do this soon, I think it really could help the outcome of this conflict," he added.
Graham's resolution comes after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky virtually addressed Congress on Wednesday, urging the United States to step up its response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine."
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/598 … planes-for
The ball is in Biden's court... We should know by now, he ignores problems until he has made a bigger mess.Tell me, why hasn't Poland not simply invited Ukrainian pilots into their country and give them the keys to the MIGs? Biden is not stopping them from doing that.
I can only tell you it appears Poland had the right to do just that, and pass the buck to NATO and the US. And Biden has been approached by both sides of Congress to make the decision to give Ukraine the Mig's. as Poland has requested. Biden has said no he will not supply Ukraine with the Polish Migs.
"President Biden on Friday defended his decision to veto the US-facilitated transfer of fighter jets to Ukraine to repel Russia’s invasion, saying, “that’s called World War III.” https://nypost.com/2022/03/11/thats-cal … o-ukraine/
Poland could provide the migs, but put the US in the middle due to being afraid of Russia's reprisal.
It sounds like you are suggesting that Congress focus on only one bill at a time. That they should suspend all action on other legislation until the process plays out for one bill before they even think about the next? Seems pretty inefficient to me.[/i]
Great comment, although I disagree with the last sentence - I think "our parties" is overly broad. While 90% of today's Republican Party (the Trump Republicans) fit into that band, I would argue most Democrat's and independents do not. There is certainly that far-Left fringe of the Democrats who should be included in your observation, I would argue that it is only the far-Left fringe.
That post was not directed toward you, Sharlee. I wasn't referring to you. It was directed at those in Washington that find it necessary to protect people from discrimination based on the hair on their heads.
Discrimination based on hair COULD correlate to racial or ethnic discrimination. Don't want to split hairs, but discriminating against "corn rolls" is the same as discriminating against black females. I don't know many white females that wear corn rolls or afros as a pattern.
Right now, it is one perk more than what is offered by the Republicans. You bet, my whole theme has been to get more substantive change within this society and move beyond the minutia. The Democrats (mainstream) are painfully slow, while the GOP are indifferent and in many instances from certain members reveal open hostility to these aspirations.
No, you have not missed anything, you got it.I am pleased to hear that comment was not directed at me. I certainly see your point about the problem of discrimination of hairstyles or fashions for that matter. I think anyone should be able to wear their hair as they please.
Yes, this bill would be a plus, a perk. But as you have said many many times we need substantive change.
I took a quick look at 2022 bills that pertained to education that has been offered up. many were submitted by democrats, but I was surprised to see some very good bills that republicans have submitted too.
Could it just be that Congress is the problem all together? Are they too slow, and pick the wrong causes to tangle over?
"This is what the Democratic majority House s concentrating on. Any thoughts? " - How do you jump from the Democrats doing their job to doing something wrong? That doing their job is somehow denigrating minorities? That addressing an injustice is something Democrats shouldn't be doing? That somehow Democrats must limit their time to issues you consider important to the exclusion of all others? It seems pretty disingenuous to me.
We were energy independent under the policies of President Trump and gas cost have what it does now. It is not by accident. It is by design to force electric cars on us. You can't get to work in your 15 year old Honda you sap! Buy a $60,000 electric car! What's wrong with you?
Trump’s policies rendered America energy-independent for the first time since 1957. America was producing so much oil it had actually become an oil exporter.
The Biden administration, influenced by the purported goal of reining in so-called human-caused climate change, changed America's energy policy overnight. The government is now strangling the fossil-fuels energy market, and it’s everyday Americans who are paying for it. This shouldn’t surprise Americans. In a debate with Bernie Sanders on March 15, 2020, candidate Biden said he would prevent oil companies from drilling as part of the effort to combat climate change. At a CNN debate, he said, “No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.”"We were energy independent under the policies of President Trump " - Obviously, you have been tricked by Right-wing media into believing a false narrative.
The TRUTH is 'We were energy independent under the policies of President Obama'
"It is by design to force electric cars on us. " - Sounds illogical to me, can you prove it?
"The government is now strangling the fossil-fuels energy market, " - I guess you will need to prove that one as well, since that makes no sense either because fossil production is growing under President Biden's policies..
First you say "Candidate Biden said he would [b]prevent oil companies from drilling[b] as part of the effort to combat climate change. " (there was no caveat in that claim), and then you say '“No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.”. which adds caveats that make your first claim false.
In fact, that whole line about Biden wanting to "shut down all drilling" has been debunked several times. Here is just one of them.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … g-and-no-/
Very nice excuses. Bit it would seem you are more concerned about Putin than civilian's lives --- how logical. I would think this will be the very logic we use when Putin continues to dictate to the world with his nuke threat as he moves through Europe.
The fact is those planes are up and serviced and ready to go. So perhaps we need to find a new excuse to fall back on.
"Last week, the Polish government unexpectedly offered to transfer its entire operational MiG-29 fleet — 23 aircraft — to the US in order for it to deliver them to Ukraine.
In exchange, Poland asked the US for used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities, and Warsaw called on other NATO members that fly MiG-29s to do the same." Source - Last week, the Polish government unexpectedly offered to transfer its entire operational MiG-29 fleet — 23 aircraft — to the US in order for it to deliver them to Ukraine. In exchange, Poland asked the US for used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities, and Warsaw called on other NATO members that fly MiG-29s to do the same.""Last week, the Polish government unexpectedly offered to transfer its entire operational MiG-29 fleet — 23 aircraft — to the US in order for it to deliver them to Ukraine." - And what does that prove? That Poland wanted to pass the buck to NATO? Why did they want those planes to go through American hands first? Why does our military think the US giving MiGs to Ukraine is "untenable"? (I thought you have previously said Biden ought to listen to his generals. Have you changed your mind?)
Why didn't Poland simply give the planes directly to Ukraine (a question asked of you many times but goes unanswered), we would have backfilled them later. In fact, we are in talks with Poland to backfill them. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bi … -rcna18876offered my opinion on that a few pages back ... Here is the permalink link to that conversation.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4234597Sharlee:
Very nice excuses. Bit it would seem you are more concerned about Putin than civilian's lives --- how logical. I would think this will be the very logic we use when Putin continues to dictate to the world with his nuke threat as he moves through Europe.
The fact is those planes are up and serviced and ready to go. So perhaps we need to find a new excuse to fall back on.
"Last week, the Polish government unexpectedly offered to transfer its entire operational MiG-29 fleet — 23 aircraft — to the US in order for it to deliver them to Ukraine.
In exchange, Poland asked the US for used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities, and Warsaw called on other NATO members that fly MiG-29s to do the same." Source - Last week, the Polish government unexpectedly offered to transfer its entire operational MiG-29 fleet — 23 aircraft — to the US in order for it to deliver them to Ukraine. In exchange, Poland asked the US for used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities, and Warsaw called on other NATO members that fly MiG-29s to do the same.
Everything you just stated is very nice. But the one thing you overlooked is how to get those planes from Poland to Ukraine. They have to go to Ramstein Air Force Base, Germany, which is under American control. Therefore it involves us into the war.
By the way, I feel as heart wrenched as everybody else as far as civilians being killed. I am concerned about what Putin can do if we cross his red line. As I understand it, the Ukraine forces are holding their own against Russian forces, thanks to all the arms and training we have given them. Their is always collateral damage in any war. That's what war is about is killing people. Look at what we did to Japan, Italy, and Germany. The only time you win is when the enemy has given up their will to defend themselves.
Very nice excuses. Bit it would seem you are more concerned about Putin than civilian's lives --- how logical. I would think this will be the very logic we use when Putin continues to dictate to the world with his nuke threat as he moves through Europe.
Putin is not going to be able to move through Europe, if NATO does its job. You and I are both concerned about Putin what he can do, but we are approaching it from different angles. NATO says, if you attack one of our countries, you are attacking all of them.
On another note, I see that the senate has passed the Daylight Savings Time bill. It appears they feel that is important enough, even based on what is going on Ukraine, but not the Hairstyle Bill...What a country we live in!!!"Everything you just stated is very nice. But the one thing you overlooked is how to get those planes from Poland to Ukraine. "
You feel we should be so fearful that we can't move planes from Germany to Poland so Ukraine piolets could fly them to Ukraine? And in the next breath, you state Putin is not going to be able to move through Europe if NATO does its job. You may want to consider just how very weak NATO has appeared, and how Putin is becoming more aggressive each day.
The other day I posted a comment in regard to Putin's threat to use his brand new Hypersonic weapon --- he used it today. He also stated this weapon can hold a nuclear warhead.
I would say so far Putin does what he said he will do if necessary. He has all along threatened to use nukes. I take him at his word. I think NATO shoud too. I will stick with logic, and what Putin has done thus far, just what he said he would do. I had hoped NATO would have considered those facts. But it is very clear they have not.
Source -- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1 … -first-tim
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60806151
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru … 022-03-19/
So next will I be adding links about Putin dropping a nuke on Ukraine?
I say he will if he needs to, and it well looks like he will need to, due to the fight Ukraine is putting up.
I don't care much about our Congress, gave up on them some years ago. Hey, it would seem they are setting priorities... Look here not over there --- LOLMike, maybe you know something I don't (which is likely), but why is it necessary for the MiGs to go through Ramstein?
Looking to the future, an analysis I was reading from Critical Threats suggested that the Ukrainians have successfully prevented Putin from achieving his initial objectives. They point out everywhere, save for Mariuplol, the Russians are digging in, getting ready for a stalemate - a la WW I. They think this will lead to a very bad outcome for the people of Ukraine because Putin will bomb them into the stone age.
They are presuming that like in WW I neither side will have he forces to prevail. I offer that the Ukrainians are at a different place than the armies fighting in WW I. Ukraine has many millions of willing and able fighters at their disposal to overpower the Russians. All they will need is the material, equipment, and training to produce more divisions for the Ukrainian army.
Putin does not have the same capability.Scott: It was Poland's idea to send the Migs to Ramstein Air Base. However, John Kirby, the Pentagon Secretary said that would make the U.S. responsible for getting those planes to Ukraine. And it would not be worth taking that risk to enter into a confrontation with Russia and Putin.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … hter-jets/Yes, I am aware that Poland suggested that. But is that "required" in order to get the jets to Ukraine? What is stopping Poland from doing it themselves from their own airbases, if they feel like it?
A little personal anecdote: When I was in Slovakia helping them prepare for an application into NATO back in the mid to late 1990s, I was at one of their airbases trying to get an understanding of how they operate their air force. My group was out on the tarmac and had to shelter from the rain for a little bit under the wing of a MiG-29. It was really surreal.Scott:
My group was out on the tarmac and had to shelter from the rain for a little bit under the wing of a MiG-29. It was really surreal.
That's one heck of an umbrella!!!
Polish pilots, who are also NATO pilots, couldn't fly them to Ukraine without risking NATO involvement in the conflict, and sending Ukrainian pilots to Poland to fly them back could present similar issues.
Read the last paragraphs from the link below, It explains why it is not so simple for Poland to fly their own planes to Ukraine and based them there.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/ … o-Ukraine?For you airplane buffs, here is everything you wanted to know about NATO's and Poland's Mig 29's.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th … li=BBnb7KzYep, it certainly was. Had a very interesting two weeks. Their food is GREAT and inexpensive.
I recognize Poland can't fly them to Ukraine. I suspect there is more to the story as to why the Ukrainian pilots had to go home empty handed. The calculus is whether Putin would go nuke or chemical based on Ukrainians flew the aircraft out of Poland.
I also don't buy the argument about vulnerability. I once thought that at the beginning of the war. But events proved me wrong. They have an air force that is still conducting missions, I imagine they can hide a few more jets.
What I think they need most are drones of all types, anti-air weapon for all altitudes, Patriot systems for missiles, and anti-artillery radar systems.Scott: Here are the weapons the U.S. and other countries are sending to Ukraine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/ … a0e5487bdf
I looked at that previous conversation and found you addressed one or two of my questions.
That said, you seemed to take Biden's side on his refusal. Why then are you lambasting him for doing what an Executive is supposed to do and not simply obey Congress' every wish?
This post belongs here and in the one on Ukraine.
Former Trump National Security Advisor praises Biden for uniting the West against Putin.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/business … index.htmlMcMasters gave his educated opinion, based on his experience, and the knowledge in regard to how he felt Biden handled the Russian crisis.
"Former Trump national security adviser H.R. McMaster said Russian President Vladimir Putin has been caught off guard by the West's united front deploying tough sanctions in response to the invasion of Ukraine — and that the Biden administration deserves credit for helping foster that unity.
"Putin perceived weakness and disunity," McMaster, a retired Army lieutenant general, told CNN in a phone interview. "But what he got instead was an extremely high degree of unity."
Sanctions levied on Russia have left the country's economy in tatters. The ruble is barely worth a penny, the Russian stock market has been shut for a month and Moscow is at risk of its first international default in more than a century."
In his opinion, the sanctions have worked to leave the Russian economy in tatters, and Biden created a high degree of unity. In my view, both are evident and ring true.
However, let's have a look-see at what another foreign policy advisor has to say about Biden's sanctions on Russia, and how Biden went about initiating the sanctions.
"'Putin doesn't seem to care: Obama former foreign policy advisor says Biden's Russia strategy HASN'T seemed to work because Kremlin 'knew the sanctions were coming' - Ben Rhodes
'I think again, the challenge here is, Vladimir Putin doesn't seem to care. He knew that these sanctions were coming,' said Ben Rhodes
'I think the U.S. had communicated to Russia precisely the kind of sanctions that would be coming, so I don't think he's in any way caught off guard." source - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … -work.html
Rhodes's statement and opinion also make sense.
So, who's opinion would be more reliable? Both are well versed in their expertise, One feels the sanctions were working, the other feeling Putin knew they were coming, and was not surprised by them.
Was Putin caught off guard by the sanctions or did he know what they would be, and expect them.?
I have always been very impressed by McMasters. Rhodes, not so much.
But in this case, both have good points. But McMasters has offered a few pertinent facts to support his view -- Rhodes did not.
Facts-. "The ruble is barely worth a penny, the Russian stock market has been shut for a month and Moscow is at risk of its first international default in more than a century."
I prefer the article that the national security adviser offered some evidence to back his view. Which did you prefer? https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/23/busi … index.html"McMasters gave his educated opinion, based on his experience, and the knowledge in regard to how he felt Biden handled the Russian crisis. " - SHOULD BE "McMasters gave his educated, expert opinion, based on his experience, and the knowledge in regard to how he felt Biden handled the Russian crisis. " That gives his opinion the weight it deserves.
Rhodes expert opinion doesn't contradict, as you imply, what McMaster had to say. Both can (and are) true at the same time. Biden is doing a masterful job at holding the West together in the face of terrorist Putin's onslaught AND Putin doesn't seem to care - yet.
But, is crazy Putin the target anymore? I don't think so. I think the people of Russia are the target, but not for punishment. Instead, I think the goal is to make them wonder why their lives have gone to hell and start asking more questions about what child-killing Putin is up to.As I stated I feel both men gave their educated opinion. Both opinions wanted merit, not one over the other due to one praising Biden.
As I said --- I have always been very impressed by McMasters. Rhodes, not so much. But in this case, both have good points. But McMasters has offered a few pertinent facts to support his view -- Rhodes did not.
Facts-. "The ruble is barely worth a penny, the Russian stock market has been shut for a month and Moscow is at risk of its first international default in more than a century."
I prefer facts, as McMaster's presented. I also respect and am open to Rhodes's opinion due to his experience.
Leaders who Rose to the Occasion when nobody thought they would
-- Abraham Lincoln
-- Winston Churchill
-- John Kennedy
-- Volodymyr Zelenskyy
-- Joe Biden
Leaders who totally failed their nation
-- William Harrison
-- Franklin Pierce
-- James Buchanan
-- Andrew Johnson
-- Adolf Hitler
-- Joseph Stalin
-- Saddam Hussein
-- Leaders if North Korea
-- Donald Trump
-- Vladimir Putin
to name a few.To be fair, Esoteric, I really couldn't blame William Henry Harrison for much as he died in office after serving as President for only one month.
The positive examples were definitely good ones....Yes, that is true, I thought it was another one I didn't list.. I wonder why he rated so low.
This would be your opinion. I have offered polls on the subject of Biden's handling of Ukraine as well as his Job performance --- these polls show the majority of Americans feel he has failed on both and more. and worsen daily... That leaves your view in the minority. I could dispute others on your list, but have no interest in doing so. Your bait is very weak. Maybe instead of wasting your time on lists, where you can add Trump, you should take note of how that confused fool is roaming around Europe embarrassing America and keeping the White House busy trying to clean up his messes.
I predict Biden falls under Carter for worst President. In my view, he is the worst we have had in my lifetime.
"56 percent of Americans think Biden’s first year was a failure"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/4 … -the-union
Biden's Polls Fall To New Low
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … low-survey
So appears not many would put Biden on a list of presidents that did well or anything positive."This would be your opinion." - Actually, it is the opinion of historians, I happen to agree. I like historian views because emotion is minimized while reasoned logic is maximized. The polls you reference are all based primarily on emotion and propaganda.
So, while I understand a significant Americans currently feel Biden is doing poorly (and in a couple of areas, I am one of them), I will wait until the professionals start making their calls.
Another point, and I tried to differentiate with my headings, is that the group Biden is in are those who were (are) faced with an existential crisis and rose to the occasion. In the case of Ukraine, clearly Zelenskyy fits the bill, and the lady I was listening to thinks Biden probably will as well. And from what I have observed, I agree with her - without Biden, the West's response would not have been nearly as cohesive and strong.
For the "Rising to the Occasion list, I got the idea listening to a historian who was being interviewed. To be fair, she was not 100% on Biden and wanted to wait a little bit longer before being categorical about it.
For the bad leaders, the foreign ones are self-evident. For the US Presidents, it is derived from subjective and objective criteria, depending upon who is doing the rating. The one I considered is from a C-SPAN 2021 survey (Biden wasn't rated yet). That said, when I look at other rankings, some of which use objective criteria, the final results look similar.Historians have offered these lists? I want a source or I will consider your post misinformation.
Again I repeat - Polls are the opinion of Americans that take the polls. Polls are good indicators of what the general population is feeling about a given subject. Biden's poll shows the majority of Americans don't approve of Biden, in many respects.
Biden has made a fool of himself in Europe this week and kept the WH mopping up all his crazy statements. That's your guy...
I want to see a source of that contains your two lists.You could have easily found this yourself, but since you asked. In another post I mentioned C-Span (which is the source for the Bad President list. This reflects the kinds of sources I always use.
[i\]The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and biographers. The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership has taken place four times: in 2000, 2009, 2017, and 2021.[16][17][18][19] The most recent survey was of 142 presidential historians, surveyed by C-SPAN's Academic Advisor Team, made up of Douglas G. Brinkley, Edna Greene Medford, Richard Norton Smith, and Amity Shlaes. In the survey, each historian rates each president on a scale of one ("not effective") to 10 ("very effective") on presidential leadership in ten categories: Public Persuasion, Crisis Leadership, Economic Management, Moral Authority, International Relations, Administrative Skills, Relations with Congress, Vision/Setting An Agenda, Pursued Equal Justice for All and Performance Within the Context of His Times—with each category equally weighed.[20] [/i]
The rest are similar.
If you want more information try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … _C-SPAN-31
While it may be too early to rate Biden, historians are pretty much in unison regarding these ratings of success order for previous Presidents and unfortunately, from your standpoint, Trump consistently rates toward the bottom. Who else besides academically qualified historians can make these evaluations, and what is the source of those that can challenge them and why and what is the basis that should I give the alternate source any credibility?
Cred, I have a problem sticking Biden on a list of best presidents at this point. In my view, he has single-handedly made a mess of each and everything he has touched. I must question the list of best presidents? Biden has been in office a bit over a year, and we sure are skrewed up big time.
I predict it will get much worse over the weeks to come... I hope to see ECO produce the source that has already placed Biden on a president that rose to the occasion... I laugh as typing this.
Trump actually faced a crisis that not many presidents could come close too.I would not say at this point that Joe Biden would make the list of the "best" presidents until his term has completed.
There are many instances where Biden has performed well, but it is premature to say where he will be rated.
We have to ask the question that if Trump has been the successful problem solver why is he universally placed at the bottom of all of the presidential historians lists?I simply gave my own opinion on what I felt about Trump's problem-solving skills. We all have opinions, and you and I have certainly come to know we have very different ideologies, It would be futile to argue about what historians feel about Trump.
I tried to make clear to Sharlee, but obviously failed (or she ignored it) but the first list ISN'T the Best Presidents. It is a list of those who Rose to the Occasion in a Crisis. Big difference. But hey, she hates Biden so it was to be expected.
Sharlee, Biden is totally unfit to be president. Biden's election substantiate the intellectual deterioration of those who voted for him. Biden is taking America so far to the bottom, it is tragic. Biden is the WORST president thus far, even Carter is better than he is. America would have been so much better if Trump was president.
All these poll numbers and Biden is still no different than where Trump was during his whole Presidency. Actually, Trump left office with just 34% approval. That you cannot view that as the worst ever speaks solely to your own sycophant, cultish devolvement.
When Biden fails to halt the next pandemic and incites a terror attack against his own country - then perhaps he can be on par with Trump as the worst president in history.I am with you, and we are all along for the ride. Astonishing is it not? I can honestly say, I found Trump a superb problem solver, and I do not feel the Ukraine war would have happened if Trump was in office. He has a mouth on him, but could quickly and efficiently;y handle problems and avert problems.
Sharlee;
"Yes, or perhaps like he did today with his verbal threat directed at Putin... "For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden said during the speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland."
If Trump would have said that, you would probably be praising him from up one side and down the other. Trump my hero. I knew you didn't like Putin and now you have proved it. You are such a great problem solver.Praising him to the high heavens and saying LOOK another problem solved.
Here is the difference between she and I - I would be praising Trump for saying that as well, as I have in the past when he said appropriate things. (But, I suspect he would be saying Zelenskyy should step down.)
Here's my take on the polls and Americans thoughts on President Biden's handling of Russia/Ukraine. For what it's worth, my extrapolation from some data:
So the new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that a majority of Americans think President Biden has not done a good job in his handling of the war. Many say that he has been too cautious, even as a majority say they're wary of sparking a broader conflict. This is a bit of a contradiction in my eyes but I can understand it. But You can't have your cake and eat it too.
"The American people are supportive of Ukraine, up to a point," said Chris Jackson, a senior vice president at Ipsos, which conducted the poll.
More than 6 in 10 Americans want the U.S. to give Ukraine some of the support it wants, while still trying to avoid a larger military conflict with Russia. Fewer than 2 in 10 say the U.S. should give Ukraine everything it wants, even if it risks a wider war.
Those responses were remarkably consistent across the political spectrum with strong majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents all in agreement. But when Americans are asked to assess President Biden's performance, that bipartisan consensus breaks down.
This is where my frustration begins. What he's doing seems to really fundamentally align with what the American people want, according to the polls. But even if President Biden is doing everything that people want to do, he doesn't and is not not going to get a lot of credit for it.
Overall, only 36% of Americans say Biden is doing a good job in response to the war in Ukraine, while 52% say he's not. That disapproval is driven largely by the GOP: 81% of Republicans rated Biden's response as fair or poor. On the other hand, 62% of Democrats described the president's response as good or excellent.
Everything is breaking along party lines these days and probably well into the foreseeable future. Honestly I think we have rabid partisanship that is destroying our country. It is a doom loop of mutual distrust. And when lot of folks are not even willing to hear or consider factually based reality if it doesn't align with their self imposed D or R designation.
You can CLEARLY see that on the thread pertaining to judge Jackson. It gets quite irrational and personal for no reason. Some people are losing the ability the evaluate situations based on multiple confounding factors and facts, without emotion. In the end, I don't think it matters to a great degree what President Biden does, He will not have Republican support regardless. And conversely, if there were a Republican president in office right now he would not have Democrats support either. It really all goes back to the divisions that have been meticulously, methodically cultivated.
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/24/10885688 … -inflation"What he's doing seems to really fundamentally align with what the American people want, according to the polls. But even if President Biden is doing everything that people want to do, he doesn't and is not not going to get a lot of credit for it." - Which demonstrates the impact of Right-Wing propaganda.
The vast majority of Republicans are Trump Republicans now and their knew-jerk reaction is to hate Biden regardless of the facts.
I think it depends on the type of Republican president there is. If it is Eisenhower, Reagan I, or a George H. W. Bush, I am not sure you would see knee-jerk disapproval. If it is a Trump-type Republican, then there would be and it would be well deserved.Almost missed your post, I really can't disagree with your views Faye. It is very clear we have a very serious stalemate in the country. I feel it will cause greater problems in the future. In regard to the thread on Judge Jackson, I stepped away, I see your point about it becoming somewhat toxic. I watched the three days of hearings. I also did a little research on her credentials, and after seeing her answer questions, I think she is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. I did not pick up anything that would make me think she might be biased politically. Will she be? Hey, that could be possible with anyone the Congress approves of, and places on the Supreme Court.
My view of Biden stems from my own perception of what I hear and see from him. I find him inept to do the job he was voted by the people to do. When it comes right down to it --- He just does not earn my trust or do I identify with his ideologies. The ideologies that I value, and I don't intend to give up.
This is why we have such a split in the country, many of us basically feel the America we know and are proud of is well worth keeping. We are just not looking for a "new world order". We are hell-bent on keeping America we appreciate, and have enjoyed our entire lives. So, yes I see that this division has been meticulously cultivated for many years now. But, I think the split is here to stay, Americans have a deep divide due to contrasting ideologies, and both sides have different ideas on what would be the best path to go down.
While we are on the subject of presidential rankings, I found these interesting factoids:
1. Of the bottom five presidents - all were conservative or call themselves that:
-- 39: John Tyler
-- 40: Willian Harrison (but served only 31 days)
-- 41: Donald Trump
-- 42: Franklin Pierce
-- 43: Andrew Johnson
-- 44: James Buchanan
2. From a 1982 Murray-Blessing Survey that asked Liberals and Conservatives to rank presidents
-- In the top 10, each listed the same nine. Lyndon Johnson was on the Liberal list and Dwight Eisenhower on the Conservatives list.
-- The bottom seven had a similar result. The Liberals ranked Calvin Coolidge in 30th place while Conservatives put Jimmy Carter there.
3. This is from a 2010 Siena College research project using objective data.
-- Top Five
---- FDR
---- Theodore Roosevelt (really?)
---- Abraham Lincoln
---- George Washington
---- Thomas Jefferson
(Obama came in 15th)
-- Bottom Five
---- Andrew Johnson (worst)
---- James Buchanan
---- Warren Harding
---- Franklin Pierce
---- George W. Bush
3. This is from a 2018 Siena College research project using objective data.
-- Top Five
---- George Washington
---- FDR
---- Abraham Lincoln
---- Theodore Roosevelt (still really?)
---- Thomas Jefferson
(Obama came in 17th)
-- Bottom Five
---- Andrew Johnson (worst)
---- James Buchanan
---- Donald Trump
---- Warren Harding
---- Franklin PierceDwight D. Eisenhower was more of a caretaker totally unsuited for the challenges that were right around the corner.
That is why conservatives loved the 50s, the good ole days when everybody stayed in his or her place.
While I can't compete with esteemed and scholarly historians, Lincoln has always been No. 1 on my list.
It does not matter whether the listing leans conservative or liberal, Trump has to be at the near bottom of any list.Not sure I agree about Eisenhower. I remember him and reading about what he was up to as president for two terms. His greatest accomplishment, of course, is enforcing Brown v Board of Education when Conservatives fought to stop its implementation.
I didn't know it, but he created HEW. Other things he did was
- Oversee the expansion of Social Security
- Trump Republicans will absolutely hate this one; He signed the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 allowing 214,000 more immigrants into the US.
- Appointed Earl Warren
- US and Taiwan sign mutual defense treaty
- Eisenhower signs the federal highway act based on what he say in Germany during WW II
- Appoints William J. Brennan to the Supreme Court
- Signs the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (voting rights)
- The aforementioned troops to Little Rock
- Signs the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (voting rights)I heard that he was a "reluctant" warrior when it came to civil rights. He once said that he regretted appointing Earl Warren as Chief Justice in 1953, as he was more activist than he had expected. He adhered to the law but unlike Kennedy or Harry Truman, he took no initiative. He just was a stickler for adherence to the law which was to his credit. He was well in the groove regarding"gradualism", when most of us believed that we had waited too long already. As an African American, Civil Rights is an overwhelming large consideration that I will judge former Presidents by.
I don't dismiss him totally, he was just highly mediocre in my opinion."gradualism" is another word for pragmatism in my book. Pragmatists, historically, are the ones that got things done once the zealots sowed the seeds.
Oh yes, Biden is going to do even "greater" things. Oh boy. Biden indicated that there would be food shortages & rising gas prices. What a great president Biden is (sarcasm). By the time Biden is finished w/America, America will be impoverished.
Yes, or perhaps like he did today with his verbal threat directed at Putin... "For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden said during the speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland.
He is off his rocker and needs to be removed. he is not only devastating America but the World.And there you go again, undermining Biden and sticking up for Putin. Traitor.
I am done with Biden and anyone that supports him. I in no respect have I stuck up for Putin. I tell it as I see it. Biden is an idiot, and I am very sure Putin knows that. He undermines himself whenever he opens his mouth and says anything that comes into his mind. he needs no help --- Oh other than the White House that has to daily clean up his off the chains statements.
I see my comment really got under your skin, you had to do what you do best -- Just lash out and call others names.Simply by denigrating Biden, you give aid and comfort to Putin. Too bad you don't understand that.
Well, that's not how I see it... I have no intention of supporting a man that I feel is not cognitively fit to hold the job. That may be your thing, but I feel it very unintelligent to stand behind a president that is single-handedly ruining America.
His statement today could and very most likely will cause Putin to retaliate and step up his killing spree on the Ukrainian people. Will it be tomorrow or Monday?
Denigrate Biden, Putin well knows half or more of America never wanted Biden as president. So, that cat has been long out of the bag. But Putin wanted Biden to be president, and he got his wish.Thank you, you aren't denigrating Biden. You are telling the truth. Biden is a bottom feeder as far as presidents goes. If Biden can be president, ANYONE can be. Biden isn't the brightest beam, in fact, one can classify him as a pure dolt.
All very true. Hold on to the prospect we will be ridding ourselves of this man in the next elction. he as well as the Den party is toast. People have come to their senses and are having buyers remorse. Thankfully we can see an end to this administration.
Yet you support Trump who most mental health professional who don't mind speaking out say Trump is mentally ill - dangerously so. So why should I not believe your statement about Biden is anything more than partisan hate that is not based on reality?
Again, you get your facts wrong. Well over half of Americans DID want Biden to be president even though, according to US Intelligence, Putin tried to keep Trump in power.Of course, Putin wanted to keep Trump at the helm in America, just like Col. Hogan needed to keep Col. Klink in charge at Stalag 13
Not sure this makes sense? Did Putin become aggressive under Trump in regard to waging a war on a sovereign country? Did I miss that? Your statement needs a bit of stuffing. This makes no sense. Trump was no friend to Russia in any regard.
It wouldn't make sense for you as it is hard to define. It is my opinion that Putin would have preferred Trump as leader just as he did in 2016.
"Did Putin become aggressive under Trump in regard to waging a war on a sovereign country? " - [i]Of course not, Trump was destroying NATO for Putin - which is what Putin's end goal is. Why go to war with Ukraine while your so-called "opponent" was accomplishing your objective already?
As to "your regard" that is probably the only thing you disagree with Trump about. He clearly was enamored by murdering dictators, he praised them all and wrote "love letters" (according to Trump) with one of them.
If fact Trump praised Putin again yesterday while blaming Biden for Russian deaths - what a guy."Of course not, Trump was destroying NATO for Putin - which is what Putin's end goal is."
Not sure what you are referring to. Did Trump pull out of NATO? Were we still in ATO when he left office?
Enamored with Putin, How so? He placed more sanctions on Russia than any previous president. AS I have proved before, Trump armed Ukraine with lethal weapons. Not sure how this benefited Putin in any respect.
In my opinion, Biden is certainly not helping the situation with his recent statements crazy statement.
Love letters, again not sure what the hell you are talking about. I would suppose it's some crap you heard on CNN.
I did not listen to Trump's rally, and I don't intend to. I won't just take select words and try to put context to them."He placed more sanctions on Russia than any previous president." - I don't understand WHY you keep repeating debunked right-wing propaganda after it has been PROVEN to you several times that he (Trump) has not done so. It MAY have happened during his administration, but Trump [b]actually fought most of the sanctions[b] and refused to implement others that Congress TOLD him to. You have been proven wrong on this so many times now that restating it becomes a lie.
Love Letters - I doubt the "news" you watch wouldn't have carried Trump talking about that because it is a total embarrassment. But those words are straight out of your hero's mouth (and I think you know this)[/i]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … mar-a-lago
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/13/no … ear-talks/
Here, you can watch him say it (sickening) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/vid … g-un-video
That was my first thought as well. She is in complete denial of Trump's dangerous mental state while claiming she could never support someone with mental issues. Complete hypocrisy and cultish behavior to not see the obvious.
You divert. My comments in regards to Trump refer to his skills for averting problems and being a problem solver. I made no mention of his character. You are reading your own thoughts into my comment. other than having a However, I do not feel Trump shows any symptoms of cognitive problems. Biden has one foot into senility.
Your comment is another denialism as Trump had to solve problems of his own creation time and time again, which you give him credit for. If he didn't exist, those problems would not have even been there.
What did he solve? Not crime - that rose. Not racial tensions - those rose. Not the deficit - that was a new record. Not unemployment - that went down by the same it had been before rising during Covid. Not jobs - Obama's record was better and Trump ended with a net negative job addition after Covid. Stock Market - wasn't an issue since it had already doubled, although it did do well under Trump. Immigration - sky high numbers up until Covid, with those being similar now when you don't omit unique encounters when comparing to 2019 (which you always do because you fail to understand the change in the way encounters are now tracked). Covid - he did more to rail against basic prevention and figures have the death toll in the hundreds of thousands more based on Trump's mistakes and the vaccine was already done before Trump got involved. Climate change - Trump policies hurt way more than they helped and he undermined the scientists on this critical topic. Tariffs - he decimated our agriculture markets and needed billions in socialist subsidies for farmers.
He moved an embassy which helped Israel and did nothing for the US.
And it's painfully obvious that Trump's malignant narcissism is leading him to try and make the United States into an authoritarian state that serves him and his allies. That his need for attention is easy for people like Putin to manipulate and leads to national security issues where Trump divulges classified information to Russia in Oval Office meetings.
And you repeating your senility claims, while omitting Biden's disability, is just your latest conspiracy theory where you parrot right-wing media to be a hateful person. It's a common theme with you, to omit pertinent information that can explain something so simple.
But you grabbed onto this one so long ago, as evidenced by the numerous threads you post, that it's part of your own disgusting nature and nothing anyone says will dissuade you. So you feel it's your duty to come to this site every day and parrot your beliefs over and over again, despite no one else really believing you and just thinking you're the crazy person in the room.
So be it.The American Covid death toll is now over 1 million and many of those can be traced back to bad decisions made by Trump in terms of both policy and messaging. His ONLY claim to fame in that regard is having pushed for and signing off on Operation Warp Speed.
His embassy move made things much worse in that area, which is why more strategic thinkers didn't support it, AT THAT TIME, in the first place.Trump is not president, Biden is. The death rate is not him. He has done nothing new in his time to curb the death rate. he has had plenty of time... Where are gis solutions? Do we have any new vaccines or any form of mitigation that would have curbed the death rate? has he done anything but toss some cash at citizens? He has come up with Zero solutions that would have to curb the death rates. In reality, Trump worked on getting the vaccines that truely curbed the death rate, and gave us the opportunity to wt out the virus to the stage it has mutated into. A virus that causes few symptoms, and few deaths. Biden has done nothing in regard to Covad but cry baby about whatever he could cry baby about. In my view, anyone who disparages Trump's handling of COVID is a half-brain. Just how I look at it. II feel very confident in my opinion. Onc again Trump did a superb job handling COVID. yes, the death tool did go up under Biden, I blame that on his inability to educate the population in regard to being vaccinated. Many do not trust his opinion or his administration's ability to be truthful.
"Trump is not president, " - THANK GOD!!!
"Biden has done nothing in regard to Covad" - And you are back to outright lying again.
So redundant... You need to face some facts. You put your money on the wrong horse time to go home with empty pockets. Actually, all I have predicted about this fool has come to fruition. Believe whatever you chose, that's what is good about being a liberal --- that's allowed.
As always, you misunderstand why we have Biden. I put my money against Trump because everyone, but his cult members like you, could see how dangerous and ill-equipped to be president he actually is.
And you still cannot acknowledge any of that. You refuse to accept that Trump attacked democracy itself. Your refuse to accept his malignant narcissism. You refuse to believe he gave away classified information to our enemies.
The group that is believing whatever they choose* is your party. Belief that 2020 was 'rigged,' belief that Trump was a good president, and belief that he did not commit any crimes in office. It'd be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.Many in America disagree with you. I accepted the election, and I have seen no evidence of Trump committing any crimes at all. I prefer to stand strong that one is innocent until proven guilty. In fact, I am so proud to say that.
I have held on to common sense and legitimately can say I have not been tainted by media propaganda. Can you say the same? In no respect bought into crazy accusations and unfounded statements by touts.
I feel I have survived all the BS, and I am proud of that. Now you, can you say that and really mean it?When Trump is named as a co-conspirator in a felony conviction, and is only protected by his office, I believe I can stand by my statement as well.
When Congress concludes he violated the Hatch Act in holding a campaign event on the White House lawn, I find it interesting you missed all the evidence as a die-hard Trump supporter. Oh, the Hatch Act would be a federal law by the way.
These are two obvious ones. And neither are media propaganda. They are official rulings by courts and Congress. Places where you clearly do not get information from.
Actually - nothing you predicted has come to fruition, not even close. Or should I ask, Prove It.
I Said day one when we were paying two dollars and change for gas, Biden would have us paying five and up for gas, and that's would cause inflation. I also said oil would reach over 100 per barrel, also that we would pay almost double heating bills, and I also predicted we would have record-breaking inflation. Biden has made one mess after another.
At this point, I will go on the record and say Biden will see the lowest presidential polls of any President we have seen in our lifetime. That inept man is just getting started. Add to that Republicans will sweep in 2022, and we will see a Republican President in office in 2024.
The Biden Bunch makes predicting so very easy. Like I said believe whatever you please, that would be your right."I Said day one when we were paying two dollars and change for gas, Biden would have us paying five and up for gas," - While you were correct on the price of gas going up you are clearly wrong on who or what to blame. You have been debunked many times already on your broken record of blaming Biden for increased gas prices. Give it up and save yourself the embarrassment.
So, that prediction about Biden is obviously wrong.
"I also said oil would reach over 100 per barrel, also that we would pay almost double heating bills," - That moldy claim of yours has also been debunked many times already on your broken record of blaming Biden for increased oil prices. Give it up and save yourself the embarrassment.
So, that prediction about Biden is obviously wrong.
"I also predicted we would have record-breaking inflation." - That repetitive claim of yours has also been debunked many times already on your broken record of blaming Biden for increased inflation. Give it up and save yourself the embarrassment.
So, that prediction about Biden is obviously wrong.
You are 0 for 3. Care to try again?Your comment is redundant and once again your opinion. perhaps you need to do some research on why we are paying more for gas, and heating bills. I will stick with facts, not your opinion. To be truthful, I just have little respect for your thought process.
We have supplied you an multiple occasions (especially Faye) with information that clearly debunks you wrongly held believe. It is you who need to do research and get away from this "the sun shined every day since Biden took office so therefore it is Biden's fault that the sun shown" nonsense.
Of course you have little respect because most of the time it is spot on and contradicts you.You have offered your opinion, very rarely do you post a source where you got that opinion. Please have a look at your comments on any given thread, you just don't offer any sources. I mean, one only needs to have a quick look to see I am very much correct in my assumption. You offer redundant comments over and over... And Faye, take my word she can speak for herself. My comments as a rule will contain sources, you know the comments you ignore.
You just posted some off-the-wall comment that the Ukraine people supported Biden's "Putin needs to be removed " statement. Not sure how you know about how citizens of Ukraine feel about actually anything, let alone what they felt about Biden's inflammatory statement. I do know that while Biden was speaking Putin increased his bombing.
6:49 pm: Putin cannot remain in power, Biden says
Russian President Vladimir Putin could not remain in power, and his war against Ukraine has been a strategic failure for Moscow, Biden said on Saturday.
"For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden told a crowd in Warsaw. Biden also said the Russia-Ukraine war, now in its second month, had united the West, adding that NATO was a defensive alliance which never sought Russia's demise.
7:25 pm: Lviv mayor reports further strike
Lviv, some 60 kilometres (40 miles) from the Polish border, has so far escaped the bombardment and fighting that has devastated some Ukrainian cities closer to Russia since Moscow launched its invasion.
But on Saturday Governor Maksym Kozytskyy said two rockets had struck the city's eastern outskirts in the mid-afternoon and ordered residents to take shelter.
Later, Mayor Andriy Sadoviy said there had been another strike. "One more rocket strike on Lviv," he said in an online post.
7:49 pm: Kremlin spokesman dismisses Biden comment on Putin not staying in power
The Kremlin's chief spokesman dismissed Biden's remark that Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power," saying Russians choose who their leader should be.
Asked about Biden's comment, spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Reuters: "That's not for Biden to decide. The president of Russia is elected by Russians." A White House official said Biden, who was speaking in Warsaw, had not been calling for regime change in Russia.
8:04 pm: Biden not calling for Russia 'regime change', White House says
Joe Biden is not seeking "regime change" in Russia, the White House said, after the US president declared in a major speech that Vladimir Putin "cannot stay in power".
"The president's point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbours or the region," a White House official said. "He was not discussing Putin's power in Russia, or regime change."
8:20 pm: Lviv saw 'huge plume of black smoke'
"The residents all around were staring at this huge plume of black smoke rising from the city, coming from the northeastern," FRANCE 24's Catherine Norris-Trent reported from Lviv in the video below.
"There have been several air raid sirens ringing out around the city with announcements telling people to get into bomb shelters, so it's a change here because the strikes this afternoon hit the fuel depot around 5 km from the city centre -- so a pretty significant development in Lviv, which has seen several incidents but on the outskirts and around the wider region."
9:21 pm: Kyiv says US has 'no objections' to Poland supplying war planes
Ukraine said that the US does not object to the transfer of war planes to Kyiv to help it fend off the Russian invasion, after the Pentagon previously rejected a "high risk" offer from Poland.
Officials in Washington "have no objections to the transfer of aircrafts. As far as we can conclude, the ball is now on the Polish side. We will look further into this matter in our conversations with Polish colleagues," Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said in written comments.
9:44 pm: Russian forces are firing at Kharkiv's nuclear research facility
Russian forces are firing at a nuclear research facility in the city of Kharkiv, the Ukrainian parliament said in a Twitter post on Saturday.
"It is currently impossible to estimate the extent of damage due to hostilities that do not stop in the area of the nuclear installation," the post quoted the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate as saying.
The inspectorate's website did not contain any news about the attack.
Source --- https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2022 … saw-speech
It's unfortunate I needed to take my source from an outlet in France. you see we just get the news they want us to see....
This is a clear picture of what Biden's statement caused. A factual timeline of the events. you see Russia/Putin does not pond decisions for many days, he just acts.
So maybe Joe should shut the hell up! I can very well surmise the Ukrainian people would appreciate that, especially after Putin's presence to Biden's comment in almost real-time
Note I offered a source. So, one can see how I came to my view, that Biden should shut the hell up.That's a load of crap. We have shown you links to when oil production got cut as well as how gas and oil corporations are making record profits.
It goes in one ear and out the other as you keep saying the same stupid things. It's all Biden's fault and you think he's got mentation issues. You've said it two to three times already today.
At this point, you're just a spammer. Same point, despite any medical diagnosis to back it up, repeated over and over again. Same blame game, that ignores many other factors that are responsible for some of the country's issues.
Let us know when you bring something new and credible to the table. Maybe we will take what you have to say seriously then.Oil production? I am commenting here on Biden's "Putin needs to be removed' statement.
and what occurred along with a timeline on what this fool caused with that statement. Nice deflect but no cigar. This subject arose from ECO's sentiment that the people of Ukraine were appreciative of Biden's statement "Putin needs to be removed". It's clear on that day they paid hell for Biden shooting off his mouth in my view. So, once again for the second time...
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2022 … roduction?
I offer I reputable link to an outlet in France. If anything one might question why this timeline was not offered by our American news outlets.
This article was well presented. I pretty much knew some here would not believe it. I would hope some American journalists will pick up on this article, and follow up on it. I think they will in the next day or two. Just such a provocative timeline of events, well written, backed up clearly with names, events, and timeline. hard to dispute when facts are used every step of the way.
Tip, start looking to other countries for news because they are reporting it.
Actually, I have offered a thread on this timeline. I feel it should be shared, for many obvious reasons. It provokes many lines of discussion. Why have we not been availed of the timeline? Does Biden pose a danger to our security? Did the people of Ukraine suffer unduly due to Biden's remark?You're so confused you don't even know what you are replying to. Eso noted how we've debunked your claims, but you say unless we had a link, you cannot believe our claims.
Which is a comical catch-22, because you seem more than capable to look up the information if you really wanted to see what was accurate. Or if we do post a link, you so often just brush them off as not something you would take seriously.
At this point, you are remaining willfully ignorant in order to spew numerous false narratives.
And this siding with Putin and attacking Biden does make you a traitor as our countries are clearly on different sides of this conflict.Sharlee: To answer your last two questions, no and no. I read your entirely link and it seems you only selected those parts that make it look like Biden's statement are the cause for the attack on Ukraine. But the time line shows there are many attacks before Biden even gave his speech.
There are parts where Biden is praised for what he is doing.
5:30 pm: Thousands of Russians rally against Putin in Prague
Thousands of largely Russian protesters rallied against President Vladimir Putin in central Prague on Saturday, calling on him to stop the war in Ukraine.
Around 5,000 people, according to the organisers, chanted "Russia without Putin", "Freedom for Russia, peace for Ukraine" and "Putin is not Russia" as they marched through Prague's historic centre.
"The Czech Republic is home to 40,000 Russians and up to now these Russians have been unknown to the Czechs," organiser Anton Litvin told AFP.
"We want to show that the Russians who live here are against Putin, against the war, that they support Ukraine," added the artist and activist, who has lived in Prague for ten years."
Here is the entire timeline for everyone to read as posted by France24.
Four rockets hit the western Ukrainian city of Lviv on Saturday, local officials said, in the most significant attack on the city since the start of the war with Russia. Governor Maksym Kozytskyy said five people had been woundedafter two rockets hit a fuel depot and two others later hit a military factory. Read our live blog below to see how the day's events unfolded.
9:44 pm: Russian forces are firing at Kharkiv's nuclear research facility
Russian forces are firing at a nuclear research facility in the city of Kharkiv, the Ukrainian parliament said in a Twitter post on Saturday.
"It is currently impossible to estimate the extent of damage due to hostilities that do not stop in the area of the nuclear installation," the post quoted the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate as saying.
The inspectorate's website did not contain any news about the attack.
9:21 pm: Kyiv says US has 'no objections' to Poland supplying war planes
Ukraine said that the US does not object to the transfer of war planes to Kyiv to help it fend off the Russian invasion, after the Pentagon previously rejected a "high risk" offer from Poland.
Officials in Washington "have no objections to the transfer of aircrafts. As far as we can conclude, the ball is now on the Polish side. We will look further into this matter in our conversations with Polish colleagues," Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said in written comments.
8:20 pm: Lviv saw 'huge plume of black smoke'
"The residents all around were staring at this huge plume of black smoke rising from the city, coming from the northeastern," FRANCE 24's Catherine Norris-Trent reported from Lviv in the video below.
"There have been several air raid sirens ringing out around the city with announcements telling people to get into bomb shelters, so it's a change here because the strikes this afternoon hit the fuel depot around 5 km from the city centre -- so a pretty significant development in Lviv, which has seen several incidents but on the outskirts and around the wider region."
Smoke billows from the Pidzamche neighbourhood after explosions were heard in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, on March 26, 2022.
Smoke billows from the Pidzamche neighbourhood after explosions were heard in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, on March 26, 2022. © Marion Payet, AFP
01:14
8:04 pm: Biden not calling for Russia 'regime change', White House says
Joe Biden is not seeking "regime change" in Russia, the White House said, after the US president declared in a major speech that Vladimir Putin "cannot stay in power".
"The president's point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbours or the region," a White House official said. "He was not discussing Putin's power in Russia, or regime change."
7:49 pm: Kremlin spokesman dismisses Biden comment on Putin not staying in power
The Kremlin's chief spokesman dismissed Biden's remark that Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power," saying Russians choose who their leader should be.
Asked about Biden's comment, spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Reuters: "That's not for Biden to decide. The president of Russia is elected by Russians." A White House official said Biden, who was speaking in Warsaw, had not been calling for regime change in Russia.
7:35 pm: Watch Biden's speech here:
US President Joe Biden delivers a speech at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland on March 26, 2022.
US President Joe Biden delivers a speech at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland on March 26, 2022. © Brendan Smialowski, AFP
26:27
7:35 pm: Biden's speech was an 'exception to the rule'
"A lot of people say it's difficult to watch Biden speak because he has a lot of passion but he doesn't always communicate it well," said FRANCE 24 International Affairs Commentator Douglas Herbert in the video below. "This speech was an exception to the rule."
06:53
7:25 pm: Lviv mayor reports further strike
Lviv, some 60 kilometres (40 miles) from the Polish border, has so far escaped the bombardment and fighting that has devastated some Ukrainian cities closer to Russia since Moscow launched its invasion.
But on Saturday Governor Maksym Kozytskyy said two rockets had struck the city's eastern outskirts in the mid-afternoon and ordered residents to take shelter.
Later, Mayor Andriy Sadoviy said there had been another strike. "One more rocket strike on Lviv," he said in an online post.
6:49 pm: Putin cannot remain in power, Biden says
Russian President Vladimir Putin could not remain in power, and his war against Ukraine has been a strategic failure for Moscow, Biden said on Saturday.
"For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden told a crowd in Warsaw. Biden also said the Russia-Ukraine war, now in its second month, had united the West, adding that NATO was a defensive alliance which never sought Russia's demise.
6:42 pm: Ukraine war a 'strategic failure', Biden says
Biden called the conflict in Ukraine a "strategic failure" for Russia but said ordinary Russians were "not our enemy".
"Let there be no doubt that this war has already been a strategic failure for Russia," Biden said in a speech at the Royal Castle in Warsaw.
6:35 pm: World must prepare for 'long fight ahead', Biden says
Biden portrayed Ukraine's resistance against Russian forces as part of a "great battle for freedom" and said the world should prepare for a "long fight ahead".
Speaking at Warsaw's Royal Castle in Warsaw, Biden also said Russia "has strangled democracy and sought to do so elsewhere" and told Ukraine: "We stand with you. Period."
6:15 pm: Biden gives speech to 'free world'
Biden is speaking in Warsaw's Historic Castlr Square, recalling the memory of John Paul II, the Polish former pope and an icon of freedom in Eastern Europe due to his opposition to Soviet-backed communism.
5:35 pm: Biden's speech in Warsaw will be 'historic'
Biden's speech will be "historic because he will be giving his definition of the free world", noted FRANCE 24 correspondent Emmanuelle Chaze from Warsaw in the video below.
03:18
5:30 pm: Five wounded in strikes on Lviv, governor says
At least five people were wounded Saturday in two strikes on the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, the regional governor said, in a rare attack on a city that has escaped serious fighting since Russian troops invaded last month.
"There were two missile strikes within Lviv," the regional governor Maksym Kozytsky said, adding that, "According to preliminary data, five people were injured." Plumes of thick smoke could be seen by AFP journalists in the city centre.
5:30 pm: Thousands of Russians rally against Putin in Prague
Thousands of largely Russian protesters rallied against President Vladimir Putin in central Prague on Saturday, calling on him to stop the war in Ukraine.
Around 5,000 people, according to the organisers, chanted "Russia without Putin", "Freedom for Russia, peace for Ukraine" and "Putin is not Russia" as they marched through Prague's historic centre.
"The Czech Republic is home to 40,000 Russians and up to now these Russians have been unknown to the Czechs," organiser Anton Litvin told AFP.
"We want to show that the Russians who live here are against Putin, against the war, that they support Ukraine," added the artist and activist, who has lived in Prague for ten years.
5:10 pm: Kremlin says Biden's Putin comment limits prospects of mending ties
Joe Biden's latest comment about his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin narrows the prospects for mending ties between the two countries, TASS news agency cited a Kremlin spokesman as saying on Saturday.
Biden referred to Putin as a "butcher" during a visit to NATO ally Poland and said he was not sure Russia was changing its strategy in Ukraine, despite getting bogged down in some areas.
4:35 pm: Biden's focus on 'need for NATO'
Biden's focus in Poland is on the "need for NATO in Europe", FRANCE 24 International Affairs Commentator Douglas Herbert said in the video below. "We're at an inflection point in the world right now. What's happening in Ukraine will really decide the direction in the battle, as Biden sees it, between democracies and autocracies."
05:19
4:05 pm: Russian oligarchs welcome in Turkey, foreign minister says
Russian oligarchs are welcome in Turkey but must abide by international law in order to do any business, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said.
"If Russian oligarchs ... or any Russian citizens want to visit Turkey of course they can," Cavusoglu said in response to a question at the Doha Forum international conference.
4:04 pm: Three explosions heard near Lviv
Three explosions were heard near Ukraine's western city of Lviv on Saturday, an official from the Lviv city council said.
"There have been three powerful explosions near Lviv...Everyone should keep calm and stay indoors," Igor Zinkevych said in a post on Facebook.
Reuters witnesses saw heavy black smoke rising from the north-east side of the city. The cause could not be immediately verified.
3:50 pm: Biden says he is unsure of Russian strategy change
Biden said he was not sure that Russia had changed its strategy in its invasion of Ukraine, after Moscow said its focus was now to completely "liberate" the breakaway eastern Donbas region.
"I am not sure they have," Biden said when asked by a reporter if Russia had changed its strategy.
3:49 pm: Polish leader says he asked Biden about speeding up military purchases
Polish President Andrzej Duda said that during his meeting with Joe Biden in Warsaw he had asked about the possibility of speeding up military purchases.
Duda said he was referring to purchases of Patriot missile systems, High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), F-35 aircraft and Abrams tanks.
3:47 pm: Biden calls Putin 'a butcher' while meeting refugees
Biden called his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin a "butcher" while meeting Ukrainian refugees in Warsaw.
Asked what he thought of Putin after meeting refugees, Biden said: "He's a butcher."
3:22 pm: South Ossetia sends troops to back Russia
Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia has sent troops to Ukraine to "help protect Russia", its leader said on Saturday, as Moscow's military campaign in the neighbouring country entered its 31st day.
"Our guys are going to fulfil their military duty with a proudly raised banner," the leader of South Ossetia, Anatoly Bibilov, said on Telegram.
3:20 pm: Turkey defuses mine after Russia warns of strays from Ukraine ports
Turkey's military deactivated a mine on Saturday that had drifted in from the Black Sea, setting off a loud explosion north of Istanbul, days after Russia warned several of them had washed away from Ukrainian ports.
Defence Minister Halusi Akar described the object, first discovered by fishermen in the upper Bosphorus strait, as an old type of mine and said he was in touch with both Russian and Ukrainian authorities about it.
3 pm: Biden says NATO Article 5 is 'sacred' for US
The US has a "sacred commitment" to the NATO military alliance's collective defence, Biden told his Polish counterpart Andrzej Duda on Saturday during a visit to Warsaw.
"You can count on that... For your freedom and ours," he told Duda, who said that Poles were feeling a "great sense of threat" as a result of the conflict across the border in Ukraine.
2:58 pm: Russia occupies Chernobyl staff town, Kyiv says
Russian forces took control of a town where staff working at the Chernobyl nuclear site live and briefly detained the mayor, sparking protests, Ukrainian officials said Saturday.
"I have been released. Everything is fine, as far as it is possible under occupation," Yuri Fomichev, mayor of Slavutych, told AFP by phone, after officials in the Ukraine capital Kyiv announced earlier he had been detained.
Earlier, Kyiv announced that Russian troops had entered Slavutych and occupied the municipal hospital. Some 25,000 people live in the town 160 kilometres (99 miles) north of the capital, built after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident.
2:56 pm: French energy giant Total will not put new capital in Russia
Totalenergies CEO Patrick Pouyanne said on Saturday the company would not many any new investments in Russia.
"Clearly, what we said is that we are totally committed to apply all the sanctions," he said. "So the question for us is what do we do with existing assets. And these ones we are not ready to give for zero to Russian people, to Russian oligarchs or to Russia."
2:55 pm: Russia was 'hedging its bets' from the start
"It was undeniable that the Kremlin's main objective was to – as they put it – 'demilitarise' and 'de-Nazify' Ukraine, and that implied a blitzkreig seizure of Kyiv, probably within the space of a week, overthrowing Zelensky and replacing him with a pro-Kremlin puppet," Samuel Ramani, an associate fellow at RUSI, told FRANCE 24 in the video below.
However, he continued, Russia was "hedging its bets from the beginning; it's very similar to what they did in Syria" where they were "always very cautious about making blanket statements about Assad recapturing the entire country".
US President Joe Biden participates in a meeting with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, third from left, and Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov, second from left, March 26, 2022, in Warsaw.
US President Joe Biden participates in a meeting with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, third from left, and Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov, second from left, March 26, 2022, in Warsaw. © Evan Vucci, AP
05:24
2:35 pm: Poland taking big responsibility, Biden says
Poland is taking a "significant" responsibility in the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Ukraine, Joe Biden said during a visit to Warsaw on Saturday, adding that the world should help lessen the burden.
Biden also told his Polish counterpart Andrzej Duda he views NATO's Article 5 guarantee of mutual defence between member-states as a "sacred" commitment.
2:33 pm: Kyiv mayor cancels Sunday curfew
The mayor of Ukraine's capital Kyiv on Saturday cancelled a curfew he had announced just hours earlier for the next day without providing further explanation.
"New information from the military command: the Kyiv curfew will not enter into force tomorrow," mayor Vitali Klitschko announced on Telegram. The usual overnight curfew from 8:00 pm (1800 GMT) to 07:00 am (0500 GMT) would hold but people would "be able to freely move around Kyiv on Sunday during the day", he added.
2:30 pm: Russia says not planning to call up reserves
Russia said Saturday it did not plan to call up reservists as Moscow's military campaign in Ukraine entered its 31st day, denouncing what it claimed were "false" summons to Russian men by Kyiv's security services.
"The Russian defence ministry is not summoning and does not plan to summon any reservists to the military commissariats," spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a statement. He added that "many" Russian men had in recent days received "false" phone calls notifying them of their summons to the military commissariats.
2:00 pm: Ukraine's agriculture minister says grain exports far below normal levels
Ukraine's new Agriculture Minister Mykola Solskyi on Saturday said Ukraine's ability to export grains was getting worse by the day and would only improve if the war with Russia ends.
Speaking in a televised briefing, Solskyi said Ukraine, one of the world's top grain producers, would normally be exporting 4-5 million tonnes of grain per month – a volume that has fallen to just a few hundred-thousand tonnes.
1:51 pm: Refugees from Ukraine swell Warsaw's population by 15 percent
The arrival of refugees from Ukraine has swelled Warsaw's population by 15 percent in one month. FRANCE 24's Emmanuelle Chaze reports from Poland's capital.
02:35
1:18 pm: Ukraine's FM says US has pledged more 'defence cooperation'
Ukraine received additional security pledges from the United States on developing defence cooperation, its Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Saturday.
"We did receive additional promises from the United States on how our defence cooperation will evolve," Kuleba told reporters.
12:49 pm: Biden meets top Ukrainian ministers in Warsaw
Joe Biden met in Warsaw with two Ukrainian ministers in the first face-to-face talks between the US president and top Kyiv officials since Russia's invasion began. Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov made a rare trip out of Ukraine in a possible sign of growing confidence in the fightback against Russian forces.
Biden could be seen seated at a long white table between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, facing Kuleba and Reznikov. There were Ukrainian and US flags in the background.
12:09 pm: Biden to meet Poland's President Duda, visit refugees from Ukraine in Warsaw
US President Joe Biden will meet with Poland's President Andrzej Duda and refugees from Ukraine during his visit to Warsaw on March 26, 2022. FRANCE 24's Emmanuelle Chaze reports.
01:09
11:58 am: Ukraine's defence, foreign ministers meet with US counterparts
Ukraine's Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov said on Saturday that he and Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba had held a joint meeting with their US counterparts for the first time.
"We discuss current issues & cooperation in political and defense directions between Ukraine and the United States," Reznikov said on Twitter, posting a photograph of the meeting in Warsaw with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin.
11:12 am: Kyiv mayor announces curfew to last until Sunday morning
A fresh curfew will be imposed on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv from Saturday evening until Monday Sunday, Mayor Vitali Klitschko announced.
10:25 am: Russian forces control town where Chernobyl workers live, Ukraine says
Russian forces have taken control of the town of Slavutych, where workers at the defunct Chernobyl nuclear plant live, the governor of the Kyiv region Oleksandr Pavlyuk said on Saturday.
In an online statement, Pavlyuk said Russian troops had occupied the hospital in Slavutych and kidnapped the mayor.
Reuters could not independently verify the reports.
9:51 am: Ukraine says more than 130 children have been killed since Russia's invasion began
The war in Ukraine has killed 136 children in the 31 days since the start of the Russian invasion, Ukraine's office of the prosecutor general said on Saturday in a message on the Telegram app.
Of the total, 64 children have been killed in the Kyiv region, the office said. A further 50 children have died in the Donetsk region, it said.
Additionally, 199 children have been wounded, the office said.
9:30 am: Zelensky calls on Qatar, other energy-producing countries to boost natural gas output
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday called on Qatar to increase production of natural gas to counter Russian threats to use energy as a weapon.
"I ask you to increase the output of energy to ensure that everyone in Russia understands that no one can use energy as a weapon to blackmail the world," Zelensky said in a video message to the Doha Forum meeting in Qatar's capital.
Zelensky said countries such as Qatar could make a contribution to the stabilisation of Europe.
8:51 am: Russian forces say they are focusing on Luhansk and Donetsk
Russian forces say they are aiming to take control of the entire Luhansk and Donetsk administrative regions in Ukraine's Donbas. FRANCE 24's Gulliver Cragg reports from Kyiv.
03:04
8:15 am: Ukraine's army reports clashes with Russian forces in Donbas
Ukraine’s army said Saturday it had clashed with Russian forces around the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region.
Daily newsletter
Receive essential international news every morning
Subscribe
In a dawn report, the army’s general staff said it had “inflicted significant losses”, claiming to have shot down three planes, destroyed eight tanks and killed dozens of soldiers.
8:04 am: Biden to meet with Poland's Duda, deliver speech on Ukraine war
US President Joe Biden will argue in a speech in Poland on Saturday that the "free world" opposes Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that there is unity among major economies on the need to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin, the White House said.
After three days of emergency meetings with allies of the G7, European Council and NATO, and a visit with US troops in Poland, Biden will meet with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
In what US officials were billing as a major address, Biden "will deliver remarks on the united efforts of the free world to support the people of Ukraine, hold Russia accountable for its brutal war, and defend a future that is rooted in democratic principles," the White House said in a statement."But the time line shows there are many attacks before Biden even gave his speech. " - Since that counters her narrative, those facts clearly do not count.
"In a dawn report, the army’s general staff said it had “inflicted significant losses”, claiming to have shot down three planes, destroyed eight tanks and killed dozens of soldiers." - Since that occurred AFTER Biden's remarks, I guess he is responsible for that wonderful outcome, according to someone's flawed logic, lol
"You have offered your opinion, very rarely do you post a source where you got that opinion." - That is certainly your go to deflection, even though it isn't close to being true
"My comments as a rule will contain sources," - As a rule, they do not. You do provide a lot of opinion pieces and several analysis pieces (just as I do) that contain facts in them
" I do know that while Biden was speaking Putin increased his bombing." - Oh, give me a break, ROFL. Again you are trying to say because it is sunny outside today, that Biden is responsible for it.
SOURCE - Yes you did, but to what end? Anybody who watched or read the news knew what happened. I learned about exactly the same thing from CNN. The fact that Putin bombed Ukraine doesn't require verification, it is self-evident.
We aren't talking about his "character" either, as terrible as it is, but to his mental state. He is clearly living in a third reality - and in the judgement of many experts in the field, very dangerous, in and out of office.
I understand you "feel" he averts problems and solves others, but that is just your feeling. There is very little substance to back that felling up. Almost all of the objective evidence says just the opposite. That is part of the reason scholars rank him so low.
We will have to wait and see about Biden, but it is obvious to most of us that he won't be in the bottom quartile with Trump. Nor do I think he will be in the top quartile either, his screw up with Afghanistan almost guarantees that outcome no matter how well he is judged in handling Ukraine.
The Atlantic article was mind-blowing and explains so much!! To bad conservatives will ignore it and continue to unfairly hammer Biden with his disability.
One thing I prided myself on when I was younger was my ability to pronounce difficult words with many syllables such as "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". I don't believe I have started to stutter but as I grow older, sometimes it is hard to tell. Last night I was talking to my wife about Biden's "He must go" comment and tried to say "regime change". It was like I had a mouth full of cotton and could not get those two words out properly. I finally gave up. What is worrisome to me is the frequency that is starting to happen.Nothing to do with aging, many age very well --- Biden has not, he has cognitive problems in my view. Being a nurse I can tell you his cognitive problems are very apparent, and many that age does not have these problems until ripe old ages. Biden is one of the less fortunate in my view.
he needs to be removed from office the quicker the better. he is just not up to the job of President of The United States in my view. If Congress wants to keep him, off the world stage. I am sure others are pulling the strings.Considering your nursing skills can overlook a clear case of malignant narcissism, not sure you are the expert you claim to be. I think I'd trust a plumber to make this diagnosis more than you and your complete partisan bias towards anything Democratic.
Never did overlook Trump's affinity toward narcissism. But just not willing to overlook senility. Sorry about that. I clearly at this point can admit to having a problem with the Democratic party. That aversion has grown over the past10 years to full-blown --- Done with all that crazy.
I will also stick with my opinion in regards to Biden's mental state. He is having early-on dementia. We just don't need a president with this form of problem. Maybe time to admit we have a problem with Biden's abilities to do the job of president.
I wonder if Sharlee knows that Biden grew up as a stutterer and is still plagued at times with that even as President. The right wing picks up on that and takes those moments to show clips that he has cognitive disabilities and she and many others buy into their mockery of him as he is in cognitive decline.
I take my hat off to him that even with that problem, he has overcome it enough to become President.
On the other hand, what do you call a former president that can't accept the fact that he lost an election and even incited the overthrowing of an election and continues to this day with that drum beat?
I call him a con artist who suffers from acute narcissisms tendencies who can't even put together a coherent sentence and sounds like a third grader when reading from a teleprompter.
Here is an article from The Atlantic about Biden's stuttering. Sharlee will probably never read it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … le/602401/
Here is an article about how Hannity and the right wing have used Biden's stuttering to claim Biden's cognitive decline.
https://niemanreports.org/articles/biden-stutter/Studies have shown it is a characteristic displayed by extremists of all stripes, but especially Trump Republicans, to make fun of a person's disabilities. It is sad, I know, but to be expected.
That said, I can see why they pick on his mannerisms. They obviously don't make him look like Gen Patton for sure and sometimes visually he can even look befuddled. But shallow people stop there to make their judgements. More thoughtful, insightful people look past that to see what his words (including his gaffes) say and mean, but more importantly, his actions which have, save one, have been spot on good.
As to gaffes. I once thought Biden to be the king of gaffes among politicians. But Trump came along and stole that role.Hopefully, you can offer some form of the source to this crazy statement. My go how odd.
"Studies have shown it is a characteristic displayed by extremists of all stripes, but especially Trump Republicans, to make fun of a person's disabilities. It is sad, I know, but to be expected."
OMG, how funny... Come on folks help me put here... LOL
Do you feel studdering is the reason for his crazy statements? Have you been following his crazy statements this past week? Whatever... Biden has made such off the wall statement this past week... Do you follow the news?
His cognitive state has nothing to do with studdering. Sorry about that. The White House has had to mop up his crazy statements daily. Hopefully, they will keep him out of situations where he can cause problems with his crazy statement. He is a complete embarrassment, and the time has come that our Congress do their job, and impeach him.What crazy statements. I suspect you are thinking about the ones you have created in your imagination.
That is true, stuttering and cognition have nothing to with each other. Biden is definitely very cognitive as well as being a stutterer. But, as that Atlantic clearly shows, people who are looking to find something wrong, like Trump Republicans, then a stutterer makes it that much easier for them to create their fantasy.
What you are doing is a great example of that.The statements have been splashed about all over the world to offer just a few examples
UK --- "President Biden’s long career in politics has been littered with gaffes but his comment that President Putin “cannot remain in power” may be the most serious yet. Biden’s remark is certain to revive critics’ claims that the American president, a self-confessed “gaffe machine”, is suffering from serious cognitive decline." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joe- … -5hjr3scmr
France --- "President Joe Biden's apparent call for Vladimir Putin's exit reverberated instantly around the world, sparking an administration rush to course-correct -- and risks scrambling US efforts to rally a united front on the Ukraine conflict.
Biden's comment that the Russian president "cannot remain in power" -- delivered in Warsaw at the close of three days of marathon diplomacy - And even France's president warned "such language could "escalate" a conflict the United States and its NATO allies have sought at all costs to contain, and undercut Western efforts to help suffering Ukrainians."
https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20 … us-message
"President Biden told US troops in Poland Friday that they will witness the bravery of Ukrainians fighting off Russia’s invasion “when you’re there” — making a significant gaffe after he previously said the US must stay out of the European conflict to avoid triggering “World War III.”
Biden made the remark while addressing members of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division after lunching on pizza and posing for selfies with dozens of paratroopers at a mess hall in Rzeszow, southeastern Poland.
“You’re going to see when you’re there, and some of you have been there, you’re gonna see — you’re gonna see women, young people standing in the middle in front of a damned tank just saying, ‘I’m not leaving, I’m holding my ground,’” Biden said." https://nypost.com/2022/03/25/joe-biden … ent-gaffe/Gaffe or not (and I don't think it was, I think it was very smart even though his staff was left with the fallout), that comment says nothing about his cognition and even works against your claims.
All of your links prove only that he said those nine words and nothing more.Sharlee: In your zeal to impeach Biden, you seemed to have forgotten, if you take him out you get Kamala Harris. So you are in the same position as those who wanted Trump removed from office, we had to suck it up until he left.
But in his case and with his people, he never really left. He is still working his narcissistic con-artists scheme of winning the election and his people, still believe him. Talk about cognitive dissonance and playing to people's fantasies!!!
https://insidesources.com/trumps-big-li … issonance/It is factual that Harris would walk into taking Biden's place. At this point, with the current crisis, I think he needs to be removed, and Harris steps in. I trust her cognitive skills. In my opinion, Biden is not up to the job.
Not sure why Congress is not addressing Biden's frequent cognitive problems. It is obvious other countries' leaders are.
We can't afford to have Biden making decisions during such a high-stakes crisis, in my view. We also have many other foreign problems brewing. He needs to go.
I have little interest at this juncture in what Trump is doing. once again media is saying --- "hey look here not there". It scares me to see Americans buy into this kind of media maneuver.
This has nothing to do with liking or not liking Biden. I said while he was running for office, I did not feel he was president material, for many reasons. One such reason is his very apparent cognitive problems. I have no dislike for the man himself. He is ruining the country with unbelievable speed. I don't feel we can wait until 2024 to remove him.
Abc did a poll just after Biden's State of the Union speech --- I offer this source to show, I am not alone in my concern over Biden's failing cognitive skills. Not because I hold any form of animosity against this man himself.
"A new poll by ABC News/The Washington Post released on the eve of the speech found that 54 per cent of Americans don’t believe he has the “mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively as president”.
According to the report, only 40 per cent believe Biden is mentally sharp enough for the job in a near-180-degree turnaround from 2020, when most Americans, 51 per cent, think he had the mental acuity for holding office compared to the 43 per cent who didn’t."
"A new poll by ABC News/The Washington Post released on the eve of the speech found that 54 per cent of Americans don’t believe he has the “mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively as president”.
According to the report, only 40 per cent believe Biden is mentally sharp enough for the job in a near-180-degree turnaround from 2020, when most Americans, 51 per cent, think he had the mental acuity for holding office compared to the 43 per cent who didn’t."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … -abc-poll/
https://janasevanews.com/india-news/the-tribune/25075
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/15 … t-news-ont
What is disheartening many News outlets from around the world picked up on WAPO's article and offered it to their readers."I trust her cognitive skills." - You must have had a major change of opinion because as I recall, you have written just the opposite on several occasions. Anyone else remember that?
"Not sure why Congress is not addressing Biden's frequent cognitive problems." - How about "because they don't exist?", save in the minds of Biden-Haters.
Tell me, what if a poll showed that 60% of your patients said you were a terrible nurse. Would you accept their opinion as FACT, as you seem to do here?
Not sure why you are bringing Trump into this conversation? My comment concentrate on Biden, here is my comment.
Well, that's not how I see it... I have no intention of supporting a man that I feel is not cognitively fit to hold the job. That may be your thing, but I feel it very unintelligent to stand behind a president that is single-handedly ruining America.
His statement today could and very most likely will cause Putin to retaliate and step up his killing spree on the Ukrainian people. Will it be tomorrow or Monday?
Denigrate Biden, Putin well knows half or more of America never wanted Biden as president. So, that cat has been long out of the bag. But Putin wanted Biden to be president, and he got his wish.
Maybe concentrate on the subject or just pass the comment by.
We have a president that is a hot mess... maybe let's discuss current problems he has created instead of diverting them back to Trump.
Please stick to the subject.Trump comes into the conversation because you made the hypocritical claim about Biden's mental capacity. We simply pointed out the contradiction in your "feeling" about Biden and your belief in Trump's so-called mental acuity, which everyone knows didn't exist.
Exactly my point. The literal definition of treason against your own country. Which she will never understand as she continues to attack her own people and side with Russians.
The fact that she grabs the one negative to attack Biden while ignoring the other positive statements like: “This war is not worthy of you, the Russian people. The American people stand with you and the brave citizens of Ukraine who want peace,” he said.
Garret Martin, an expert on transatlantic relations at American University, said Putin already believed that the U.S. was out to get him, so Biden’s comments are not likely to change his calculus.
After Biden’s speech, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told The Associated Press that “it’s not up to the president of the U.S. and not up to the Americans to decide who will remain in power in Russia.”
“Only Russians, who vote for their president, can decide that,” Peskov said. “And of course it is unbecoming for the president of the U.S. to make such statements.”
Which is, of course, bullshit since everyone knows that Russian elections are extremely dishonest and tainted under Putin and the only way to be rid of him is likely through a violent uprising of his own people. Which may be the goal of decimating Russia's economy, to set the stage for such an event.This would be fairly thugish but could President Biden's statement be a subtle reminder to Putin that the U.S. has quite a long history of overt and covert operations that targeted "regime change" all over the world?. Some might say we've never seen a coup we didn't like.
According to one study, the U.S. performed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000. Another study found that the U.S. engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War.
When a U.S. president speaks of regime change, I think the world knows the history and sees we've never been shy about backing a coup."Which is, of course, bullshit since everyone knows that Russian elections are extremely dishonest and tainted under Putin and the only way to be rid of him is likely through a violent uprising of his own people. " - I suspect many, if not most Trump Republicans might disagree with you about fair elections in Russia, especially given their full support of the outcome of the Crimea so-called "elections".
Also, I am not sure a violent uprising from the people will happen or is necessary. Even though Putin currently has them under his thumb, the Oligarchs stand to lose big time if there is a violent revolution. Personally, I think they and a few generals will find a way to assassinate Putin. I seem to recall that is how the Magna Carta came into being, an "uprising" from the Lords and Barons of jolly old England.
Sharlee: Lashing out, what do you call your comments about Biden? I'm curious to know what would you want a president to do and say in this situation?
As far as divided America, Fox, News, MAGA, and Trump have a huge audience compared to MSM. Putin has shutdown all of Russia's news outlets, except for his state run TV,
However, he does allow Tucker Carlson's and other right wing nut cases comments that defend Putin to be seen by Russian audience How is that for a divided country? This is bordering on treason by aiding and abetting a war criminal using propaganda spawned from our own country.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists … mn-se-cuppSorry for the correction Mike, but MSM (which includes relatively unbiased print, cable, and commercial outlets), taken together, are bigger than the sum of right-wing propaganda outlets (which, for the most part, means Fake Fox News)
If Putin cyberattacks America, then Tucker Carlson (and possibly Trump again) will become a "Tokyo Rose" and subject to formal treason prosecution. Right now, he is just treason-like.
Speaking of Trump giving aid and comfort to Putin, my wife just read me a report where Trump, while giving lip-service to what he called a "heinous" attack on Ukraine, nevertheless spent the rest of his words praising Putin again.
Don't you agree, that needed to be said? Everyone is thinking it (except Putin and Trump Republicans, it seems)
It needed to be said. Putin is a war criminal, a murderer, a liar and a crook. President Biden's comment today sparked more concern than Putin's actions and words over the last month? Was his comment directed More toward the Russian people? Stirring an uprising?
It was a very dangerous statement to aim at Putin. No, I don't agree it needed to be said. t could cause Putin to step up his killing of civilians, to show his strength as a leader. All week Biden's statements have been provoking and needed to be cleaned up. I have made myself clear, I feel Biden is dangerous and needs to be removed from office.
Respectfully, I think it needed to be said. I don't think it was a gaffe at all. President Biden appeared to speak his mind, it appeared genuine, I respect that and I believe it's a thought that has gone through most people's mind. Remember when Former President Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and as "the focus of evil in the modern world". He was lauded for his strength around the world. Today, we are more concerned with tip toeing around Putin?
A man who has bombed hospitals, buildings marked "children" in Russian, a man who has destroyed entire cities and murdered people trying to flee within "humanitarian corridors" in all reality, can such a man remain in power to continue on to whatever he wants to do next?
The last 4 administration's have ignored Putin's continuous aggressions. Enough is enough. If President Biden gave Putin some pause to consider our country's LONG history of destabilizing other regimes, I say good. It's terribly overdue. In my opinion, you don't appease a bully. You can't negotiate with a liar. Sometimes they need to be slapped back. When did we become so soft?
But lastly, I don't think Putin really needs to be "provoked" as an excuse to take any action. He has always done what he wants to do anyway."President Biden appeared to speak his mind, " - Something Sharlee always said she respected - until it comes to Biden, lol
"When did we become so soft?" - I hate to speak ill of a president I very much respect, but the answer is ever since Obama and Trump became president.
Whether I agree with his decisions or not, Biden has shown a very stiff spine in not putting up with others BS or doing what he thinks is right. From the American Rescue Plan to (ugh) pulling out of Afghanistan to imposing a bipartisan infrastructure plan on the Democrats to pushing back hard on Putin's invasion of Ukraine to suggesting that Putin can no longer stay in power. All tough decisions made by a tough and determined man."When did we become so soft?" - I hate to speak ill of a president I very much respect, but the answer is ever since Obama and Trump became president".
This is a few years old but I think relevant today.
Data compiled for U.S. News Best Countries survey casts new light on the effect of ‘fake news’ and political propaganda.
Data compiled by U.S. News - World Report as a part of its Best Countries ranking, breaking down how respondents from particular nations view the world.
Though the U.S. ranks first among the world's most powerful nations according to a majority of all respondents, Americans themselves do not consider their homeland to be the most prominent international player. Rather, they see China as most powerful, followed by Russia and then the U.S.
it represents a marked shift from data as recent as 2016, the inaugural year of the Best Countries Project when Americans ranked themselves as No. 1, before dropping that assessment to fourth-most powerful in 2017.
Why are we undervaluing our strength so much?
No major international survey of military power ranks Russia above the U.S. The Global Firepower index based on a compilation
of data including weapons stockpiles, economic status and geographic positioning rates the U.S. above Russia and China.
Since the time this was written I do feel like many Americans have become increasingly disparaging, unrightly so, toward our country.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr … ul-than-us
The Power ranking and methodology
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr … ings/power"Since the time this was written I do feel like many Americans have become increasingly disparaging, unrightly so, toward our country." - They are called Trump Republicans who are following the lead of their chosen authoritarian figure.
I would have to ask what the purpose of his statement was.
Was it to prepare the world for an assassination attempt by the US? Was it to prepare everyone for the US to start a war with Russia? Was it to let the world know we will nuke Russia in the hopes of killing Putin? Was it to ask for help in destroying Putin, again raising the specter of nukes flying?
Just why did he say that? I understand he is upset, he is angry and he is horrified at what is happening in the Ukraine...but Biden's emotional state of mind has nothing to do with what should be coming out of his mouth.I would suggest that it is none of the above. It is just stating the obvious and maybe, as Faye already proposed, to give a signal to the Russian people and the Oligarchs that we won't mind if THEY take Putin out.
You leave out one simple possibility. That it was a suggestion that Russia's own people take Putin out to end the harm being done to their economy and country.
And it's funny. Lyndsey Graham has said the same thing on multiple occasions. But only when a Democrat says the same thing do members of the far-right suddenly need to pipe in.Yes, that is a possibility. Do you think Biden was speaking to Russians, asking them to do a coup and get rid of their president? Presumably by assassination because for sure Putin will never allow an election to remove him.
Lyndsey Graham was not the President, on an international stage when he said it. Think that might make a wee bit of difference?Just noting you left out a very simple possibility. And one that does not get us much involved.
Lyndsey Graham gives the Russians the same opportunity to use such a statement as propaganda as Biden did. But Lyndsey did it twice and the right didn't even blink an eye. Just asking for some consistency.President Biden can foment Russian citizens and it's oligarchy to overthrow Putin. He can allude to the fact that the United States has undermined governments and worked (overtly and covertly) to overthrow regimes around the world for the last 100 years... Successfully. Putin being a former KGB knows this all too well. I think Biden set him on his back foot a bit.
Wilderness: You will never really know, until you get in his brain. The rest of it is pure conjecture, including the outcome of what he said. However, there are those who seem to think it was a very dangerous statement, because they simply don't like him.
You're right of course - it could only be known by telepathy.
But it was a dangerous statement, and not because I or anyone else doesn't like him.Why dangerous? Putin certainly wasn't moved by it, he already knows what he is going to be doing.
Now you're reading Putin's mind? Can you read Biden's and tell us what Biden's purpose was, too?
I don't put much of anything past Putin, and angering him for no reason just doesn't make sense.No mind reading necessary. One just has to be observant.
OI would think Biden weak if he hadn't said it.
But, it amazes me how your side appears to be more upset with Biden for speaking the TRUTH than with Putin murdering all those Ukrainian. You write virtually no words about that but you write thousands about what Biden said (which might even be strategically beneficial).
With a war going on between Russia and Ukraine, a war that NATO has firmly stated they will not enter in my view Biden should have no forum to make such a statement. Number one most feel Putin is a tyrannical leader, that shows boldness and strength, in my view cold-blooded murderer. And no you can't appease a liar, a murderer, but ultimately, factually that is what NATO has done. As I said from day one, we have no cards to play due to Putin's threat of using nukes. That to me is so evident.
Putin has claimed war on a sovereign nation and is bombing the hell out of them indiscriminately killing civilians. Common sense would dictate you don't tweak his nose by suggesting he needed to be removed from his position as president. It is no secret that I feel Biden has mentation problems, he certainly has a right to his opinion. However, as the President of the US, he should not get in front of a podium and angrily (which he was) scream such a statement.
This to me was non-sensical in every respect. What Biden should have done way back in spring when Putin was amassing troops on the Ukraine border was to show strength, and hit him with sanctions then, and Europe should have stopped buying his oil which has provided him cash to kill.
This man has no fear of any man or Nation, he will do what it takes to take Ukraine, and move on from there using one threat -- nuclear war if need be. And like you said ---" He has always done what he wants to
anyway".
Did Biden's statement piss him off? Most likely, it sure pissed me off.I really doubt that Biden's statement pissed off anybody except Biden-Haters. Putin already knows this and their reposonse has been MUCH more muted than that coming from the American Right-Wing (save Lindsey Graham who Mike reminded me has said the same thing several times.)
The Ukrainians sure loved it and they are the ones to suffer the consequences.
BRAVO Biden for speaking your mind.Certainly pissed off Macron...
https://www.politico.eu/article/macron- … -of-putin/
He has very little mind to speak of, maybe he should just save
what's left.
Graham is not the President, and it was inappropriate for him to make such a statement.
Where in the world did you get the idea the Ukrainian people loved Biden's derogatory statement? As always you add your view, without any form of information to substantiate it.Yep, you are right, Macron wasn't happy.
Snark, Snark
You don't think Putin doesn't listen to senior, influential, Republican Senators? Think again.
From listening to their comments - two different Ukrainian officials, one the previous president, on the drive to work this morning. You should try it.
No, I would not have praised any president that would stand before a crowd and yell out such a statement, his very demeanor was inappropriate, and the statement was reckless and could have repercussions, as the White House realized and almost immediately walked it back. He has been making reckless statements all week in Europe.
My comment clearly praised Trump's problem-solving skills. Biden makes problems and then makes the problems he creates worse. I am very much disappointed with our Congress (both sides) for not admitting Biden has cognitive problems and taking steps to remove him from office.
America is in trouble on many fronts, and we need a man of sound mind in the White House.Biden is an embarrassment and needs to be kept off the World stage. --- First to speak up -FRENCH PRESIDENT EMMANUEL MACRON- First to respond to Biden's statement -- "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden told a crowd in Warsaw after condemning the Russian president's month-long war in Ukraine. Biden cast Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a battle in a much broader conflict between democracy and autocracy.
"I wouldn't use this type of wording because I continue to hold discussions with President Putin," Macron told France 3 TV channel in remarks aired on Sunday.
The French president said he was seeking to hold more talks with Putin regarding the situation in Ukraine as well as an initiative to help people leave the besieged city of Mariupol in the coming days.
"We want to stop the war that Russia has launched in Ukraine without escalation — that's the objective," he added, noting the objective is to obtain a ceasefire and the withdrawal of troops through diplomatic means.
"If this is what we want to do, we should not escalate things — neither with words or actions," he said."
https://www.aol.com/news/reactions-bide … 49349.htmlYou need to go back and look at Biden from 10 years ago or more. He did NOT stutter like this then. Also, what he does now is more stammering, than stuttering. That is associated with cognitive issues, especially when they have not always been there. You are making a strawman argument. No one is going after him because he stutters, but rather because he is too often incoherent and that is not a good trait for a sitting President. If you respond, and I hope you do, please respond to my comments and leave "bad orange man" out of it, as he isn't in office
I offer the link Mike left earlier about stuttering and specifically Biden's affliction.
What part of the many speeches he gave in the last five days have been incoherent. Be specific and provide context, because I haven't heard any. Some of his worst episodes from the past are explained in the link.
One thing I have read and seen is his gait is getting worse. But then, so is mine and I am 5 years younger.
So far I haven't seen him approach the disassociate state I saw in Reagan in the last year of his term.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … le/602401/
Yeah, Joe! F Putin! Saying what so many should be feeling about bombing schools and hospitals. At least those not sold on Russian propaganda....
President Joe Biden on Monday said he is not taking back his comments that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power,” adding that it does not mean the administration has changed its policy regarding the Russian regime.
“I'm not walking anything back,” Biden said. “The fact of the matter is I was expressing the moral outrage I felt toward the way Putin is dealing and the actions of this man, which is just brutality.”
Biden noted that he felt that outrage after meeting with refugees in Warsaw, Poland.
“I want to make it clear, I wasn't then nor am I now articulating a policy change,” he said. “I was expressing moral outrage that I feel. I make no apologies for it."The damage had already been done... Maybe have another look at the timeline I posted.
Why? It's already been shown to have omitted key facts that undermine your fake narratives. You do this so often to create lies at this site that it's pathetic.
I omitted nothing, I offered the link and the pertinent information that showed what went down from the moment that confused man opened his mouth. The timeline shows precisely what was going on down to the minute. Putin accelerated his attacks and hit strategic areas to show he heard Biden loud and clear.
I never present lies, you just don't care for the truth. And that would be your problem.You are the queen of omitting pertinent details, especially damaging ones, thereby making a false narrative.
I copied and paste the area of the timeline that was pertinent to the point I was making. I also offered the link to the entire article. Up to the reader to draw their own opinions from the article. The rest of the timeline was not pertinent to my point. One can see Putin accelerated his attacks after Biden yelled out his threatening statement.
You have shared your opinion, and I shared mine. I feel Biden was slapped hard by Putin, his warning was loud and clear IMO.Leaving out all the attacks already going on prior to the speech was pertinent to the truth of the matter. Your omission created your latest false narrative of trying to make Putin look strong and Biden weak. TRAITOR.
Attacks have been going on for 32 days now. They accelerated within minutes after Biden opened his mouth. Putin is in it to win, he does look strong, and Biden looks ridiculously weak. Not saying it does not work to hide it from the world. My God how ridiculous can one get?
You actually sound ridiculous lashing out with simply insults. LaughableMy issue with the timeline and potential correlation to President Biden's words would be the lightening fast communication that would have had to occur between Putin & those on the ground in Ukraine.
There have been numerous reports of the myriad of communication difficulties the Russian troops are experiencing. It seems that many don't use an encrypted phone service but came in relying on commercial service and even their own cell phones. But Russians attacked the 3g towers, therefore crippling communication further. There are now reports of Russian military seizing civilian phones.
"We have no communication. We have no walkie-talkies. Nothing," a bedraggled Russian soldier tells his interrogators in a video published by Ukrainian defenders this month and posted to YouTube.
such statements, along with intercepted chatter, captured equipment, and images of cheap, handheld transceivers, suggest that an inability to communicate -- up and down the chain of command and across branches of the Russian military -- is impeding Moscow's war plans.
No doubt that bombings were happening but I'm not sure that they have the communication and coordination, logistical planning to coincide with President Biden's words. Current reports have Russian loosing up to 15 of their generals. Which, I understand is unheard of. Seems to be that while the Russians have superior firepower, their Army is inept. Just a thought.
https://www.rferl.org/a/communication-l … 61259.htmlI cannot believe how much time has been wasted on her really dumb conspiracy theory that is absurd on its face.
It's not an insult to note someone giving aid to an enemy of our country while undermining its leadership. Putin does not look strong as tiny Ukraine with so many less resources is staving off their invasion. And the way Biden has unified NATO is a strength that you fail to acknowledge, as always.
I believe I'm done with you. You are clearly someone that does not love the United States.I can only pray you are done with me... LOL I can see you are very mad in regards to my opinion about Putin as a leader. And sorry, not willing to put my head in the sand and pretend he is not. But, I am very pleased that you will pass by my comments. I will keep those reasons to myself, just the kinder thing to do.
"I never present lies, " - Of course you do, all of time. You just ignore it when I point them out. For example, one I recently pointed out is when you said "Putin well knows half or more of America never wanted Biden as president". That is clearly a lie since over half of voting Americans voted for Biden in 2020.
Here is another lie from you - Biden's trying (unsuccessfully I might add) ushering in communism right here."Putin well knows half or more of America never wanted Biden as president". That is clearly a lie since over half of voting Americans voted for Biden in 2020.
I would assume he picked up a paper and saw the very close election numbers. yes, I was hyperbolic by saying half.
And it is clearly my o[inion --- I was responding to a comment where I was told to move to Russia. Answering in the same hyperbolic style as Val used by telling me to move to Russia.
"Why move? Biden's trying (unsuccessfully I might add) ushering in communism right here. Can't wait for 2022, we will be able to shut him and his " New World Order" down, and send him packing back to his basement."
Why move? Biden's trying (unsuccessfully I might add) ushering in communism right here. Can't wait for 2022, we will be able to shut him and his " New World Order" down, and send him packing back to his basement"
I pride myself on being truthful, and also brave enough to share my true opinions. I don't skirt any issue and try very hard to follow facts as best I can. I don't become personal and childish and insult one's person. I truely feel this behavior shows a lack of intelligence and poor social skills.
One might note it is only two people here accusing me of lying that would be you and on occasion Val.
This should tell you something should it not? Every other person that posts here keeps their conversations non-combative. They get their points across by using good communication skills. I so respect that.Again, you need to go check your facts and try again. Biden won with 51.3%. The last person to do BETTER than that was Barrack Obama in 2008. Before him, George H.W. Bush in 1988. Before that Ronald Reagan in 1984.
On top of that, Trump has NEVER won the popular vote.
As to hyperbole, you don't allow it others so why should I assume you ever use it?
Giving us your opinions, of course, is fine, even those not supported by facts. What is not fine is the massive amount of misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies you issue.
You accuse me of lying a lot but you have yet to come up with one example that holds water. On the other hand, I have, over time, pointed out dozens of yours.Your splitting hairs... 51.3% I would think Putin would surmise Trump had "almost half of Americans supporting him and many that still do if we want to consider the poll I offered.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6 … 4-matchups
In regards to Biden ushering in communism. In my truthful view, I feel his agenda borders on more Government control and has less freedom. Hey, that is just my view. I find him dangerous in so many ways. I feel he is systematically ripping apart the very fabric America was made of. I also feel the now majority of Americans are observing this and are done with him and the Democratic party. They have become a scary bunch. Hey, one can still voice an opinion in a free America.
As I said, no one else has ever called me a liar but you and Val.
What damage? Your timeline is useless because it does not, as I am sure you already know, does not establish "cause and effect"; it just establishes a meaningless correlation.
In my view Biden was slapped back by Putin, more or less showing Biden if he opens his mouth, and makes threats, he will have the last word. And he did. Unfortunately, in my view, the Ukrainian people had to suffer due to Biden's failing mental state, and careless words. Hopefully, whoever is handling him has learned a lesson, and will keep in locked up. He is an embarrassment to the country.
Deflecting for Putin by blaming Biden for his actions. The traitorous behavior is escalating. Just move to Russia already.
Why move? Biden's trying (unsuccessfully I might add) ushering in communism right here. Can't wait for 2022, we will be able to shut him and his " New World Order" down, and send him packing back to his basement.
It must be very hard to see what a mess of the country this man has made in such a short time.
"Biden’s job approval slips to 40% as he loses support among women, black voters and independents in new poll: More than 70% aren’t confident in the president’s handling of Ukraine and over HALF believe a US war with Russia is imminent"
"The new NBC survey was taken after Biden called Putin a 'war criminal' but before his Saturday speech in Warsaw declaring he 'cannot remain in power' WOW!
More than 80% of respondents said they fear the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine would lead to nuclear war, and higher prices domestically
Just 6% blamed Russia for surging inflation that's been seen under Biden, instead claiming the president and his policies were driving the price spike
Nearly half said they have 'very little faith' Biden can handle Russia"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … -Poll.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-t … -rcna21679
70 % Hikes!we will be able to shut him and his " New World Order" down
Historians and experts say the term "new world order" has been used by politicians for decades to describe international changes during a new period of history.
I understand that there is a decades-old conspiracy theory that global elites will take over the world and establish an authoritarian one-world government. Do you find this is what President Biden is advancing?
He did mention a "new world order," but I (and others) believe he was describing international changes from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, not confirming a world domination conspiracy theory. Historians say politicians have used the term in speeches for decades.
The phrase was used by President George H.W. Bush after the end of the Cold War. In a March 1991 address to Congress on the Gulf War,
Both Biden and Bush used the term in essentially the same way: to indicate that the international community needed or needs to cooperate to stop aggression.
I see the usual suspects ( Boebert, Gaetz, Greene) stirring up the conspiracy again.
What is your thinking on this? The meaning of the phrase? Also, which parts of President Biden's agenda represent elements of communism?Sharlee:
Here is your logic. Biden gives a speech with statements that you think will upset Putin. Putin immediately seeks revenge and bombs Mariupol fuel dumps based on Biden's speech.
Therefore based on your logic, if Biden didn't give the speech, then all would be well and Putin would not have attacked. However, no matter where or how he did attack, then you would blame Biden for it. Do you see your circular logic?
Then you post a cherry picked timeline from France that you think supports your logic. You further try to support your logic by posting a poll of 1,000 people taken days before Biden's speech. Then you imply that Biden has a communist agenda and it is just a matter of time for his new world order to take place.
I believe this is a real case of cognitive dissonance where you are trying to blame Biden for everything in order to fit your preconceived narrative about him...just my opinions based on your posts...but it is certainly something to give pause and think about.Love that she omitted the earlier attacks from the same day. Nothing says credible argument like when attacks are already happening, something different happens, and then more attacks happen. Concluding that the something different in the middle caused one set of attacks and not the other takes a special kind of stupid.
Just her way of praising Putin, I guess."Here is your logic. Biden gives a speech with statements that you think will upset Putin. Putin immediately seeks revenge and bombs Mariupol fuel dumps based on Biden's speech.
Therefore based on your logic, if Biden didn't give the speech, then all would be well and Putin would not have attacked. However, no matter where or how he did attack, then you would blame Biden for it. Do you see your circular logic?"
Your dancing around my opinion. I provided some information I found that was presented in a French news outlet. I found the timeline interesting, and provocative as the author meant it to be. I posted it on this very Political chat to see what others thought about the article. That is a very custom and normal thing to do in regards to Politacla chats. (I realize after posting here for some time this chat is a bit different)...
I shared my VIEW of the article. I do feel Putin used his game as Biden spoke, and as Blinkin tried to walk it back. Hey, Faye had another very sensible view. I applauded her thoughts, and for taking the time to share her thoughts.
So, to get to your analogy, it is unrealistic in my view, I have no idea what Putin would have been doing on that given day in regard to his bombing of Ukraine. I do feel this timeline shows him upping his aggression while Biden made the Statement --- "Putin needs to be removed". The targets were also pertinent in the article.
I cherry-picked the time that Biden was speaking to show Putin was more aggressive and hit some very satiric targets. I certainly offered the entire article and hoped users would read it in its entirety, and form their own views on the timeline.
If one reads the article one can see the bombing was more aggressive after Biden spoke. Yes, Ukraine has been bombed for over a month, but aggression in my view picked up in the period just after
Biden's speech. You posted the article in full, did you read it in full?
I do certainly point out negative reports in regard to Biden and have shared my views on all that is Biden. You find them negative, I find my posts to be current news. There is very little reported positive on Biden.
I certainly can't praise a man that I find is doing a poor job. he is the president, and on political chats, he is being ripped apart due to his actions, and yes on what he says, and does not say.
I realize you are not on board with the negative views in regard to
Biden. But not everyone feels as you do.
Perhaps you might want to think about the fact many Americans are dissatisfied with Biden in many ways. I think you should have a look at a few other political chats. What I post here is very mild to what one sees on other political chats.
I have a right to my views, and a right to bring up current political events.
Maybe you should just skip over my comments, many here do. Chats are about views, and let's face it we all have them. You don't need to understand mine, as I don't have to understand yours. No need to diagnose me with a cognitive problem or to get personal.
That in itself says something about you. You just can't expect others may think differently than you. There is a name for that you know...
I post comments on current events, and unfortunately, Biden is now being abandoned by most media, and they are after blood. So, I post what they dish up. You know like they did with Trump when he was president, we have a new guy in town, that is getting some of the same.Sharlee:
"If one reads the article one can see the bombing was more aggressive after Biden spoke. Yes, Ukraine has been bombed for over a month, but aggression in my view picked up in the period just after
Biden's speech. You posted the article in full, did you read it in full?"
So now you are an experts as to how much more aggressive the bombing was after Biden gave his speech. What did you base that on? What was the criteria you used to measure the increase in aggression?
Not only did I read your entire article in full, I printed it out to make a comparison with what you posted and that is how I was able to realize the difference in what you copied and what the entire time line was about and that Putin started the attack before Biden gave his speech.
It bothers me how you came to the conclusion from the timeline that the attack was more aggressive after Biden gave his speech. More than likely, it was nothing more than your opinion to place the blame on Biden."It bothers me how you came to the conclusion from the timeline that the attack was more aggressive after Biden gave his speech. More than likely, it was nothing more than your opinion to place the blame on Biden."
Biden is the president, he made several provocative statements last week, and the White House needed to walk these statements back. I did not find their explanations feasible in any respect.
I realize my opinion bothers you, it is very evident that we very rarely agree on any given subject. As I have pointed out, we have very different ways of looking at things. I did find the timeline very much intriguing, and I feel Biden's words could have provoked Putin to step up the bombing. Words matter.
If this timeline is correct no bombing was reported until Biden made the statement in question. I feel, and have felt, and expressed I feel Biden has cognitive problems that clearly have become more obvious. He just can't control himself in regards to what he says. He has made off-the-wall statements throughout this last month. And sorry, but he very well could pose a danger to America, in my view.
Gen. KEITH KELLOGG: What he said is foolish. Somebody ought to grab him in the Oval Office and say, you need to understand, Mr. President, there's a war going on. Innocent people are dying, cities are being ravaged and destroyed. And your words do matter. … It's very important when it comes to national security. Always look through your opponent's eyes, look through his lens. When you say things, what is he going to get? What kind of reaction you're going to get? I remember with President Trump when we were in the Oval Office when we were talking to adversaries, we would talk to Kim Jong-un as an example. He was very cautious in his comments, and I challenge anybody to go back and look at what he said about it. He would be pretty hard on our allies. But when it came to Putin or when it came to Kim Jong-un or came to Xi, he was very circumspect when he talked because words do matter. I remind President Biden, you're not talking to this fictional character when you were a lifeguard, Corn Pop, you're talking to somebody who's got a nuclear arsenal that it's the same as ours. And he is paranoid, and he's losing the fight in Ukraine, and you need to keep the pressure on." Source -- full live video of the statement also provided.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/gen-kello … ia-remarks
The President Of The United States Words Matter. And this president can not control his words, in my view."If this timeline is correct no bombing was reported until Biden made the statement in question."
And this is your latest fabrication. The section of the timeline you posted omits the bombing that happened earlier in the day. The full link includes it. If you can't understand your own links, don't post them.
And if you feel the need to post unfounded conspiracies like your 'opinion' that the later bombing was caused by a speech, instead of assigning blame where it goes - to Putin - then you come across as a traitor to our country in a time of war.
And Mike Pence's national security advisor is going to have as much partisan bias as you do since Pence is making a run at the 2024 presidency. Not to mention reminding the world how Trump coddled dictators, which most of the rest of the world saw as weakness, was an embarrassment.Keith Kellogg - I had to look him up because I thought I recognized him as one of a handful of ret generals who are Trump apologists, sort of a Michael Flynn but without the criminal record - he was.
"Words Matter" - Yes they do, too bad you didn't say the same thing about Trump. Since you didn't, it brings to question whether you are being disingenuous now.
" I did find the timeline very much intriguing, and I feel Biden's words could have provoked Putin to step up the bombing. " - We aren't arguing with the 'possibility' that Biden's might have provoked Putin to add a bomb or two at some later date. Who knows, he might have just to be pissy. What we are saying is your logic to say definitively that he Putin DID respond in a BIG way the same day is nonexistent. As such, making such an unfair and untrue claim is just more proof of your Biden Hate and willingness to paint him black even when it is not true.Sounds like much the same logic that declares that in Trump's mind the words "peacefully march" meant "tear apart the building and hang the occupants".
If you and other Trump haters can read his mind why can't Sharlee read Putin's?As always, you neglect to consider the other words used on that day. Typical right-wing omission of pertinent facts to weave a very false narrative.
Wilderness: False equivalence...Alarm alert!!! You would make a great propagandist.
Really? The topic of my comment was the so-called "logic" you used to make a conclusion. If that "logic" was deficient, so was the conclusion - ergo the conclusion was unsupported by the logic you used.
And if the logic was not deficient then your entire case for Trump's "insurrection" is incorrect, for it used the same logic to "prove" Trump's guilt.Why? What Trump caused is officially an insurrection since some participants are charges with seditious conspiracy (not to mention that common sense says it was an insurrection).
Also, I haven't "proved" anything, only a trial can do that. All I can do (and have accomplished) is connect the dots that point to a likely guilty verdict when he is tried for he crimes.
The same was not done in what you are trying to use as the complarison.
"We aren't arguing with the 'possibility' that Biden's might have provoked Putin to add a bomb or two at some later date. Who knows, he might have just to be pissy. What we are saying is your logic to say definitively that he Putin DID respond in a BIG way the same day is nonexistent. "
I provided some information I found that was presented in a French news outlet. I found the timeline interesting, and provocative as the author meant it to be. I posted it on this very Political chat to see what others thought about the article. That is a very custom and normal thing to do in regards to Political chats. I not once stated or I knew the article to be factually proven. I offered my opinion, my feelings, and made sure when writing my comments in regard to the article very clear. In regard to your comment about me "hating" Biden. This is your perception of my feelings. It is clear I post current political events that include the president, and my thoughts about a given event. It's also clear much of the news about Biden is derogatory. I have every right to bring up these news events and offer my opinion. Just as you did in regards to Trump. If HP's finds my posts a problem, I am sure they will remove the information.
At this point, I ask you to offer a quote where I presented my opinion as being factual in regard to my timeline comments. Context matters, and you clearly have a problem deciphering context.
I will also say, I am sick of your misleading comments in regard to my posts, and your personal insults. I find personal insults unacceptable.
I will say this as politely as possible. I will not be at any point responding to your posts, period. If I feel you are harassing me directly, I will report you to the moderator. I am very willing to leave it up to a moderator to determine if your insults are personal in nature.Perhaps if you stuck to complete facts and less unprovable opinions, there would be less need to have these argumentative exchanges where you refuse to acknowledge that you're reaching in your slander of Biden on a daily basis.
How rich. This is a political forum, most would assume that chatting on such a forum is to glean others' opinions. However, some seem to be of the mindset, that only their opinion counts, and see their opinions as more logical, and more acceptable than others. That is in my view is a fault many liberals possess. They are not open to any opinion but their own.
This kind of mindset as a rule is not conducive to having a learning conversation. It's apparent you dislike my posts about Biden. My comment's as a rule, are centered around what is currently being talked about in political circles. Biden on most days is at the center of current news. You may not like this, but much of the news in regard to Biden is negative.
I also would like to point out there are very few here that have a problem or have voiced a problem with my comment but you, and a couple of others. All are very clearly liberal in their views. I in no respect could be considered a liberal.
I do not consider it slander to point out my opinion on Biden's job performance or my opinion of what is being reported about him in general.
I have suggested before if you find something you feel needs a moderator to have a look --- report my comment. I have read the forum rules, and yes in the past have broken some. I have taken care not to degrade others' opinions or insult their person.
It has become very clear I am adding to the problem, by going back and forth with these types. Which will stop today.Actually, there are at least four of us main liberals that all have problems with the fabricated opinions you have been manufacturing. We all know how you feel about Biden, yet you repeat it every single day. At this point, your spam of doing that is just an annoyance. Things that annoy tend to not be accepted well.
And much of the news you are being fed is negative, which you feel the need to regurgitate here. There are plenty of positives, but you never see that news since you are in a closed eco-system of Biden hate which makes you think these warped opinions are validated.
If you can't take your far-right opinions being challenged, best to hide in those truly partisan threads you tend to post and many of us just ignore like that timeline one we already debunked in here.Deleted
You deny that on every day we can hear Sharlee say both of these two things in one of the multiple posts she puts here:
1.) Biden has mentation issues
2.) Biden is not capable of being president and should be removed
Every, single, day. Heck, she has at least three separate threads on the mentation issue alone. Like if she creates a new thread, maybe everyone will eventually believe her.
I didn't put you in the denialism crowd. But maybe you're feeling lonely.That was a quick response. And, because your response was unexpected, it seems I must be misreading it. You return to complaining about multiple anti-Biden threads created or posted to, day after day after day.
If you consider the links, (2 in the edited comment), of pro-Biden and anti-Trump postings to see the same thing done day after day after day, and then pick any two anti-Trump claims made during his presidency—and addressed every day, day after day after day, you can surely see what I meant by "That's rich."
Or not. But about that group thing, could you put me in one with physically small-statured people?
GA
" We all know how you feel about Biden, yet you repeat it every single day. At this point, your spam of doing that is just an annoyance. Things that annoy tend to not be accepted well."
I nearly ran into that open door. To borrow a phrase; "That's rich."
What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
GA
Sharlee - way back you said "I do know that while Biden was speaking Putin increased his bombing.". That is a declarative statement that is false. They you attempted to provide a justification for that false statement by providing a timeline you found.
The "timeline" in no way supports your claim. That is the point we are trying to make. Basically, you made your claim up out or whole cloth.
"I provided some information I found that was presented in a French news outlet." - Did you even stop to analyze the information relative to your theory that Biden caused the bombing of the fuel dump in L'viv (not Mariupol) and figure out that, as Valeant valiantly attempted to point out to you that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Putin to react that quickly? Obviously not, you seemed to think it was enough to post nonsense about Biden.
Also, you imply that Putin is giving the order for every bombing run and missile strike that occurs in Ukraine. He doesn't have enough time in the day (or probably interest) to be doing that.
"I posted it on this very Political chat to see what others thought about the article. " - Clearly you did not do that. It was very obvious you posted it to back up your claim that Biden's words CAUSED Putin to bomb Ukraine that day.
"bombing was more aggressive after Biden spoke." - Exactly how do you know that?? Did you calculate the average number of bombs dropped per day and compare it to that days bombing? No, you didn't. Further, you seem to imply that Putin has NEVER been that aggressive previously. Where is your data on that?
Twitter users are starting to feel the same way we do about the GOP narratives we seen in here:
Y'all were just complaining that Biden was too weak before this press conference and now y'all are complaining that he's being too tough? The GOP truly doesn't know what it's doing except to be in opposition.
-Russell Foster, Texas
-David GordonSo true, lol. All they know is they hate Biden and Democrats and no action is too low for them to make both look bad.
LOL You call a request for a peaceful demonstration into an insurrection and not take a truly dangerous statement and pretend it is nothing. It would be comical if it weren't just sad.
I am totally amazed at how you managed to filter a thousand words Trump spoke and are only able to focus on 5 or 6. Bravo.
Fair enough - I remain totally amazed how you can take simple words and insist that they mean something entirely different solely because you hate the man.
Show me where I did that. And since you are so nit-picky about words, show me where I EVER said I HATE Trump!
What I have said is just the opposite. I can't HATE a mentally ill person because they have little control over their actions.
Wow, Oil went down 7% today - President Biden must be responsible. At least that is how some think "cause and effect" work, lol.
WOW! The latest Rasmussen poll has Biden at 43% and Fox has him at 45%. So does Economist/You Gov.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6 … 4-matchups
"Former President Trump is leading President Biden in a hypothetical 2024 match-up, according to a new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey released exclusively to The Hill on Monday.
If the 2024 presidential election were held right now, the poll finds Trump getting 47 percent support compared to 41 percent for Biden. Twelve percent of voters are undecided.
Vice President Harris performs even worse in a hypothetical match-up with Trump. Forty-nine percent said they would choose Trump, while 38 percent said they would support Harris. "
Funny I follow the daily
How Popular Is Joe Biden? | FiveThirtyEight. And they have his disapproval overall. at 41.2. 53.3 disapproval.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/
Just checked my year-over-year winter gas and electric bill summaries.
From Nov. 3 of 2020 to March 3 of 2021: $785.49
From Nov. 3 of 2021 to March 3 of 2022: $565.85
How did everyone else do?Is that all Valeant?
I paid more than over $1,000.00 in electric (no gas) over the term you provide, even though I live in Florida. February was an unusually cold month and electric heating is expensive.
Unless, I misunderstand what you mean by "heating summary".Gas and electric. Cold winter in Florida - must have been Biden's fault. How did you do year-to-year?
My heating bill in Michigan was about 40% higher. And I was not even home for the winter months, with the thermostat down to 62.
WOW, President Biden did it again. Astounding employment number and an unemployment rate that has been only two other times.
From Feb 1951 - Nov 1953 and Jan 2020.
America's labor market is roaring back, adding another 431,000 jobs in March and bringing the unemployment rate to a new pandemic-era low of 3.6%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.
Prior to the pandemic, the jobless rate was at 3.5%, matching the near 50-year low first set in 2019.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/01/economy/ … index.htmlSo Biden is almost back to where Trump was when he left office? Have I got that right?
And he did it by requiring vaccinations and masks, right?Nope, you are quite wrong. When Trump left office, everything was in the tank.
- Unemployment way up.
- Very few people were vaccinated with not much of a plan in place to improve it much.
- GDP was in the tank
- 6.6 million less people were employed
- New Covid cases were five times todays rate
- The Death rate was also about 5 times what it is today.
and more
So NO, you do not have it right, lol.Yes, you are correct. I should have referenced Trump's performance before Covid hit. We are getting close to returning to that point.
Does Biden get the credit for killing off COVID (because that's what has produced that return)? I think not; the biggest thing Biden has accomplished is putting inflation through the roof, opening the southern border to thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens and cutting oil production. I can't think of a single thing, of importance, that he has done that produced a positive result outside of continuing the vaccination programs already set up.With that, I would agree. although on a few fronts, he has exceeded it, e.g. GDP, deficit reductions, and wage growth for the lower income that exceeds inflation.
Except Covid is not 'killed off.' Another misstatement. People feel safe enough to return to work because they've either had it or have the vaccine and booster.
And Moody's estimates that the stimulus package that Biden signed into law was responsible for around 4 million of those jobs and lowering the unemployment rate by 2%.
The 19 European countries that use the Euro report inflation of 7.5%. Ours is 7.9%. So for you to state that Biden is 'putting inflation through the roof' omits what is happening globally as a natural occurrence to broken supply chains and pandemic recovery.
Biden is following the law on asylum claims, but has repeated stated that our border is not open. Only members of the far-right make that statement, which likely confuses immigrants to try and come here.
And oil production was cut in mid-2020. Biden shut down a pipeline that wasn't even operational when he took office, but as we've shown, oil production has actually gone up during his term.
Your post is so filled with misinformation, even more so than your claim that Biden got the jobs and unemployment numbers back to the level Trump had when he left office.
Masks and vaccinations have nothing to do with it.
Over the past three months, the U.S. economy has added 1.7 million jobs and the unemployment rate has fallen from 4% down to 3.6%. That is just 0.1% above where it was when the pandemic hit, in February 2020. To find an unemployment rate lower than that, you have to go all the way back to 1969.People must get back to work, obviously.
Maybe, someone needs to tell me why Biden does not get credit for this?
Conservatives complain of a liberal media, I am not so sure if it is so liberal as it has been timid to call out clearly illegal behavior from one side delegating it to mere partisan debate while it muzzles and downplays any accomplishment for which Biden deserves credit.
I would say that the media works for the "other side" more consistently.Outside of continuing the vaccination programs set up, what has he done to put people to work? Brought in tens of thousands of illegals to take the jobs instead? Shut down the oil industry? Brought in massive inflation to force people to work more?
What has he done outside of that single item that produces jobs?You really ought to catch up on the REAL news - I say again: Haven't you noticed that almost ANY American who wants a job has got a job?
"Massive" - what hyperbolic term are you going to use IF it really does get "massive"? "MASSIVE" is what Russian and Argentina are experiencing.All conjecture on your part as always.
I wish that you can give Biden as much credit for the economy as you all were giving Trump at the beginning at his term when he was merely riding the wave from the heavy lifting done during the Obama administration.
That's correct. And the reason is people returning to work from being laid off from COVID, thus the vaccinations and masks.
Certainly Bidens programs stifling business and particularly the oil industry are not responsible for low unemployment. Nor has bringing in tens of thousands of illegal aliens into the country, taking jobs that Americans could be working, produced low unemployment.Then tell me why Biden is, and has been pressuring the America oil industry to increase production? It would really help if you stopped listening to the Right-Wing talking points which are almost always wrong.
"Taking jobs that Americans could be working" - That is hilarious! Haven't you noticed that almost ANY American who wants a job has got a job? That old debunked Right-Wing propaganda chestnut is still not true; it never has been.
In case people want to talk about Biden cutting oil production, just post this link where Trump agreed to cut US oil production by 300,000 barrels per day in April of 2020. All while asking the Saudis and Russian to cut it by 10 mil barrels per day, and when three other countries joined into the cause to get prices to rise, 20% of global oil production would be cut.
https://fortune.com/2020/04/14/trump-oi … war-ended/
But please, tell us again who cut oil production and why gas prices are now really high.Seems that 63% of America in general agree that Putin cannot remain in power. When phrased from Biden, that number drops to 48%, signifying that partisanship alters one's perception significantly, as we see in multiple examples on this site.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-63-of-a … 49601.htmlFor clarity, this is from that link:
Asked whether respondents agreed with an unattributed quote about Putin — “This man cannot remain in power” — 63% of those surveyed said they did.
But when Yahoo News and YouGov posed the question differently, asking whether “President Biden” was “right or wrong” to have said those words — which Biden did on March 26 — just 48% of Americans were willing to say the president was “right.”
That puts in stark relief how successful Trump and the RIght-Wing have been in dividing America!!It's the belief that drives far too many people these days. The idea that they need to line up behind their party line regardless.
I saw a very entertainment based YouTube "survey" of Trump supporters agreeing to quotes directly from Hitler when they believed Mr. Trump stated them. Most were in disbelief when they were told the quotes were from Hitler and not Mr. Trump. They were again asked if they stood behind their agreement with them. One man stated, "yes, If Trump said them" These people had no thought of what was being presented to them other than it came from someone they follow.
There just seems to be no questioning anymore, it's absolute blind agreement with the group.I looked for the reference to that - BOY, it is scary that Trump supporters are so mind-numbingly numb.
Watch two of Fox News' hosts creatively doctor video to dupe stupid people into their false narrative about Biden:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox … 52197.htmlValeant:
This is so sad. It is just friggin propaganda. And the people eat it up.Yeah, caught red handed on that one. Was surprised we didn't see a certain someone post something about Biden looking lost. Maybe I beat them to the un-doctored versions.
Multiple trolls were at Biden's Facebook page saying something along those lines, so the propagandists did reach many of their targets.
Jobless claims at record low. No surprise with Biden as President.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/07/economy/ … index.htmlYeah, no surprise. Watched a segment on local news of a few white collar workers that are simply refusing to go back to the office. Will work only from home. It seems, according to the news report, to be a very common attitude today; either give me whatever I want or I won't work.
Perhaps that's due to Biden, probably not, but it will certainly cut the number of jobless claims.For a change, the workers have the power. They need to take advantage of it.
It keeps getting better. NY AG asks court to hold Trump in civil contempt.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/07/politics … index.htmlHave to love James's reasoning. She thinks it "highly likely to have been in possession, custody or control of numerous documents" and requests Trump be fined $10,000 per day for not producing documents she only thinks he has, without every knowing if he does or not.
Liberals favor the words "I think", only beat out by "
it's highly likely" which is just above " what if " . Oh forgot alleged. All do the trick at producing a quicker heartbeat in a liberal's chest.What does any of that have to do with the fact that Trump has failed to comply with court orders (again) and that the AG is doing the right thing by asking the judge to find him in civil contempt?
I just don't understand why people keep tiptoeing around this deviant. They need to slap him down hard so that he never gets back up to continue his destruction of America.
Oh, btw, the Manhattan DA just announced he is following additional leads in the criminal investigation into Trump.If the court orders Trump to flap his arms and fly to the top of Mt. Everest, do you think he should do it?
Ignoring those little tidbits of "I think" and "it's highly likely" while pretending they are all proven fact does little to promote your cause. Just as pretending rumors and lies were true in all the other failed attempts to imprison Trump failed.Unless the prosecutor has some very good evidence that Trump should be ordered to comply they will not grant the prosecutor's request.
The odds are she does not have anything and be denied her request.
We need to consider the last NY prosecutor that was pursuing this
avenue. He did not succeed with any form of Trump indictment., and chances are good that this one won't either. But some can eat this bit of slop up presently if they please. Some have become very bloated lingering over these bits of maybe if comes.You missed the part where the prosecutor already presented that evidence to the court in order to obtain the order to produce.
"He did not succeed with any form of Trump indictment.," - It is a "she" and this is not the criminal investigation, this is a civil proceeding.
As I mentioned earlier, the criminal investigation is still on-going especially now that new evidence of new crimes has been discovered (according to the DA). I guess you missed that the old DA had ordered his prosecutors to bring an indictment against Trump (is that clear enough now?) as he was walking out the door. The new DA rescinded that because he said he wanted to look more into it.
He has and he says he has reason to continue investigating, which he is doing as I write.
Since we all know Trump is a criminal just as we all know Putin is a murderer, Trump will be brought to the bar of justice at some point in time.
By that comment, you don't think courts have any authority over people - correct?
And you second comment is really pointless since it has nothing to do with the topic of Trump complying with court orders.Since when do we get to decide if we want to comply with court orders or not?? Would we not be in contempt of court? How has it come to the point that some feel we can decide for ourselves if we want to comply with a court order? I'm baffled by this.
He has already been ordered to comply, he is not complying. This is contempt. He is evading a court order. Why should he be above the law?Since Wilderness started interpreting the law, I guess, lol.
"Why should he be above the law?" - Why? Because Trump is the Anointed One. At least that is what his cult members say.This all has to do with subpoenas of documents that Trump refuses to turnover to the courts. It's no different than any other subpoenas that he and his minions have refused to comply with.
They and Trump have a certain arrogance about them where they play above the law with their very high paid lawyers. In my book, Trump is a brilliant con artist who uses being victimized and attacking his opponents all at the same time to dodge the law. "This is the greatest witch hunt of all time."...Poor Donald is being attacked again.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … -documents
"Since when do we get to decide if we want to comply with court orders or not??"
"If a party disagrees with an order, the party may file a motion for a rehearing (by the judge who issued the order) or file an appeal to a higher court" (Trump legally has these rights.)
Thus far I don't think Trump has filed any motions or appealed this case to a higher court. I have a feeling we will see something from trump's attorneys in the next week or so. If he does neither. New York's attorney general will proceed to ask for an order of contempt against former President Donald Trump, with her claim he has failed to comply with a previous court ruling requiring him to turn over documents by March 31. I would think if no motion is filed or request to be heard in a higher court, the judge will find him in contempt, and he could be arrested.
So far he has not been charged with contempt of court. It will be interesting to see what Trump's attornies come up with this week.It seems to me that Trump already bit at that apple and lost, or chose not to bite at all.
Since the NY Supreme Court judge issued the order (which probably means that was the appeal) to provide the documents and Trump refused, I would think that is where the matter ends - he is in contempt of the judge's order.
The AG is NOT seeking jail time for Trump, just a $10,000/day fine.
Trump is stalling, he and his family knows that there criminal penalties for lying under oath, so he will fight tooth and nail to avoid being deposed.
I just hope that James holds her grip tightly on the slippery serpent with both her hands, and not let Trump and his goons intimidate her.
What happens to viewers when they change channels?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZGdGLLFzUIThe price of gas is falling rapidly in my part of Florida - thank you President Biden.
Inflation rose to 8.5%, not as high as many expected. With gas prices falling, so should inflation in the April update.I could not help to notice some relief at the pump. Will the folks castigating him now give him any credit?
Of course they won't - that would be the fair and honorable thing to do, lol.
Yes, he gets the credit. Credit for reducing gasoline costs (inflation) by 1% after raising it 50%.
All Cheers for Biden!!! He is doing great on the economic front, with only 8.5% inflation - the highest since the 70's!!!Yes, because of Biden, inflation is at an ALL TIME HIGH.
Which of his exact policies do you feel contributed to inflation?
I can think of some that led to inflation:
1.) Ignoring reporting about a dangerous lab in China that would eventually cripple supply chains.
2.) Mediating the global cutting of oil production by 20%.
3.) Starting a war.
Oh, wait, these are Trump and Putin policies. Well, they definitely had an effect on why we are seeing inflation.
Policies that would not:
1.) Cutting the Keystone Pipeline since it still would not have been finished as of today and therefore would not have had any effect on oil production.
2.) Any future restriction on federal lands of oil and gas leases as oil companies are choosing to sit on the thousands that they already have.Crickets. The answer must be that none of Biden's policies contribute to inflation (or oil prices either).
There you go lying again. Why do you do that?
At least your right-wing friends have the decency to caveat their claim that it is the highest since Ronald Reagan's time.
Well, at least you gave him credit for doing something right[ that is a nice step in the right direction toward joining the real world.
Now, what are you going to say when inflation comes down next month as most bank economists are thinking it will?
Credit? We are at 8.5 inflation and headed for a recession. And 10 cents --- come on. Get back to you on this. I think I will be saying I told you so in a very short time.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/11/10921175 … -is-comingI told you didn't I Credence that they wouldn't give Biden credit for the 11% drop in gas prices in my part of FL.
Here is another example of being disingenuous. They minimize a 10 cent drop in gas prices (2 - 3%) yet they went ballistic when it increase a penny.
Send some of it our way, please. While the news is reporting that statewide our prices dropped a few pennies, the gas station signs that I see are indicating a small (pennies) increase.
As expected, far-right members of this site can ignore how Trump facilitated the cut to global oil production in 2020 by 20% to blame Biden for rising prices. Not surprising in the least as the omission of key information is the hallmark of the right.
And let's talk about this energy independence claim that people keep throwing around. US oil imports from Russia by year (by thousands of barrels):
2014: 120.345 barrels
2015: 135,247 barrels
2016: 161,286 barrels
2017: 142,011 barrels
2018: 137,010 barrels
2019: 189,796 barrels
2020: 197,720 barrels
Regardless, in 2021, the US exported 3.15 billion barrels of petroleum products and imported slightly less than that meaning that in Biden's first year, the US was energy independent.
For the bigger picture of when the US began the process of moving to energy independence, read this article. It'll explain when the policies began, not when they ended and which administrations deserve the credit:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 … b43c7c1387Shhsshhh, don't wake them from their alternate reality stupor. They might figure out presidents have little to do with gas prices or inflation, as much as they say the Democratic ones do. (They will find reality when it comes to Republican presidents, lol)
Related Discussions
- 34
Don't Give Trump Credit for the Success of the Biden Economy
by Willowarbor 5 months ago
Trump will inherit "the strongest economy in modern history," "an economy primed for growth," "booming markets and solid growth," an economy that is "pretty damn good," and investments "flowing" to "rural and manufacturing communities."In...
- 137
Inflation, what is up with that?
by Scott Belford 8 months ago
There is good inflation and their is bad inflation. What we experienced from 2009 - 2021 was the good type of inflation, between 1 and 3% a year. What we are experiencing now between 5 and 9% inflation is bad inflation. What we experienced in the 1980s, 10 to 15% inflation is...
- 67
Did Putin Really Cause America's Inflation?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Biden blames everything but his government spending for the monthly growing inflation. Which now is at 8.5%, a 40-year high. Biden has gone through painstaking efforts to shirk responsibility for the state of America's failing economy, blaming meat conglomerates, oil companies,...
- 15
Joe's Tale Of Three Pipelines
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Joe Do YOu Know What You Are Signing? Do You?January 20, Biden’s very first day as president, he shut down the Keystone XL pipeline. He gave11,000 citizens that had high-paying jobs the boot, yeah pink slips. Most of these jobs were good-paying union jobs. While these unemployed American...
- 63
What are the Horrible Things President Joe Biden Has Done?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
There are some who applaud Joe Biden for what he has done FOR America. They believe that Biden is going to make America a better, more humane country. However, there are others who REALLY see what Joe Biden is doing TO America i.e. the Afghanistan fiasco, the continual migrant problem,...
- 57
Just The Numbers
by Willowarbor 20 months ago
The economy is big, complex and difficult for most people to understand. In reality, the president may not have as much control over the economy as people tend to think. The Federal Reserve, for instance, has a much more direct influence over how well the economy does. I've read a lot of...