What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
ab: If you are referring to Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema, you are right.
These used to be coveted, union jobs in our country. The kind of jobs that allowed a worker to support a family.
Now we have cars being built by children??
And I'm willing to bet that Hyundai receives plenty of tax breaks and subsidies to have that plant in Alabama.
New York Post : Hyundai accused of using child labor at Alabama car-parts factory.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/22/hyundai-a … a-factory/Way to go Joe! --- US takes out bin Laden's successor and 'significant' al Qaeda leader in CIA drone strike. "Over the weekend, the United States conducted a counterterrorism operation against a significant Al Qaeda target in Afghanistan," the senior administration official told Fox News Monday. "The operation was successful and there were no civilian casualties."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhlMNoL0Io
Biden signs veterans’ toxic exposure bill into law
President Biden on Wednesday signed into law a bill to expand benefits for millions of veterans who were exposed to toxins during war and are suffering illnesses as a result.
The Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act also expands presumptions of service connections for a variety of conditions related to toxic exposure—meaning veterans don’t have to prove their illness was service-connected.
The PACT Act expands Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) healthcare eligibility to veterans who served in the post/9-11 era and create a framework for establishing presumptions of service connections related to toxic exposures.
The bill also expands presumptions for 23 burn pit-related illnesses, and the illnesses would be phased in over time. But Biden said that he directed the VA to make those conditions applicable upon his signature.
It also expands presumptions related to exposures to Vietnam War-era Agent Orange to veterans who served in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Guam.Yes, it does. Thank you, President Biden and the Democrats.
"Biden signs veterans’ toxic exposure bill into law"
" Biden signs CHIPS bill in bid to supercharge US semiconductor production
The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which received wide bipartisan support, includes $52.7 billion to increase domestic semiconductor production"
https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/09/biden … roduction/
Hypocritical POS.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … nt-climate
Rush to Build More Chips Puts Environmental Progress in Peril
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/sus … ress-peril
The health impacts of semiconductor production: an epidemiologic review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090871/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/digita … t-go-away/
Stanford --- https://news.stanford.edu/pr/96/960605chipsenvir.html
In a few years, the liberals can cry about our poisoned water and farmlands... To manufacture chips we will need some of the most acoustic minerals, It would appear the US may open up to mine such minerals that in the past were regulated heavily due to environmental problems. OH, well ...
The facts are so ugly in this case. But are conveniently being ignored by the Biden administration, as well as the media.
Any responsible citizen should be doing some homework on what this president l has proposed, and signed into law.Most of your references state that many chip makers are doing many things to mitigate the environmental impact. There are also huge incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to do the same thing.
It is clear Biden did his homework for so long as there is follow through on that, the benefits to America FAR outweigh the negatives.
"Hypocritical POS." - Since that isn't Biden, it must be Trump
It seems like the doomsayers were wrong - we are not in a recession and might have a soft landing after all.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/15/economy/ … index.htmlWe are in a worldwide recession even if the numbers don't add up according to this article which I have no reason not to believe.
Simply because the prices of gas will not go down as we have already reached the peak oil year in 2006 and the need for energy is only rising.
Secondly, the need for crops will double in 2050 but a third of the grown food is wasted and every minute thirty football fields of topsoil are lost to erosion (as farmers do use pesticides)
Then we have the biggest doomsday of all... climate crisis.
We will only solve the climate crisis if we change the economic system from a system of growth into a sustainable system. No politician is doing this at the moment. As economic growth is seen as holy. But it is not sustainable and is already destroying the climate and civilization.
The energy crisis we are in now will only worsen. But still people refuse to believe the uncomfortable truth about the climate crisis we are in.
Plastics.....in a recent study, scientists found in a test plastics in the blood of 17 from 22 persons randomly tested... think about that.
Plastics is everywhere in this world.
Since 2016, an average of 28 million hectares have been cut down every year. That's one football field of forest lost every single second around the clock.
Doomsday! - Yes it's here, and if we don't act, and so far we are too busy with pathetic political games and profit over people that we walk straight into extinction.
Agriculture is also responsible for 80% of global deforestation and accounts for 70% of the planet’s freshwater use, devastating the species that inhabit those places by significantly altering their habitats.
The current rate of extinction is between 100 and 1,000 times higher than the pre-human background rate of extinction
Doomsday! - Hell yes, but everybody wants room service and acts like nothing is going on, closing their eyes as the truth is to severe to accept.The world is certainly in an existential crisis for sure. It is hard enough trying to get reasonable people to agree on a painful plan but, throw in those that want to disrupt the world such as Trump, Putin, the idiots in Iran and China, I seriously wonder if much of humanity won't die off in about 80 to 100 years. Fortunately, I will be so much ash orbiting the earth in the wind (I am having them use my ashes in a fireworks display, lol)
I tried to answer. But this is such a big theme...
Climate Crisis is a far bigger crisis than COVID. And with the COVID crisis, you saw how spoiled the western world reacted. No masks... NO, we've freedom of ...whatever...
Stopping the climate crisis needs far more serious limitations for people. Like stop buying products from far away (tax them high), stop the growth economy..(tell that to Apple...!!). Make meat far more expensive!!! (Good luck with getting more votes next time..)
Politicians are not trained for doing these things. It's the biggest challenge of mankind, but nobody talks about it in election time.
So yes, we will probably exterminate ourselves (or at least 80%), but the world will do just fine without us, and evolution will come up with another project.
Firework display! Not a bad idea.I am not sure it is fair to say "the western world". I don't think that is true. What is true that the conservative portion of the western world reacted with No Masks, No Shots, Don't care how many people die.
I heard about such a service in San Diego years ago and thought what a great idea. It is even in my will.
More Problems Solved by this President.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/15/economy/ … index.htmlHow about a little hint? What serious problem?
GA
Another achievement (one I happen not to agree with) just announced by Biden: "Biden supporters hailed his decision to cancel $10,000 in debt for those making less than $125,000 a year as another bold bid to improve the lives of middle class Americans, following efforts to fight child poverty and to lower the cost of prescription drugs for seniors.
Personally, I would have just made repayment terms much easier and long-term. Save for those who were snookered by unethical educational organizations like Trump University, if you take on the debt, you need to repay at least the principal.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/25/politics … index.htmlAre you surprised the 2nd Quarter GDP shrank less than originally thought? I am not. https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/25/economy/ … index.html
More evidence of inflation possibly receding. Another barometer of inflation fell for July. Also, I know everybody is cheering the dramatic drop in gas prices. But did you know there has been a significant decrease in the price of the better cuts of meat? Yep, a big drop.
Now, I'll do what all the Trump Republicans on this page do and give President Biden credit for the drop. (But, in reality, just like he had extremely little to do with the increase in inflation, he didn't have much to do with the decrease either.)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/26/economy/ … index.htmlLooks like BIden is recovering in the polls finally.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -7320.htmlBiden is letting tons of illegals in, implementing the inflation decimating middle class act, & other thoughtlessly destructive things. What a "wonderful president" Biden is? Satan would make a far better president! What world are you living in, not the real world! Biden s....ks big time?
Tons of illegals is good for the economy.
The rest are just lies.Why? Did they also bring tons of money to buy with and products to sell with them? Or do they use the money that others would have spent to gain what they need, make it a zero sum game as far as the country is concerned?
I will concede that illegals produce goods to sell, but that the value of those goods is insufficient to cover their needs, forcing others to spend their wealth to make those provisions.What do you mean "their needs?" Sort of gives off the connotation that every immigrant is a drain on our resources.
Every immigrant? Not only irrelevant (the discussion is about illegal aliens, not immigrants) but also about a majority, not every single one.
And yes, the large majority of illegal aliens are unable to support themselves, unable to pay their share of communal resources that they use but don't help with much at all.At this point in time he is talking about illegals, but many on his side makes the same claim about immigrants in general.
I have explained why many times before for you. I have also provided studies to you, which disprove your last claim. I don't intend to play your games and do it again.
I know you have. The only problem is you confuse the economy being good with the people being good as well. When the improvement comes from an influx of others it doesn't do the current residents any good to increase.
Nor does it do any good to take the wealth to give away to satisfy others needs; either way the money is spent once, either by the owner or the recipient. No net gain.
So you can play the word games forever, but they don't mean anything.Republicans, Another canary in the coal mine? Sarah Palin, Ms Alaska, endorsed by Trump lost to a Democrat challenger. For its sole house seat had remained Republican for almost 50 years, ended with the death of this Congressman who held the seat for 49 years against any all challengers.
Here is the story
https://news.yahoo.com/special-election … 53552.htmlIt might be as much of a "canary" for Ranked Choice Voting, (RCV), as it is for Republicans in Alaska.
My shallow understanding of RCV sees it as a good thing, a challenge to the extremes of 'either/or' choices.
GA
WHAAAAT........... You are kidding, aren't you? These illegals are taxing the economy. The illegals are exhausting our socioeconomic systems. They need to be....DEPORTED.
Biden expands access to abortion counselling and services to those in the military service and are part of the VA thereby expanding access in those medieval states that have banned the vital medical service.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/02/politics … index.htmlmedieval for caring about the life of a fetus
Medieval for not caring about those that are actually living.
A synopsis of what Biden has been up to.
- I believe we can build a better America, so we passed the biggest infrastructure investment since President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and we’ve now embarked on a decade of rebuilding the nation’s roads, bridges, highways, ports, water systems, high-speed internet, railroads.
- I believe we can make America safer, so we passed the most significant gun safety law since President Clinton.
- I believe we could go from being the highest cost of prescriptions to the world to making prescription drugs and health care more affordable, so we passed the most significant health care reform since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act.
- And I believed we could create a clean energy future and save the planet, so we passed the most important climate initiative ever, ever, ever.It is time to recap President Biden's long list of successes in his almost two years in office. He has been one of the most effective presidents in spite of the unprecedented hostility of the anti-democracy Trumplican Party.
My apologies up front for the length of this list.
* One of the most significant is the Inflation Reduction Act which accomplished (or will accomplish) several things:
** LOWER Drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices on certain drugs
** CAP Medicare drug costs at $2,000 annually
** $800 annual savings on health insurance premiums for 13 million Americans
** $500 annual savings via Clean Energy Tax Credit Program
** CUT emissions by half by 2050
** BONUS tax credits for companies who pay prevailing wages or hire apprentices for certain projects.
** TAX the self-serving corporate stock buy backs with a 1% surcharge
** MAKE the biggest corporations pay a minimum 15% in taxes rather than paying nothing or getting a refund.
** No tax increase for anyone making less than $400,000 annually
** CREATE good paying jobs in the clean energy sector
* The Chips and Science Act will:
** LOWERS the cost of many things we buy
** KICK-STARTS semiconductor chip making in America (the lack of which causes inflation)
** CREATES more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs
** HELPS ensure American developed technologies are built in America.
* The American Rescue Plan:
** REOPENED all K - 12 schools in America
** HELPED create millions of jobs or let Americans get their jobs back that were lost due to Covid
** FUNDED a massive Covid vaccination campaign which was more aggressive than his predecessor's that resulted in a 78% adult vaccination rate. The other 22% were largely Trumplicans who didn't care if they infected other people.
* The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
** CREATES good paying jobs across America
** LARGEST investment in Public Transportation in American history
** LARGEST investment in tackling legacy pollution in American history
** BUILDS first every nationwide network of EV charging stations
** ENSURES safe drinking water in every community (Jackson, MS is a beneficiary)
** PROVIDES Affordable highspeed Internet to every American
** LARGEST investment in rebuilding our crumbling road and highway system since the Interstate Highway System under President Eisenhower
** MOST significant investment in passenger rail since Amtrak was founded
** BUILDS a more resilient power grid system and scales new clean energy technologies to protect against attacks from China, Russia, and Iran.
* The PACT Act -- LARGEST expansion of benefits and services for toxic exposed veterans in more than 30 years.
* The bipartisan Safer Communities Act will:
** HELP remove firearms from dangerous individuals
** NARROWS the "boyfriend" loophole to keep guns out of the hands of convicted dating partners
** EXPANDS mental health services in schools and supports school safety
* Protecting reproductive rights through executive order that:
** REQUIRES doctors to perform lifesaving health care even though some Red State laws prohibit it.
** PROTECTS access to reproductive healthcare in cases of medical emergencies that is banned in many Red States now.
** PROTECTS sensitive personal healthcare information that some Red States will use to track down women who seek reproductive healthcare
** PROTECTS a woman's right to travel to seek reproductive healthcare that some Red States are trying to prohibit.
THIS is not quite half of the list. I will pick up the remainder on the next post.I didn't finish your list, but what a load of crap!
Most, if not all, of your "accomplishments" in the first paragraph are merely a way to make one person pay for the wants of another.
#1,2,3 and 4 falls directly into this category. Cutting emissions in half sounds great...until the cost comes due and it still hasn't happened, so no "accomplishment" there.
The next few tax laws are what I said; one person must pay for another's wants. There is no accomplishment to be found here...unless one appreciates the pitfalls and failures of Marxism/Socialism. I understand Biden, and presumably you, DO appreciate those failures, but most of us do not.
Finally, the good paying jobs...that have not happened and if they do will only cost the people more than it should for less than they should get. That's how government works, particularly when some idiot politician decides how much labor or products should cost.
I note several things where Biden is usurping states rights as well - something our Constitution deplores but liberals appear to love. Certainly Biden is no fan of our most sacred document and will violate it at will if we allow him to.Which will cost more - cutting pollution now or the planet dying later?
As I mentioned before, if James Madison (the father of the Constitution) had his way, Congress would have had veto power over state legislatures, After studying all of the State constitutions, he, and others, deplored, to use your word, how many of the states treated their citizenry, let alone how they treated each other. Your statement that "Biden is usurping states rights as well - something our Constitution deplores but liberals appear to love" is historically wrong. Even though he didn't get the veto he wanted, he tried to make sure there was a balance of power between the Federal gov't and the State gov'ts. He opposed either one usurping the power of the other. But when push came to shove, he included the Supremacy Clause (among others) to help settle any dispute if it was brought to the Supreme Court.
He also believed the citizenry belonged to both the nation as well the state in which they reside. As a result, the national gov't has a responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of where they reside. If a state abuses their citizens and denies them their just rights, the federal gov't has the right and obligation to step in to rectify the wrong (as is happening today in most Red states)
This all boils down to each of us having a different interpretation of what the word "United" in United States. I seriously doubt you can show me where the framers wanted 13 (later to be 50) independent states all acting in accordance with the current faction in power in the state legislature. That is what resulted from the Articles of Confederation (a proponent of the "weak" federal gov't that you desire). The reason we have our Constitution today is that the writers of our Construction vehemently disagreed with the AoC. Instead, they wanted a "strong" federal gov't, which you apparently oppose.
I, and most Americans, believe that government clearly does have a responsibility to help create the underlying conditions in which all citizens can strive to enhance the quality of their lives and the fabric of society around them. This believe is behind the fact that EVERY gov't in existence today is, to one degree or another, a "welfare" state. I challenge you to find one that isn't. On a scale of 1 to 10, with one being a Darwinist gov't, America probably falls at around 4. Hardly the so-called Marxist/Communist opprobrium you think America is today. I reject social Darwinism out of hand as being counterproductive to a strong nation.
So you oppose good paying jobs? Is that what I am to take away from your comment?
Living in Fantasyland is so comforting, isn't it? However, reality doesn't indicate this. Inflation is out of control, crime has escalated to a very extreme level, not to mention other negative things. Please tell me WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING, MAN.
Inflation is decreasing
Not sure what you are smoking but crime has remained steady since Biden took over - https://apnews.com/article/gun-violence … 583e31652f
It seems that I am the one living in reality.Yes, Grace the facts show inflation is still a big problem, an ongoing long problem at this point. The annual inflation rate for the United States is 7.7% for the 12 months that ended October 2022. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/i … %20for,ET.
In 2020 the Anual inflation rate was 1.4%
2021the Anual inflation rate was 7%
In 2022 we reached an annual rate of 7.7%
Monthly 12-month inflation rate in the United States from January 2020 to October 2022
This chart offers a factual picture of Inflation under Biden, and the low inflation rate in Trump's last year in office, as we were in the middle of a serious pandemic.
And now it is 7.1% and falling, along with gas prices. I can get gas for $2.83 in my neck of the woods.
I just looked at number one. I have proved a link to Ways And means committee report on the act. They disagree with what Biden has represented about his Inflation Bill.
"Fact Check: Independent Studies Debunk Key Claims About Democrats’ Inflation Bill"
" AUGUST 18, 2022 —
"Democrats’ so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” doesn’t help working families. In fact, middle-income families are four times more likely to be worse off than better off under this bill. Here are key problems with the bill the media isn’t telling you.
READ: Nonpartisan Tax Scorekeeper: Average Working Family Is More Likely to Be Worse Off than Better Off Under Democrats’ Tax Plan
Higher Energy Prices:
The bill’s $25 billion superfund and methane taxes on American energy disproportionately harm middle- and lower-income households through higher prices at the pump and bigger utility bills.
Taxes on crude and imported petroleum products will be passed on to American consumers in the form of utilities, at gas stations, and higher prices for the goods they buy.
As Americans for Tax Reform says: “The legislation would impose a regressive tax on oil and gas development based upon emission levels of methane during production, leading to higher energy bills for consumers and higher costs of everyday products.”
The American Gas Association also makes clear: “These outcomes are inconsistent with President Biden’s commitment to pay for reconciliation without imposing new taxes on lower-income Americans.”
READ: Schumer-Manchin Bill Would Hike Gas Prices Even Higher for American Families
Blue-Collar Workers Pay More to Subsidize the Wealthy:
An analysis from Congress’s nonpartisan tax scorekeeper shows the landscaping company owner and his workers pay more, while the wealthy homeowner gets checks from Washington for the solar panels on their roof. That’s because the “winners” under Democrats’ tax plan are the earners at the very top. Democrats’ reckless spending plan includes more than $250 billion in Green New Deal subsidies that benefit the wealthy the most.
The percentage of $1 million-plus households getting a tax cut (19.4 percent) is twice as high as any other income group.
The group with the next highest proportion of tax cuts is those earning $500,000-$1 million.
Over the long term, 72.5 percent of households with income over $1 million will receive a tax cut.
More IRS Audits and Compliance Costs:
At least $20 billion of the revenue Democrats hope to collect from taxpayers with a supercharged IRS would come from lower- and middle-income earners and small businesses, according to a new analysis by Congress’s nonpartisan scorekeeper. That’s in addition to existing audits of these income levels.
That means higher overhead for working families and small businesses merely to comply with a supercharged IRS, an agency with a long history of abuses.
READ: New Schumer-Manchin Bill Will Supercharge Long History of IRS Abuses
As the Cato Institute shows, “The Office of Management and Budget estimates that individuals and businesses currently spend 6.5 billion hours a year on federal tax paperwork, which is equivalent to 3.6 million people working full‐time on this unproductive activity. That ‘Tax Army’ is two and half times larger than our uniformed military of 1.4 million service members…”
READ: CBO: New IRS Audits Will Grab at Least $20B from Lower- & Middle-Income Families
Obamacare Subsidies for the Wealthy that Worsen Health Care Inflation
Democrats’ Obamacare subsidies hide the true cost of health insurance and disincentivize insurance companies from reducing costs, which is why health insurance inflation is already 17 percent over the last year – in fact, at the same time that premiums more than doubled in the individual market, deductibles for Washington-approved coverage also increased by an average of 35 percent — over $1,700 for individuals and $3,600 for families.
READ: FACT CHECK: Health Care Prices Soared Under Democrats’ Broken Health Care Law
Democrats have made clear they want to make this bill’s three-year extension of Obamacare subsidies permanent, forcing working families to pay $248 billion to bribe people into Obamacare, including people making over 400 percent of the federal poverty level, a group that was never intended to get subsidies under the original health care law.
The worker shortage and inflation will also worsen, according to CBO, “mainly because of the enhanced health insurance subsidies, pushing down output and pushing up inflation.”
READ: Five Ways Manchin Biden BBB Helps the Wealthy and Harms Working Families
Higher Drug Prices, and Fewer New Cures for Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions
Democrats’ socialist drug pricing scheme will raise prices on new drugs, despite their claim that their Manchin-Biden Build Back Better bill will lower costs for families, the Congressional Budget Office confirms.
READ: Congressional Scorekeeper Confirms Democrats’ Reconciliation Bill Raises Drug Prices
Higher launch prices for prescription drugs will increase costs at the pharmacy counter and raise insurance premiums, pushing new cures out of reach for most American patients except the wealthiest.
READ: WSJ: Cancer Patients Pay a Steep Price in Manchin-Biden Drug Pricing Scheme
Loss of innovation is a death sentence for patients and means fewer new treatments and cures. Experts find that Democrats’ price-fixing scheme would kill up to 342 cures, according to a study by the University of Chicago.
READ: Study: Democrats’ Price Controls Would Have Killed 104 Cures We Have Today
Independent Studies: What Inflation Reduction?
Despite its misleading title, Democrats’ bill will worsen inflation over the next two years and do nothing to bring inflation down in years after, according to Penn-Wharton analysis. Even the White House’s preferred economic forecaster said the bill “won’t be a game changer.”
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/fact … tion-bill/
In my opinion, much of what you posted just has not come to fruition, and there is an outside chance much of it won't.Well put. It takes a special kind of blindness to call Bidens actions "achievements". Or an overactive imagination. There is no possibility that (most) of the things listed as accomplishments will benefit the country or its people.
Just as an anecdotal addition, I have twice had solar companies out to investigate putting solar on my roof. Both times I turned it down because the monthly cost far exceeds my electric payments. And that is because with my meager tax liability I cannot get anything back from government. I can subsidize the rich, but cannot participate in those subsidies myself - I'm too poor to get anything for improving the planet.I would offer that it takes a special kind of blinders not to see most of those are great achievements that moved America forward.
When I saw the reports you listed come from the Trumplicans I had to take their conclusions with a lot of salt since the "GOP" has a long history of twisting or outright falsifying the facts.
Consequently, I went looking for truly independent sources.
For example, there is https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/sorti … ction-act/
* Does it raise taxes? On corporations with over $1 billion in PROFITS who don't now pay taxes - maybe. It depends on how you define "tax-loophole"
* Did Biden break his pledge? NO. Not when you do a complete analysis. which the JCT did not. If they did, they would have found "In all, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects the savings and revenue would come to $790 billion, paying for all of the spending in the bill plus reducing the annual deficit by a total of about $305 billion over 10 years. The Penn Wharton Budget Model projects the bill would reduce cumulative deficits by $248 billion over 10 years."
Does the Act actually reduce inflation. Personally, I wasn't convinced it would, or at least not very much. This convinced me I was wrong. https://vietfactcheck.org/2022/10/02/wi … inflation/
High Energy Costs? Apparently, the CBO thinks its impact is minimal and the benefits outweigh the costs, it also didn't see a reason, apparently, to say anything about the impact on consumers.. https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-red … %20decade.
Blue-Collar Workers pay more.to subsidize the wealthy. Not according to this -https://www.nrdc.org/stories/consumer-guide-inflation-reduction-act#:~:text=For%20the%20High%2DEfficiency%20Electric,of%20its%20area's%20median%20income.
One line out that is this about one of the tax credits: "Who qualifies: For the HOMES Rebate Program, everyone qualifies; however, low- to medium-income households can earn more cash back."
Hopefully you are getting the idea that the Trumplican sources you reference are, as Wilderness puts it, a piece of crap.My point --- not all economists feel as you do about this bill. Just offered a different slant.
Not willing to address your personal views of the source I offered or what I see as nonsense in regard to Trumplicans. I assume many would feel Penn-Wharton analysis are well qualified to fact-check information on the bill in question. I think the source speaks loudly and is a well-respected institution.
"Independent Studies: What Inflation Reduction?
Despite its misleading title, Democrats’ bill will worsen inflation over the next two years and do nothing to bring inflation down in years after, according to Penn-Wharton analysis. Even the White House’s preferred economic forecaster said the bill “won’t be a game
changer.”
Am I to believe you feel Penn-Wharton analysis are Trumplican's?If what you offered as an unbiased slant, then it would be worth reading - but it is not.
As to the Penn-Wharton analysis actually gives good marks to the Inflation Reduction Act, just not for reducing inflation much (which I didn't think it would either and agree with your assessment of the title being misleading - but show me a popular bill whose title isn't misleading). P-W says about inflation that "The Inflation Reduction Act “would have no meaningful effect on inflation in the near term but would reduce inflation by around 0.1 percentage points by the middle of the first decade,” according to the co-authors". But then it goes on to say this estimate is not statistically different from zero.
What they say it does do, however, is:
* The finalized Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (H.R. 5376) will reduce noninterest cumulative deficits by $264 billion over 10 years (which is deflationary)
As government debt declines, private capital will increase slightly by 2050 and workers will become more productive, which will be reflected in wages that increase by 0.1% the same year, the Penn Wharton scholars forecast. Moreover, they said, the increase in private capital combined with the accumulated productivity increases from the impact of the bill’s climate and clean-energy measures will lead to the slight increase in GDP.
In addition, certain sectors WILL see, by definition, deflation. Mainly in medical cost as the cap on insulin takes effect along with the cap on out-of-pocket costs for medicine (granted, these are for Medicare recipients only). Letting Medicare negotiate prices (something real Republicans applaud, but Trumplicans do not) will also reduce inflation.
Built into the act are mechanisms to reduce premium costs as well, which your source simply gets wrong by cherry-picking data.
The clean energy provisions will increase pay for many workers while ultimately lowering energy costs.
Many other provisions have the same effect.
Of course some of it hasn't come to fruition. These aren't instant gratification projects.
Precisely --- Yet you list these issues under "What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President"
Using that logic, then you must agree that Trump's Operation Warp Speed shouldn't be attributed to him during his term because it produce almost nothing while he was president.
Me, I don't care when the results happen so long as they do happen in order to give credit where credit is due. And I definitely give Trump kudos for Operation Warp Speed.
It appears there is a new achievement you can add to your list that is a bit of almost-instant gratification.
News blurbs are saying Pres. Biden is going to be plugging some of the physical barrier gaps that are funneling the flow of illegal immigrants to the overwhelmed communities in the news. A positive step to further secure the Southern border.
GA
"READ: FACT CHECK: Health Care Prices Soared Under Democrats’ Broken Health Care Law" - didn't need to once I noticed this is a House Trumplican product.
Instead, you might read this: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheet … -americans
or this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac … 873810001/
or this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/19/us/p … n-act.htmlSince you are criticizing increased tax audits, I find it interesting that you oppose catching tax cheats. In any case, your Trumplican House analysis is lying to you again. The fact is, the extra audit funding is directed to catching the wealthier tax cheats, something they didn't have the resources or money to do. https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/605107/ … uction-act
Again the Trumplicans are lying to you. In this case when you reported that "The worker shortage and inflation will also worsen, according to CBO, “mainly because of the enhanced health insurance subsidies, pushing down output and pushing up inflation.”
The truth is the CBO actually said " in a letter sent to Sen. Lindsey Graham last Thursday that the Inflation Reduction Act—which the Senate passed on Sunday—“would have a negligible effect on inflation.”
AND
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … 412%2C913.
AND it will keep premiums from rising: https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/five-t … ction-act/"As the Cato Institute shows, “Th...." - Again, that sounds you are on the side of tax cheats since you appear to oppose catching them
" Congressional Scorekeeper Confirms Democrats’ Reconciliation Bill Raises Drug Prices" - I would argue this so-called Congressional Scorekeeper hire some real cost analysts who know arithmetic. These clowns clearly don't.
"Overall, CBO estimated an earlier version of the Medicare prescription drug provisions would save $287.6 billion over 10 years."
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/medic … ction-act/
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/inflation-red … t-benefits
Here are some more accomplishments which were great for the nation.
I'll start with one I don't agree with, but recognizing I am in the small minority
* Biden's historic student debt relief.
** MORE than 40.000,000 borrowers stand to benefit
** NEARLY 20,000,000 borrowers will have their debt wiped out freeing that money to spend in the economy
** THE top 5% income earners do not benefit which helps shrink the skyrocketing gap wealth gap
** RIGHT now the Grinch who stole Christmas is holding up the program guaranteeing more votes against Republicans next cycle.
* Ending our failed approach to marijuana by pardoning those with federal simple weed possession and urging governors to do the same. He is also reviewing how drugs are put on a schedule.
* Led the charge to support Ukraine after being savagely attacked by baby-killer Putin
** AFTER Trump tried to kill NATO, Biden breathed new life into it
** BIDEN brought together the European Union to fight against a common enemy with no decenters,
** GOT much of the world to support Ukraine as well
Here is a quote for all you doomsayers out there:
"After months of steep hikes in interest rates, the Fed is facing a surprising reality: The damage to financial markets and the broader economy has been relatively modest, and inflation is showing signs of easing. Bubbles in both the stock market and home prices are shrinking from their historic surge — but only gradually. Crypto’s implosion has barely caused a ripple. And beyond Wall Street, consumer spending has held up, factory orders are rising, and the job market is consistently beating expectations."
Seems like Biden is doing a lot right given that the naysayers blamed him for all of those things, whether fair or not.Biden signs gay marriage law, calls it ‘a blow against hate’
WASHINGTON (AP) — A celebratory crowd of thousands bundled up on a chilly Tuesday afternoon to watch President Joe Biden sign gay marriage legislation into law, a joyful ceremony that was tempered by the backdrop of an ongoing conservative backlash over gender issues.
“This law and the love it defends strike a blow against hate in all its forms,” Biden said on the South Lawn of the White House. “And that’s why this law matters to every single American.”
Lawmakers from both parties attended Tuesday’s ceremony, reflecting the growing acceptance of same-sex unions, once among the country’s most contentious issues.Gay marriage has been around for 10 years now. How in the world are they so delusional that they think this is a blow against hate?
I was just thinking the same thing! Gay marriage became legalized here in the U.S. way back when Barack Obama was President!!
I remember seeing all of the same sex marriage images, because MSM made sure that we all saw and that we all knew, what Barack Obama accomplished....so what is all of this, really all about?Giving Biden a chance to say he was able to strike a blow against hate? Maybe the old guy needs to feel like he is doing something.
"President Obama called the Supreme Court's decision affirming the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry a "victory for America" that had "made our union a little more perfect."
In the 5-4 decision, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court, saying the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
"Our nation was founded on a bedrock principle — that we are all created equal," the president said at the White House Rose Garden following the announcement of the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges."
I guess Biden forgot the Supreme Court ruling.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … or-america
I think Biden had very different feelings on same-sex marriage than Obama.
Biden has a long history that shows he did not support Gay rights.
"In 1973, Biden suggested that gay federal employees were "security risks"
In 1993, Biden voted to block the immigration of HIV+ individuals into the United States
In 1993, Biden voted for the bill that created "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
In 1994, Biden voted to cut off federal funding for schools that taught "acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle"
For decades, Biden opposed same-sex marriage
In 1996, Biden voted for the Defense Of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman
In the 2000s, Biden claimed that same-sex marriage was a "state" issue and repeatedly said that marriage was "between a man and a woman"
Biden refused to characterize a Constitutional marriage amendment as "writing discrimination into the Constitution"
Biden suggested he was opposed to the "timing" of the marriage amendment, not its substance
In 2008, both before and after he became Obama's Vice-Presidential nominee, Biden said he opposed same-sex marriage
Biden is falsely claiming he was the first major leader to support same-sex marriage
12 years before Biden did, Vice President Dick Cheney opposed federal restrictions on same-sex marriage
Biden wasn't even the first Obama Cabinet member to support same-sex marriage
In 2012, after Biden accidentally supported same-sex marriage, his staff and White House aides attempted to clean up and walk back Biden's remarks, saying he had not actually endorsed it
BIDEN WAS NOT A CHAMPION FOR LGBT AMERICANS
In 1973, Biden Suggested That Gay Federal Employees Were "Security Risks"
In 1973, Responding To A Question About Gays Serving In The U.S. Civil Service Or The Military, Biden Said That He Has Not Given It Much Thought But His "Gut Reaction...Is That They [Homosexuals] Are Security Risks." "Biden also agreed to answer later by mail a series of questions on U.S. Civil Service and military job discrimination which Robert Vane, a gay activist, presented to him. Vane a North Star resident, startled Biden with his sudden queries and sent at least three persons storming from the room when he identified his cause. 'My gut reaction,' Biden told Vane, 'is that they [homosexuals] are security risks but I must admit I haven't given this much thought...I'll be darned!'" (Hugh Cutler, "Gay Activist Gets Biden's 'Gut Reaction,'"
In 1993, Biden Voted To Block The Immigration Of HIV+ Individuals Into The United States
In February 1993, Biden Voted For An Amendment To Block The Immigration Of HIV+ Individuals. (S.Amdt. 39 To S. 1, Roll Call Vote #13, 76-23, 2/18/93, Biden Voted Yea)
Biden Voted For An Amendment To Codify The Department Of Health And Human Services' Prohibition Of the Permanent Immigration Of HIV+ Individuals. "Vote on Senator Don Nickles' (R-OK) amendment to codify the Department of Health and Human Services' prohibition of the permanent immigration of HIV+ individuals. The amendment passed by a vote of 76-23: R 42-1, D 34-22. HRCF opposed this amendment." ("Senate Votes Of The 103rd Congress," Human Rights Campaign, Accessed 6/18/20; "Senate Voting Records – 103rd Congress,"
In 1993, Biden Voted For Don't Ask Don't Tell, Which Kicked 14,500 Servicemembers Out Of The U.S. Military
In 1993, Biden Voted For The National Defense Authorization Act Of 1994. (Conference Report To H.R. 2401, Roll Call Vote #380: Passed 77-22-1; R: 26-18; D: 51-4-1, 11/17/93, Biden Voted Yea)
The 1994 NDAA Contained The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy Which Prohibited Gay Americans From Serving In The Military. "The ambiguities in the Clinton Administration's interpretation of the policy, as well as conflicting legal rulings at the time, seemingly encouraged Congress to act. On November 30, 1993, the FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President Clinton (P.L. 103-160). Section 571 of the law, codified at 10 United States Code 654, describes homosexuality in the ranks as an 'unacceptable risk ... to morale, good order, and discipline.' The law codified the grounds for discharge as follows: (1) the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts; (2) the member states that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual; or (3) the member has married or attempted to marry someone of the same sex. The law also stated that DOD would brief new entrants (accessions) and members about the law and policy on a regular basis." (David Burrelli, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": The Law and Military Policy on Same-Sex Behavior," Congressional Research Service, 1/2/20)
More Than 14,500 Service Members Were Discharged From The Military For Violating The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy Between 1994 And 2011. "14,500 US service personnel have been thrown out of military service since the DADT policy took effect, according to the non-profit watchdog and lobby group, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network." (Karen McVeigh and Paul Harris, "US Military Lifts Ban On Openly Gay Troops," The Guardian, 9/20/11)
In 1994, Biden Voted For An Amendment To Cut Off Federal Funding For Schools That Taught "Acceptance Of Homosexuality As A Lifestyle"
In August 1994, Biden Was One Of 23 Democrats To Vote For S.Amdt. 2434. (S.Amdt. 2434 to S.Amdt. 2433 to S. 1513, Roll Call Vote #244: Passed 63-36-1; R: 40-3-1; D: 23-33, 8/1/94; Biden Voted Yea)
The Amendment "Cut Off Federal Funds To Any School District That Teaches Acceptance Of Homosexuality As A Lifestyle." "The Senate voted Monday to cut off federal funds to any school district that teaches acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle. The 63-36 vote on a proposal by Sens. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., came during debate on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides $12.5 billion in federal funds to the nation's public schools." (Robert Naylor, Jr., "Senate Votes To Cut Aid To Schools With Pro-Gay Stance," The Associated Press, 8/1/94)
In 1998, Biden's Home State Newspaper Described Him As Being Relatively Silent On Gay Rights
In 1998, Delaware Pride Board Member Vicki Morelli Said That "None" Of Delaware's Congressional Delegation, Including Biden, Had "Come Out As Incredibly Outspoken One Way Or The Other ... They're All Good Enough Politicians That They Know Not To Make Hateful Comments Against Gays, Yet Not To Fight So Vigorously For Gay Rights That Alienate Voters." "But Vicky Morelli, a board member of the gay rights group Delaware Pride, said the delegation runs the gamut. 'Biden has usually been pro-gay about 80 percent of the time,' she said. 'Roth has been against us about 90 percent of the time. Castle has sort of flip-flopped. 'None of them have come out as incredibly outspoken one way or the other – which could be a good thing,' she said. 'But it makes them hard to pin down on certain things.' They're all good enough politicians that they know not to make hateful comments against gays, yet not to fight so vigorously for gay rights that alienate voters, she said." (Carl Weiser, "GOP Attacks Gays; Del. Lawmakers Stay Quiet On Issues," The News Journal, 7/26/98)
BIDEN SPENT DECADES OPPOSING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
In 1996, Biden Voted For The Defense Of Marriage Act
In 1996, Biden Voted For The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA). "Defense of Marriage Act - Amends the Federal judicial code to provide that no State, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction or to any right or claim arising from such relationship. Establishes a Federal definition of: (1) 'marriage' as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and (2) 'spouse' as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." (H.R. 3396, Roll Call Vote #280, Passed 85-14, 9/10/96)
The Defense Of Marriage Act Defined Marriage "As Only A Legal Union Between One Man And One Woman As Husband And Wife." (H.R. 3396, Introduced 5/7/96)
DOMA "Defined Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman And Allowed States Not To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages." "The measure defined marriage as between a man and a woman and allowed states not to recognize same-sex marriages. Same-sex couples could not claim federal benefits. Biden was one of 85 senators to vote in favor." (Jon Greenberg, "Progressive Democratic Group's Attack On Joe Biden's Voting Record Needs Some Context," PolitiFact, 4/26/19)
In The 2000s, During Discussion Of A Constitutional Marriage Amendment, Biden Called Same Sex Marriage A "State Issue," Repeatedly Saying "Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman"
In February 2004, Biden Said He Opposed President Bush's Proposed Marriage Amendment, But Did So By Describing It As Unnecessary And Touting His Prior Vote For The Defense Of Marriage Act. (Erin Kelly, "Amendment Unnecessary, Delaware Senators Say," The News Journal [Delaware], 2/26/04)
Biden: "As President Bush Said On A Previous Occasion, This Issue Should Be Left To The States. I Agree. That's Why I Voted For The Defense Of Marriage Act, Which Defines Marriage As 'A Union Between One Man And One Woman' And Does Not Require Any State To Recognize A Same-Sex Union Sanctioned Under The Laws Of Another State." (Erin Kelly, "Amendment Unnecessary, Delaware Senators Say," The News Journal [Delaware], 2/26/04)
Biden: "This Has Long Been A State Issue, And It Should Remain That Way." (Erin Kelly, "Amendment Unnecessary, Delaware Senators Say," The News Journal [Delaware], 2/26/04)
In June 2006, Biden Said He Did Not Oppose A Federal Marriage Constitutional Amendment On Substance, But That He Opposed "The Timing" Of The Amendment. JOHN ROBERTS: "So -- s, are you more against the amendment itself or the timing of it?" SENATOR JOE BIDEN (D-DE): "I'm against the timing of it. Look, marriage is between a man and a woman. Tell me why that has to be put in the Constitution now? We already have a federal law that has not been challenged. No one's declared it unconstitutional. It's the law of the land, saying marriage is between a man and a woman." (CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," 6/5/06)
Biden Said He Did Not Know Whether A Federal Marriage Amendment Would Be "Writing Discrimination Into The Constitution" As Mary Cheney Had Characterized It. JOHN ROBERTS: "You also have Mary Cheney and Russ Feingold both saying that, to pass this amendment, would be to write discrimination into the Constitution. Is this really writing discrimination into the Constitution?" SENATOR JOE BIDEN (D-DE): "Look, I don't -- I don't know whether it would be writing discrimination into the Constitution. But it doesn't warrant the Constitution. There's a lot of things that don't need to be in the Constitution. And what we have always -- marriage has always been something we left to the states. We don't pass a federal law saying what age you can be married or not married. States have different ages. We don't pass a federal law telling you the conditions on which you can get married, who can marry you, how you can get married." (CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," 6/5/06)
June 2006, Biden: "Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman And States Must Respect That." TIM RUSSERT: "The president used his radio address yesterday, and tomorrow in the Rose Garden, to talk about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." SENATOR JOE BIDEN (D-DE): "You know, think about this. The world's going to Hades in a handbasket. We are desperately concerned about the circumstance relating to avian flu—we don't have enough vaccines, we don't have enough police officers—and we're going to debate, the next three weeks, I'm told, gay marriage, a flag amendment, and God only knows what else. I can't believe the American people can't see through this. We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. We've all voted—not, where I've voted, and others have said, look, marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that. Nobody's violated that law, there's been no challenge to that law. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Marriage is between a man and a woman." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 6/4/06)
And Then This Confused or just lying?
Biden Has Falsely Claimed He Was The First Major Leader To Support Same-Sex Marriage
At The February 7 Democrat Debate, Biden Claimed He Was The First Major Leader Holding Public Office To Call For Same-Sex Marriage. JOE BIDEN: "And I was the first major leader holding public office to call for same sex marriage. So I don't know what about the past of Barack Obama and Joe Biden wass so bad." (Joe Biden, Remarks At Democrat Debate, Manchester, NH, 2/7/20)
At The March 15 Democrat Debate, Biden Repeated The Claim That He Was The First Person Of Any Administration "To Go On National Television" In Support Of Gay Marriage. JOE BIDEN: "And by the way, I might add, I'm the first person to go on national television in any administration and say I supported gay marriage. I supported gay marriage when asked. And so it started a ripple effect. I'm not taking all credit for it, but I'm the first major player to say I support gay marriage on national television." (Joe Biden, Remarks At Democrat Debate, Washington, DC, 3/15/20)"
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documen … gbt-record
Biden will tell Americans anything he thinks they want to hear. In my view, he is genuinely a man that is shallow, and not too bright, a politician that cares little about "we the people. His long history of lying and flipping his views clearly shows he is dishonest to himself as well
to however is listening to his blurbs.I hear that the act has an important caveat—if the Supreme court does overturn the previous Court's ruling. It's a detail about what the Act won't do for same-sex marriages. It won't make states issue licenses for same-sex marriages. They will have to honor the legality of those marriages from other states, but they won't be forced to provide them.
GAI have not read the entire Law Biden signed. I am sure the weeds are really muddy. I read the summary.
I believe Biden had feared due to the comment Justice Clarence Thomas made after overturning Roe, that perhaps the court reconsider the right of marriage equality and that he needs a law to override the Defense of Marriage Act. Feeling the sc could overturn that act as they did Roe.
I read this summary. It's a bit of fluff to garner media fodder. Unless I am missing something?
"Shown Here:
House agreed to Senate amendment (12/08/2022)
Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.
Specifically, the bill replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and a spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)
The bill also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
The bill does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals."
In my view, this is a lot of nothing, a ploy... That says "hey look here not there". Biden's history shows he is a look here not there kind of man... I detest this form of dishonesty. To me, it indicates a weak character.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con … -bill/8404Yep, that description fits what I heard: It won't force states to license same-sex marriages.
I also think it's a political ploy, but I don't have a problem with it other than that.
GAI don't have a problem with the law or what it represents. I have no problem with gay marriage due to I feel it is a human right. BIt it was a good photo op, was it not? I come to realize we really have a VP. I mean when was the last time she was visible? Sometimes I feel as if we have holograms running the Country.
I have given up reading Biden's bills, to many surprises, way in the weeds of them. Just lately I found this little gem.
The IRS now has its fingers in another pie... with a new $600 threshold for receiving Form 1099-K for third-party payments.
The change applies to payments from third-party networks, such as Venmo or PayPal, for transactions such as part-time work, side jobs, or selling goods. Just a little gift from Biden's American Rescue Plan
Before 2022, the federal Form 1099-K reporting threshold was for taxpayers with more than 200 transactions worth an aggregate above $20,000. However, Congress slashed the limit as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and a single transaction over $600 may now trigger the form.
This comes to a tidy bit of cash when one rents out a home."The change applies to payments from third-party networks, such as Venmo or PayPal, for transactions such as part-time work, side jobs, or selling goods."
And, we can add, payments from HubPages.
Yes, the American Rescue Plan will certainly help all of us!Yup... Biden and the Democrats keeps talking about going after those evil Billionaires and all their money.
But the only thing they pass is more ways to tax the little guy.
The reality is, they protect the Billionaires more than the Republicans do.This change is an absolute travesty. This didn't need to be done at all. This is going to hit hard for those in the gig economy. The $20,000 threshold was fair. Reducing it to $600 is just way too drastic. I would absolutely like to see it changed.
Sorry to say this, but that is a waste of words that have no meaning today. Like almost ALL other politicians, Republican and Democratic, minds changed over time. That includes people on the Democratic side like Biden, Obama, and Clinton. On the Republican side, that would include Trump (he might oppose it now, who knows), McConnell, Dick Cheney, and Rep. Glenn Thompson.
By your standard, ALL politicians, especially Trump, "long history of lying and flipping their views " - so why should Biden get your ire while you give Trump a pass? Just asking.In my opinion, Biden was always a racist, and he proved it over and over in his campaign. His history outs his biases. But you certainly have a right to your view, as I do. I think my link should help you understand why I feel he has a history of not only being a very bises man when it comes to homosexuality, the list is long, and he shows true consistency, in regard to his views.
I think the huge support he gets from Blacks, Latinos, Asian, and the LGBTQ + community probably makes your view questionable. They certainly don't think he has "a long history". Maybe you are thinking of Trump?,
More Black, Latino voters supporting Republicans: survey
https://thehill.com/homenews/3722963-mo … ns-survey/
More Black and Latino voters are supporting the Republican Party than ever before, according to the latest Wall Street Journal poll.
About 17 percent of Black voters said they would pick a Republican to represent them in Congress, the late October poll shows, which is up from the 8 percent of Black voters who voted for a GOP candidate in the 2018 midterms.
The poll also showed Democrats with a slim, 5-point advantage over Republicans among Latino voters, down from an 11-point lead in August.
With inflation and the economy a top concern for voters headed into Election Day, Republicans are expected to take over the House, while the Senate is considered a toss-up.
Republicans have made significant inroads with Latino voters. A Washington Post-Ipsos poll last month showed the lead Democrats once held with Latino voters has dwindled by several points since 2016.}More Black, Latino voters supporting Republicans: survey} - You fail to mention that those are STILL very small numbers.
I just pointed out a fact, I did not add my view of good, bad, or ugly. I pointed out another way to look at the issue, and that the Dem's support from Black, and Latinos, actually independents is declining.
Just another look into the issue, no more no less. Just poll facts, they are very clear, and I offered a link before just taking a stab at the subject.You clearly were trying to imply my assertion was wrong with your fact. Otherwise, why write it? BTW, I do agree the Democrats; mismanaging their outreach to both Blacks and Latinos is costing them votes and causing them to vote against their own self-interest..
It is in their self interest to vote for people that will raise their taxes at every opportunity, remove their freedom at every opportunity and give their country to illegal aliens at every opportunity?
I think we have differing ideas of what "self interest" means.If I were doing that, I would have offered a bit of my view. I provide a survey, another piece of information to consider in regard to the issue. In all reality, my information did not in any respect dispute your view. Just a survey that showed Blacks and Latinos votes were improving for republicans.
I think you took my comment to mean something other than what I meant.Implied - suggested but not directly expressed; implicit.
So, if I say "When did you stop taking drugs" implies you were taking drugs to start with.
I make the Assertion - I think the huge support he gets from Blacks, Latinos, Asian, and the LGBTQ + community probably makes your view questionable. They certainly don't think he has "a long history".
You Imply that I am wrong with various versions of "More Black, Latino voters supporting Republicans: survey" - Which, by simply making that statement without any modifiers such as "I agree, but still...", implies that my statement about Biden's lack of racism is false.Are you going to comment on these fake economy numbers that Esoteric is trying to get us to believe in?
She has nothing to comment about since they are true.
I have been watching, and feel his comments are very misleading. I am afraid he is a lost cause when it comes to facts. I have become disillusioned with this forum. The interest in current news seems not to interest most here. I find it odd, but typical of what we see in society today. Many dwell on old, while Roam is burning... Have a wonderful Christmas...
I can and have proved my statements. I don't believe you can do the same.
Again, stop living in Fantasyland. Biden is a disaster of a so-called president. Biden is an utter **********.
It is you who is clearly living in Trump world. Biden is the real American here and is, for the most part, doing a great job. His improving poll numbers says Americans are starting to think so to. Even the Direction of the Country is improving now that Trumplicans were prevented from taking control and turning America into a Russian satellite.
Biden is turning this wonderful country into a third world cesspool. Biden is ruining this country. The economic has taken a deep nosedive. Illegals are flooding our country, further taxing our services. The i*******t is giving money we DON'T have to assist outside nations. That is beyond ridiculous.
"The economic has taken a deep nosedive. " - PROVE it, don't just say it.
Studies prove time and again that illegals net impact on the American economy is positive. Here I will give this for the tenth time.
"In fact, immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy in many ways. They work at high rates and make up more than a third of the workforce in some industries. Their geographic mobility helps local economies respond to worker shortages, smoothing out bumps that could otherwise weaken the economy. Immigrant workers help support the aging native-born population, increasing the number of workers as compared to retirees and bolstering the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. And children born to immigrant families are upwardly mobile, promising future benefits not only to their families, but to the U.S. economy overall."
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-a … istrations
And things haven't changed since 2019 when this analysis was written.
And, and don't say illegals take American jobs away from them. That is also totally false, especially since there are millions more jobs available than people to take them. THAT is the real world.
Deleted
gm: Unless you can prove what you are saying, it is nothing more than your opinion.
I also heard that the US job numbers released just before the midterms were faked.
And I heard that what you heard is fake news put out by those conservatives who can't stand good news.
It certainly was not CNN, that source of fake news that you swallow without critical thinking.
The data proves you wrong. It is the right-wing propaganda media which is doing Russia's bidding that is the purveyor of Fake News. While Fox doesn't lead in that category, it is certain up there.
Of course it faked but the sheeple love living in schizophrenic delusion.
"Esoteric is presenting false information." - I have asked before, what information is false?
Because the conservatives on the Supreme Court were probably going to do to gay marriage whet they did to a woman's right to choose.
You find it wrong that they followed the Constitutional law? That the SCOTUS upheld states rights, as prescribed in that document?
If so you have lots of company; few liberals think much of the Constitution, violating it at will. Can't say it is good company, but there is a lot of it.They didn't follow Constitutional law. They made up their own low to fit their religious views overturning 50 years of precedence while they were going about it. It is abominable that these Conservatives, true to form, take away a person's freedom.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a State has the right to take away the people's rights. That was one of the reasons it was created, to prevent just that happening. To put a point on it, the 14th Amendment was past.
BTW - wasn't it Trump who just said to ignore the Constitution when you need to? He is no liberal.
None?
The moment that elevated Mr. Biden’s standing among gay and lesbian activists was his appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” as vice president in 2012 when, in response to a question, he said he supported same-sex marriage. His response, which aides said was not calculated or planned, blindsided the White House and Mr. Obama, who had not yet staked out that position.
Given that he was a moderate Democrat with strong ties to blue-collar workers, that response changed the contours of the discussion and, in the view of many activists, emboldened other elected officials to jump on as well. Ms. Hecht-McGowan said she was campaigning in a pitched, and ultimately successful, battle on an initiative permitting same-sex marriage in Maryland.
“He created this watershed moment for the movement,” Ms. Hecht-McGowan said. “I believe that moment was the tipping point for the movement on marriage. He did what he needed to do.”Damn, gas is down even more and Biden's poll numbers are increasing as is the Direction of the Country.
Damn, the economy keeps on growing despite what Republicans say.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/22/economy/ … index.html
All I can say is it is about time and it took President Biden to do it. Not Reagan, not Bush, not Clinton, not Bush, not Obama, and not Trump - Biden.
"After decades of U.S. efforts to engage China with the prospect of greater development through trade, the era of cooperation is coming to a screeching halt.
The White House and Congress are quietly reshaping the American economic relationship with the world’s second-largest economic power, enacting a strategy to limit China’s technological development that breaks with decades of federal policy and represents the most aggressive American action yet to curtail Beijing’s economic and military rise."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/2 … h-00072232Eso, you are beating a dead horse here, reasoning with the right winger is no more possible than expecting a polar bear to use a toilet.
Biden can literally walk on water and he will be the subject of derision for who he is and the fact that he is a Democrat.
We will have to dispense with the Rightwinger and his or her heroes in the coming years if we are ever going to "Right the ship". That is as good of a New Years resolution as any.Know doubt. And yes, that makes a great New Year Resolution..
An interesting Salon article that you may want to check out, an opinion assessing the effectiveness of the Biden Presidency, thus far...
https://www.salon.com/2022/12/30/dares- … -the-wins/"When the Democrats barely held onto the House and squeaked out a 50-50 Senate "majority" (thanks to the runoff elections in Georgia and Trump's constant whining) everyone assumed that the Democratic agenda promised during the campaign was pretty much dead. The best we could hope for at that point was to stop the bleeding and live to fight another day."
That is the way I felt. Imagine my surprise when the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill passed despite the Democrats left-flank doing everything they could to kill it.
Once that passed, Biden picked up steam, as the article describes, to wind up as one of the most successful first two years of any Presidents term.
Thanks for the article.
Well, I bet all of the Biden haters are happy to hear they found classified documents in an office VP Biden used when collaborating with Penn State. The issue:
"Biden’s lawyers say they found the government materials in November while closing out a Washington, DC-based office – the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement – that Biden used as part of his relationship with the University of Pennsylvania, where he was an honorary professor from 2017 to 2019."
DOJ has already started an investigation using a Trump appointed U.S. attorney. No question the Republicans will leap all over this with glee and their own investigation (as they should, minus the glee). There are a whole lot of questions that need answering.
Is this similar to Trump's misdeeds - not even close. Trump purposefully illegally took classified documents and obstructed justice in the gov'ts effort to recover them.
On the other hand, AS SOON AS Biden's lawyers found them, they turned them over to NARA without the gov't having to subpoena them or issue a search warrant to retrieve them as they were forced to with Trump.
At this point, the only case that might be made against Biden is civil and probably not even that while Trump's is clearly criminal. Is someone going to get in trouble? I hope so because even though there MIGHT have been legitimate reasons for the documents to be where they were found (and that is pretty iffy in my view), there is no reason they should have remained there.
Obviously, I won't pay much attention to the circus the Republicans are going to put on over this (unless, of course, the Republicans put honest people on the committee which is highly unlikely), but I will be very interested to find out what DOJ comes up with.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics … ents-upenn
OK, let's see how all you Trump lovers are going to spin this. If you are honest and sincere in your criticism, you won't get much push back from me because this is a terrible breach of security. Whether Biden has any role in this or not will depend on what DOJ finds and will probably have something to do with why they were being used in whatever activities were going on there. But SOMEBODY certainly screwed up.Yep, somebody certainly did screw up. Secret classified documents found in an office used for non-government activities. The 'why' and its defense will be where the spin starts—for both sides.
For Republicans, the 'why' is probably secondary to the fact that it was done. For Democrats, the 'why' is probably all that matters. That it was done is secondary because it was a mistake, he didn't mean to leave them there.
The 'he didn't mean it' defense probably wouldn't change a court's mind about the illegality of the action, and I bet it won't change any minds except those that want to be changed in this case either.
For instance, has anyone yet shown that Trump knew about and directed the transfer of documents to Mar-a-largo? The assumption that Biden knew is strong considering the details of where they were found.
So, if the acts are similar the spin will be all about the why. The Republicans will probably say the law is the same for both and the Democrats will probably say, 'yeah, but he didn't mean to'.
And a picture of the classic Repub v. Dem battle emerges: Republican priorities are results and Democrat priorities are intentions. at least that seems to be one reasonable conclusion.
I know where Fox will take this so I'll keep CNN on today to see how that plays out.
GA"in an office used for non-government activities" - SCI to boot. But, I am not certain the non-gov't activities is necessarily true. I believe the subject was national security related. But, time will tell.
"For instance, has anyone yet shown that Trump knew about and directed the transfer of documents to Mar-a-largo? " - Yes.
CNN is already reporting, fairly, about this for the last two days now including on the nightly part that I watch, sometimes.Yep, CNN does seem to be covering the story fairly, so far. Maybe it means something that they haven't gone into full-defense mode. Do they see another shoe to drop?
They are even replaying Pres. Biden's "Totally irresponsible' clip. In my perception, that is out of character for CNN.
GAYes, that is why I like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. The jury is still out on MSNBC.
"For instance, has anyone yet shown that Trump knew about and directed the transfer of documents to Mar-a-largo? " - Yes"
I have not heard any direct statements from Trump or his legal council in regard to his knowledge of the transfer process of the documents. He has stated openly he "declassified the boxes"
I found his quotes in several articles here is a link from CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/politics … index.html
Former President Donald Trump claimed on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday that he declassified the government records that were taken to Mar-a-Lago – an assertion that his attorneys have avoided making in the litigation around the FBI’s seizure of the materials.
Hewitt asked Trump about an account given by his former White House aide Kash Patel that Patel witnessed Trump’s giving a verbal order to declassify the documents taken to Mar-a-Lago. (Patel, in an interview with Breitbart, said the materials Trump declassified had to do with the Russia probe, the Ukraine impeachment proceedings, and “major national security matters of great public importance.”)
“That’s correct,” Trump said. “And not only that, I think it was other people also were there. But I have the absolute right to declassify, absolute – a president has that absolute right, and a lot of people aren’t even challenging that anymore.”
Trump added later in the interview that “everything was declassified.”
I am not sure of the process that needs to take place when a president declassified documents. I have read he can give verbal orders to do so. Which Cash Patel claims he witnessed.
I think this will or would be a sticking point if Trump is charged. he also worked with the Archives to retrieve any documents they felt should be in the archives, and let them in at least on one occasion. The more I read, the more I feel Trump has a good chance of not being indicted for taking the documents.
In regard to Biden's taking Documents, it appears he has broken the same laws that many are accusing Trump of breaking.
I think we need to know what documents he took, and for what purpose. He as VP did not have the right to declassify records without an executive order.
I think Biden clearly has broken the law by taking documents when he left office unless he had the authority of the Archives. and he declassified the documents with a presidential order.
I find it a deplorable action that this was not reported immediately upon the lawyer reporting the problem -- 6 days before the election. The Democrats are so very corrupt in my view.
I think what will be very telling is --- what is in these documents, and why did Biden take them?
At this point, Biden is in the same boat as Trump in many respects of this issue. It would be very destructive to Biden if, I repeat IF the documents have anything to do with any of the Trump investigations or any information in Government documents involving his son, Hunter.
This will be a very interesting case to witness. I am pleased to see the DOJ immediately appointed a person to investigate the documents. However, two months late. That looks off to me."He has stated openly he "declassified the boxes"" -And you believe him?, LOL
"an assertion that his attorneys have avoided making in the litigation around the FBI’s seizure of the materials." - Why do you suppose they have avoided that? They don't want to get disbarred for lying in court.[/i
"That’s correct,” Trump said. “And not only that, I think it was other people also were there. But I have the absolute right to declassify," - [i]Yes, and many OTHER people say that he didn't. And clearly, he did not use proper procedures to declassify anything. And NO, he does not have the , lol, absolute right to declassify. There are somethings he is prohibited by law from declassifying. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-d … d=90434232
"he also worked with the Archives to retrieve any documents they felt should be in the archives, " - NARA says the exact opposite
"In regard to Biden's taking Documents, it appears he has broken the same laws that many are accusing Trump of breaking." - That is possible, for sure, but highly unlikely. It all comes down to why the documents were taken to his office.
"I think Biden clearly has broken the law by taking documents when he left office" - UNFAIR and WRONG. He didn't TAKE any of those documents when he left office, that is what Trump did. What didn't happen, for reasons yet to be determined, is those documents weren't returned to where ever they came from once he was done using them.
"Reporting" - Again, not true. As soon as they found the documents, NARA was notified and they took it from there. Republicans are so corrupt.
Biden is in the same boat as Trump in only ONE respect - classified documents were found where they shouldn't have been in a place under his control. Nothing more than that.
As best as I can tell, Garland appointed an attorney shortly after being referred by NARA - which would have been early November.
"And a picture of the classic Repub v. Dem battle emerges: Republican priorities are results and Democrat priorities are intentions. at least that seems to be one reasonable conclusion."
I like this, and it seems appropriate in so many ways. Well said!
Hmmm...actually my first thought was that the Democratic Party definitely doesn't want Joe Biden running for office ever again.
Yes, there are some who think that. But, depending on the facts, this incident isn't disqualifying in and of itself. Trump has done orders of magnitude worse (assuming that Biden did anything wrong to start with) and you are still going to vote for him.
What I suspect is happening is there is a massive search going on any place else Biden might have had classified documents outside a scif to make sure nothing else is forgotten.
When I worked at the Pentagon in a secure facility, there was probably an average of one incident every couple of months where classified documents ended up where they shouldn't have been; once from the room I was working in if I remember correctly.
Never, however, were boxloads of them purposefully shipped off to an unsecure facility like Trump ordered to be done.
He {Biden} apparently did nothing wrong, because he doesn't remember doing it,
so, no worries! Carry on Saint Joe Biden, Trump gets to continue to stand alone, because he alone "has done orders of magnitude worse".Well, intentions do matter. That is why we have first degree, second degree murder charges and manslaughter. There is a distinction between them, that involves intent.
This pumpkin faced idiot that so many of you are so quick to worship, took a premeditative and uncooperative course throughout this entire sordid affair. This goes far beyond mere oversight, and you don't have to be Perry Mason to pick up on that.
That is the difference.......The assumption that it was an oversight is a big one. Circumstances yet to be explained will show whether it is a safe one.
I could go with that assumption. It doesn't change the fact of the matter but it could mitigate the recriminations. How will Biden's intentions be proven? How will, (or were), Trump's intentions be/been proven?
GAI do know that after repeated requests from Washington to provide all the materials with security classifications, Trump was obstinate and uncooperative. I can't speak to Biden's circumstances yet. We all make mistakes. But a mistake is not a deliberative action, we will see if Biden's case has any similarity to what Trump has been accused of.....
How in the world are you appointing this a Biden mistake? He has given no statemen -- we have no idea of what is in the documents. Was it also just a mistake to hide this before the election, and drop this two months later?
We have a few facts ---Biden had some classified documents in his private office.
And we are hearing about this two months late.
And we have a person appointed by the DOJ to look at the documents.
I have many questions, as we all should have."And we are hearing about this two months late." - Apparently, this must be all Fox is talking about.
Geez, Sharlee, the Government spent the better part of the last Summer trying to get Trump to return all of the classified documents for which he resisted and claimed he had privilege to and nothing else can be so incorrect. I am sure that orders were not issued lightly for the authorities to have had to issue a warrant to access his property. Although, Trump would say otherwise, I never did like his "imperious" attitude as if the laws do not apply to him.
We will just follow the breadcrumbs wherever they lead, and I am placing a marker in place to avoid not recognizing when conservatives spin all of this and manufacture disorientation once information is revealed that would not be to their liking.If there are any more breadcrumbs, rest assured, they'll be hidden under the nearest rug. Out of sight, out of mind, to be questioned no further, case closed. Standard modus operandi of the left!
But for the House sleuths, now on the job.....I must remind all of one Balaton fact --- The archives, and the FBI (on two occasions) entered the room the boxes were being kept in. They could have taken all the boxes. Trump claims he was cooperating throughout that summer with returning whatever the agency wanted. I think when the smoke clears, we should realize on three occasions all documents could have been retrieved. and factually they were not. This does stick out to me as odd.
Trump still has boxes in that locked room.Did they have a warrant to take those boxes or are you talking about the time they actually did have a warrant and removed tons of boxes that Trump told them that weren't there.
Trump's claims are demonstrably a lie. Or is it the NARA, FBI, DOJ that are all the liars? Now THAT would be odd.
So you are saying the FBI left classified documents behind on purpose???
Well --- I think what's in the documents (taken by both) might speak volumes as to why the documents were taken.
One thing we do know to be factual ( and in my view bodes poorly for Biden) the lawyer that found the documents found them 6 days before the election and worked with the archives to return them. However, we also know we are just hearing about the find two months later. I must wonder when the DOJ found out about this possible crime Biden committed.
Was the DOJ once again weaponized to keep information from the public?
As of yet, I have not found any answer to when the DOJ was notified of Biden's document crime.
Oh well, another investigation.The first thing that should be common ground is that if there is a legal issue at heart, then Biden and Trump appear to be guilty of the same crime. The Left media is all over the differences in the details of the act as proof that 'Yeah, Biden did it too, but it wasn't the same.'
I wouldn't want that to be the only support for something I claim. You can't have it both ways, two things are the same or they're not.
I'm sure Fox is spinning the opposite way, (i.e. Mike's perspective).
I don't think the six-days-before argument is fair. It appears that everyone involved acted almost on the spot. 1 or 2 days to get the docs back where they should be sounds fast. That leaves 4 or 5 days to authentic the materials, and, make decisions related to the coming election, a la Comey. Those 6 days aren't an issue for me.
I think a post-election announcement was the right choice. How long after might have bearing on other aspects of the find but I don't think it has any on the decision to announce post-election.
GAThe dust has settled, and I am cooling my jets on this issue. I am sticking with discussing what facts I can find. I posted a thread on the subject. Ultimately what I see thus far, both Biden and Trump broke protocol by removing classified documents when they left office. One is as guilty as the other in that regard.
"I don't think the six-days-before argument is fair. It appears that everyone involved acted almost on the spot. 1 or 2 days to get the docs back where they should be sounds fast."
I see this as logical. However, we are now factually two months from the incident, and it would seem logical the DOJ did due diligence. But now, after two months, we have a person appointed to further look at the documents. In my view, it seems funny with all the many hundred lawyers at the DOJ that they could not decipher the importance of the documents that were found in Biden's private office."Ultimately what I see thus far, both Biden and Trump broke protocol by removing classified documents when they left office. " - Again, a misstatement. Biden did not remove documents after he left office. They were already gone and forgotten. Trump, on the other hand, purposefully removed the documents as he left office. Big Difference that you should admit to.
You need to provide a source to back up "Biden did not remove documents after he left office. They were already gone and forgotten. "
I have been careful not to accuse Biden of anything factually... You need to be more careful, your comment is not factually based in any respect.
I have not seen anything in regard to when these documents were taken to his office or by who they were taken and placed in his private office. It has been reported Biden used office only between the period he left office and he became president. However, there is this bit of a fact ----
The Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement officially opened on February 8, 2018. The Center opened offices in Washington, D.C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Bide … 20Gutmann.
This complicates the media reports. It appears however took placed those documents in that closet did so in 2018. long after Biden left office. So one can speculate the documents were taken when Biden left the White House.
So logically we know the documents ended up in that closet after 2018.
This leads me to ask where were these documents from 2016 -- to 2018?
And the mainstream media is correct, there is only on point of nexus between Trump and Biden. They were both found to have classified documents in spaces they control.
The similarity ends there.At this point, I think you are right. And in the vein of ABWilliam's coming response, I might say that is proof of the old adage that even a blind squirrel will find an acorn once in a while ;-o
GABiden's office was in a huge building, it is not actually known yet who could have had access to his office. We do know the documents were in a locked closet, that is a fact his lawyer presented, and can be quoted. We have no idea when they were placed in the closet. We know factually the Penn Center opened in 2018, this is long after Biden left office. Otherwise, we have no idea if the documents were safe, or when they were placed in that closet. One can assume it was between 2018 and when they were found in Nov 2022. when the lawyer found them in a locked closet. It is obvious Biden needs to be asked under oath did he did or did not place the documents in that closet. That would be a great place to start! That would solve a lot of questions. I have not found any information to verify when Biden moved into his Penn - office. So, can not be sure of what year or date he moved into that office. However, Reuters reports ---
Reuters is reporting this --- "The Penn Biden Center is named for Biden, who periodically used the office space from mid-2017 until the start of his 2020 presidential campaign. The White House Counsel's Office notified the National Archives on the day of the discovery of those documents, Sauber said, adding the National Archives took possession of the material on the following morning."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/classi … 023-01-09/
Source for officail openeing -- Penn Biden Centerhttps://global.upenn.edu › penn-biden-center
The Penn Biden Center officially opened our doors on February 8, 2018, with an event featuring the President of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Amy Gutmann, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Bide … 20Gutmann.
Hopefully, that is what the DOJ investigation will find out. While possible, I think it highly, highly unlikely that Biden caused classified documents to be where they shouldn't be on purpose.
The crux is whether the reason those documents were brought to that office is legitimate. Assuming for the moment that it was, then the next question is why weren't they returned once they were used?? That is where somebody is going get in trouble.
The next question is, given they were not returned, why didn't somebody notice they were still there? Other questions will be around the likelihood those documents were compromised, Who had access? Were they in locked containers all the time? Lots of things along those lines.
But as to Biden's culpability are the reasons they ended up in his office and why.
NARA has already said the controls over those documents was lacking.
I want to bring up the fact these documents were found 6 days before the midterms, and the attorney reported them with good speed --- We are herein about this issue two months later. That does not disturb you in any respect.
I think what is very important, is what is in these documents. Did Biden seek to take documents that would work to incriminate him or his family in any respect? Why did he take them? He seems to have only taken a few... On e a good thing the person viewing the documents will have no trouble quickly assessing them. And I am thankful the Republicans now call people to the carpet and question them as they see fit.
There is far too much smoke surrounding Biden. And as I have said I have never witnessed someone with such bad karma. It is so odd, and I have said this before --- all the very things that Democrats have accused Trump of doing --- they have actually done.
Not sure how long people can be told - look here not there, and not start coughing from all the smoke.I find it highly ironic that NOW you talk about smoke, lol.
"I think what is very important, is what is in these documents. Did Biden seek to take documents that would work to incriminate him or his family in any respect?"
Fair enough, Sharlee, then we touch on the issues of intent.
I don't have the bad karma sense that you have regarding Biden, we just will have to wait and see regarding the findings of investigation.
For me, whenever there is smoke surrounding Biden, there is the raging brush file from Trump in comparisonI think we need to wait, and just look at the facts. I created a thread and will be placing what is being reported as facts. Just a clear space to keep the issue cutter as free as possible. I mean we all have views and are creating scenarios, That is human nature. But in the end, I think we do need facts to put together and construct logical views. The media is already adding smoke.
I can't really compare the two incidents equally. Trump was president with many opportunities to declassify information. The VP has no authority to declassify. Plus I have looked into the rules for a VP to even remove documents from the White House, there is a long trail of procedures a VP must follow. And sorry, Joe can't say he was unaware of the procedure, he has had to follow this procedure for many years.
I am not willing to give either a break on this one. I think we need to know what information was taken, and could any further crimes have been committed using any of the documents.That ability of the Pr sident to declassify cannot, based on common sense, be absolute. I don't believe that any commander and chief after his or her term can declassify or retain nuclear related security information with a top secret classification, for example.
This whole idea of Trump declassifying sensitive material because he says so and said that he did without documentation is the first red herring amongst many.It is being ignored Kash Patel claims he witnessed Trump asking the boxes to be declassified. So do we just automatically call him a liar? He gave testimony to the Grand jury, which none of has leaked. I am sure Garland will be looking hard at all testimony to figure out if Trump needs to be indicted.
Patel has as little credibility as Trump does. Prosecutors wanted to talk to him about those claims - citing is 5th Amendment Rights. If he were telling the truth, what has he got to hide?
In any case, prosecutors granted him immunity, and he testified.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing … ny-report/Just pointing out Patel did testify, and he has given testimony to a grand jury. He has also on several other occasions in live interviews claimed he witnessed Trump verbally declassifying the boxes.
I don't feel it is fair to state Kash Patel has "little credibility". That is clearly your personal view.Why is it not fair to say that, Patel believes in conspiracy theories doesn't he. He believes Trump won the election because it was chock full of significant fraud. How credible is that?
BTW, no one else has corroborated Patel's telling. In fact, others close around Trump say the opposite, that they never saw or heard of him declassifying anything, assuming he could without follow procedures laid out in the 2009 EO covering classification.
If all of these documents were declassified at that time then why has no one put in a freedom of information request to view them??
That is a great question Never thought of that. I have not heard of any request by FOIA in regard to seeing the documents they received from Trump. I so appreciate that FOIA frequently does obtain important information, and shares it with the public.
I have no information on what testimony Patel gave to the grand jury. I don't think there have been leaks on what he said. I have seen him on Fox making the statement he was with Trump when he declassified the documents. He also mentioned another person's name, that was there, and I did not recall his name.
I think that Jack Smith will look at all the info, and hopefully, we will get a report.
CNN has new leadership aimed at not alienating FOX viewers. I think they should just report the news and let the chips fall where they may. But when Ted Turner created CNN his goal was for the news to be the star, not the anchors. That I agree with.
They do, that's why I like them. I turn my nose up at Fox, who has a long history of misinformation, disinformation, and lying (and they are much better than the rest of Conservative media.
"Biden didn't remove documents - they were already gone."
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but that sure settles it for me.Come on AB, Sharlee misstated facts (since it was multiple times, I suppose there is an ulterior motive). Are you going to just let that go without putting the truth out?
"Come on AB, Sharlee misstated facts "
What facts have I misstated? I must ask for these quotes. I will give you a chance to prove that statement.
"Biden didn't remove documents - they were already gone."
I have asked you to give a source to this comment. I ask again.
That statement is misinformation in light of what is being reported.What facts have you misstated? Come on Sharlee - you have made this false claim in various forms several times - I think Biden clearly has broken the law by taking documents when he left office Each time I called you out on it which you ignored.
You are trying to show an equivalency with Trump where one does not exist.
As to "already gone" - haven't you been reading any of the news, even from Fox? I am surprised I need to point this out but those documents in question have been in a supposedly locked room in his private think-tank office well before he left office. They were there when his term was over so it is impossible for him to have "taken them with him when he left office". I say the obvious again - they were already in that office which he wasn't using anymore.I know Sharlee will respond, but relative to misstated facts, both sides seem to agree that Biden held the Penn position from 2017 to 2020. How could the documents have been there before he left office?
GAYou made me look. The reason I thought what I did are statements I read that went something like this: "Several classified documents from President Joe Biden’s time as vice president were discovered last fall in a private office, Biden’s attorneys acknowledged Monday." plus the fact that I remembering hearing the documents had been there 5 or 6 years or so.
Try as I can, I can't find a source that tells me directly those documents have been there that long. What I keep finding is what you just posted, for example "The President periodically used this space from mid-2017 until the start of the 2020 campaign."
So, I stand corrected about the documents being there at the time Biden left office. It doesn't say anything, however, about him walking out the door with them.
That said, an obvious question to ask is - how did those documents get there between 2017 and 2020? Did Biden take them with him when he left as Sharlee claims to be fact? Did somebody get them legitimately to use in that office? Were they declassified? (Remember, Trump says, and his supporters believe him, that you can declassify documents "just by thinking about it".)
I had many of the same questions under my original impression that they were there before he left office as well.
My apologies for misinterpreting what I read. I do not apologize, however, for pushing back on a claim given as fact, when it as only possibility, one I seriously doubt happened.
The building was not open until 2018, Biden moved into his office in 2017. So no he did not have an office at Penn when he was VP. This would appear documents were placed there sometime after 2017. source https://www.reuters.com/world/us/classi … 023-01-09/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Bide … 20Gutmann.
So, it would APPEAR Biden may have taken the documents before he left office or upon leaving office. No one reported when he took the documents. He actually has not admitted he took them --- so we have no idea if he will deny even taking them.
I take offense at you misquoting me --- Here is the statement in full note the word "think" and "appears"... which indicates a thought, a view. I am very careful to provide proper context to what I say when it comes to view or fact.
"I think Biden clearly has broken the law by taking documents when he left office unless he had the authority of the Archives and he declassified the documents with a presidential order."
"In regard to Biden's taking Documents, it APPEARS he has broken the same laws that many are ACCUSING Trump of breaking."
I have actually offered a thread on this subject that does share facts and views from other users and myself. I have been careful to add sources to what I consider facts on that thread.
I don't appreciate you stating I post misinformation. This kind of sanctimonious attitude is uncalled for, in my view. No need to become personal when I share a view. If you can dispute a fact, do so. But I would appreciate keeping your opinion of my statements accurate.I quoted you precisely via cutting and pasting your own words. There was no doubt what you were claiming to be true.
GA showed me the error of my ways vis-à-vis the timing of things. But that no bearing on your claim.
Given the timing, the MOST you can possibly say is your latest variation So, it would APPEAR Biden may have taken the documents before he left office or upon leaving office. . I would argue even that overstates things somewhat.
Given how few documents we are talking about, it seems to me the word "Appear" is too strong. It doesn't "appear" that way at all.to me. What we are left with is the more correct "Biden MAY have had boxes of documents removed that might have classified documents in them."
If you had started with that, we wouldn't be having this debate (and I would still be under the impression that those documents were moved before Biden left office.)You cut half the sentence out. I must ask you to produce the quote in full.
I did produce the quote in full you ignored it. Here is the link to my quote.
I certainly can't stop you from improperly quoting my words. But hopefully, others that follow conversations will see you are being disingenuous. You never can link back to my quotes. But I can.The full quote is "I think Biden clearly has broken the law by taking documents when he left office unless he had the authority of the Archives. and he declassified the documents with a presidential order."
Your caveat in no way lessens the implication of your main phrase. Everyone knows what you meant since your two "outs" wouldn't have happened under the circumstances. Had they, we would have would have been presented at the time the original news was released.I am very sure "everyone knows," the definition of the words think, and appears. That would be my assumption, it is clear you feel the words mean something other than the common definition.
Think --- have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.
Appears -- seem; give the impression of being.
I offered both quotes that offered full context to my thoughts, and I was careful as I always am to offer words that offered context that I was sharing my view.
I try hard not to give a view that seems to indicate my words are the bottom line, facts.
At this point, I will drop this. I think any other user sharing this conversation can see the meaning I carefully conveyed. And if curious checked my link that offers the comment in question.
Here is the link to my full quote. It would seem you are confused in regard to what I said. I would think you would realize others read these threads and can see read all comments. Not sure why you would push this, but ---
My statement in full context
"I think this will or would be a sticking point if Trump is charged. he also worked with the Archives to retrieve any documents they felt should be in the archives, and let them in at least on one occasion. The more I read, the more I feel Trump has a good chance of not being indicted for taking the documents.
In regard to Biden's taking Documents, it appears he has broken the same laws that many are accusing Trump of breaking.
I think we need to know what documents he took, and for what purpose. He as VP did not have the right to declassify records without an executive order.
I think Biden clearly has broken the law by taking documents when he left office unless he had the authority of the Archives. and he declassified the documents with a presidential order."
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4278567
In regard to using the word appears --- definition and how I used the word
-- seem; give the impression of being.
In my view, all thus far gives me the impression Biden removed the documents from the White House. That is my view and my impression from all I have heard and read.
Folks, save your typing fingers. Some folks don't want to see anything but what they want to see.
I agree - Sharlee wants to see those documents in Biden's hands as he left the White House at the end of his term, so that is the way it has got to be - regardless of the truth. Right?
As I suspected, Biden's lawyers kept searching other places where documents might be located - and they found a few more at an as yet undisclosed location.
A good question asked by one of the CNN former prosecutors is "doesn't the gov't have sufficient controls over classified document such that they know where every one is at any given time?" The answer is NO, there apparently is not.
A 2012 IG study found that - "More than a thousand boxes of classified government records are believed to be missing from the Washington National Records Center (WNRC) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), a three-year Inspector General investigation found". And those are the ones they are sure about. Thousands upon thousands more are probably lying about in places they should not be.
https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2012/05/wnrc_missing/
If anything good comes out of all this will be a new set of rules that clamps down on the obviously lackadaisical way our gov't handles classified data.So, in other words, Biden wasn't surprised by any of this and he knew that he, himself, had been "lackadaisical" in his handling of data.
When he went along with shaking his head in disgust and scolding Trump, etc., guess that was just par for the course, when it comes to ALL things Trump!
But, naturally, only Trump would be made an example of. Only Trump's name would be drug through the mud, only Trump's home would get raided!!!
Trump has been a target since the day he announced he'd be entering the 2016 Presidential race. Targeted by a corrupt, swampy D.C. crowd who live by a different set of rules, that only they are entitled to live by!"So, in other words, Biden wasn't surprised by any of this and he knew that he, himself, had been "lackadaisical" in his handling of data." - Care to offer any evidence of that claim? Seems to me Biden said he was surprised.
"But, naturally, only Trump would be made an example of." - Aren't you, and the rest of the anti-democratic Trump lovers, jumping to conclusions? After all, it took many months of Trump flipping NARA the bird before the gov't took action. Seems like DOJ and NARA were very deferential to Trump. Aren't you going to give Biden the same benefit of the doubt for 6 months before you jump in with both feet? Seems reasonable to me
"Trump has been targeted...." - Of course he has. Wouldn't you be targeting Bernie Madoff from day one had he entered the race? They are both well known con men. And Trump is still conning you, isn't he?Someone has been conned alright, but it isn't me!
At least you are finally admitting that Trump was targeted from day one. Progress.I say again - of course he has - any rational person would have started looking into his sordid past. We don't want a con man for president, but you elected one any way.
Any person who voted for or supports Trump has been conned by him. The fact that you don't know it tells you how good a con man he is.
It reminds me of the beaten-wife syndrome. For some inexplicable reason, many, many women whose husbands' abuse them, mentally and/or physically keep going back to them and even defending them like y'all do Trump.
The sooner you recognize this truth, the better off you will be. You can still be conservative and dispise Trump at the same time, you know.
One could see this coming since Garland and the Democrats want a fair playing field. Garland appoints a Special Counsel to look into how those classified documents ended up where they did.
So much for the Rights histrionics over Trump being treated differently. Here is the difference the Right wants to overlook - Trump basically stole hundreds of classified documents "as he walked out the door". He then told the government to go to hell when they asked for them back. Finally, the gov't was FORCED to get a warrant and search his place. Even with as many documents the FBI found, Trump still had others hidden. Even Trump's lawyers (except one) refused to tell a court all of the documents Trump took have been turned over.
Biden, on the other hand, cooperated fully and correctly when a few classified documents were found in spaces he controlled. From the reporting I have heard and read, it is looking more like somebody didn't search the boxes of material Biden was shipping to make sure they were clean.
But, the Special Counsel will sort that out.Couldn't the same situation - someone packing the boxes without ensuring they were "clean"," apply in Trump's case? I don't think Trump personally packed the boxes and shipped them out. Do you?
Did you hear or read that Trump packed up his own offices?
GAIt could, but I believe testimony has indicated that Trump directed classified documents be included. Also, weren't some of the boxes only or mostly classified? Given the shear volume of classified documents Trump took, it strains credulity that he didn't know.
There is also this West Wing aides and government movers frantically tossed documents and other items into banker boxes that were shipped to a storage room at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida along with other, previously packed records set aside by Trump, sometimes erratically so, according to two sources with knowledge of Trump’s move and records issues.. So yes, it does look like Trump pack some of his own boxes.
Then there is the problem that he did not immediately give them back when he "found" them. He fought tooth and nail to retain them.
Prices fell again in December as Biden and the Democrats get inflation under control.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/12/economy/ … t-decemberProvided almost solely by the drop in gasoline prices. In fact, your link indicates a CPI of 5.7 when energy and food are removed, indicating that inflation is still above anything reasonable.
The rest of the story tells the tale, doesn't it? Inflation is down but prices in general are not in spite of your claim that they are.Did I say inflation was back to normal? I did not. I said it was getting better, which it is. Why did you assume I said otherwise? Why are you twisting things again?
Also, are you saying we need a stiff round of deflation? (that normally comes with a depression).You said prices were falling when the truth is that ONLY energy prices (gasoline) is falling. Everything else is still rising.
Do I need to cut and past so you know what you said?
Interesting that it only took Mr Merrick Garland about a hot minute to appoint a special counsel to President Biden whereas it took about a year and a half to do the same for Mr Trump. And to boot everyone he appoints to Democrat matters are Trump appointees. He should just appoint Mr Trump himself, right?
Hot minute? He's had over 2 months to prepare for it. It's no wonder he had a Special Counsel name ready so fast.
GAAt DOJ speed, that is a "hot minute". Also, I am reminded of one of your responses about why a two month wait to make this public seemed reasonable
I wasn't saying the DOJ's action wasn't reasonable, I was speaking to the implication of "hot minute."
It would probably be negligent not to be prepared with months' notice it was coming.
GA
The White House and the DOJ hide this entire issue for two months.
At this point, Garland had no choice but to do the proper thing. The DOJ would lose what credibility they have left if the AG did not do his job --- Plus why in the world would Garland want his name and career in shambles? he did the right thing. Yes, a buck short and a day late.Why do you use the word "hide", Hide from who? It would seem the proper thing to do is wait until they had all the facts before splashing it all over the newspapers.
I have noticed conservatives and the far left have no patience for anyone but themselves.
Here is some excellent reporting on the chaos surrounding Biden's departure from the WH in 2017 and is MOST LIKELY the cause for a FEW classified documents slipping through unnoticed. At least according to those on the scene, every effort was made not to make mistakes.
Well, what about Trump, his exit was rushed as well. Yes it was. And if an equally small number of documents had slipped through and Trump had given them back immediately upon discovery, then a little harm but no foul.
BUT, that is not what happened, is it? Well over 300 documents were removed "as Trump was literally walking out the door" AND Trump REFUSED to turn them over when asked. So, saying what Trump did on purpose was simply a little mistake doesn't cut for the REASONABLE person.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/12/politics … index.htmlPerhaps it is time to let the special counsel get to the bottom of what happened.
In my view, I look at this ridiculous CNN article as presumptuous. How dare they offer such an unproven scenario. It clearly seems that this article is intended to inject smoke around a true problem, a problem that APPEARS could be a crime committed by Biden.
In my view this kind of journalism is inexcusable. This kind of article may be why CNN has lost credibility. This kind of article works to provoke unproven Therorys, and muddle facts as they come in.
As of yet, we have no facts on how many documents were collected from the three areas documents were found. If we are to believe media reports a box of documents was found in Biden's garage. Do you have facts on the number of documents that have been collected from Biden properties, and are now in the hands of the special counsel?
This comment APPEARS to be misinformation - Your claim is worded as being factual. I have never found Trump refused to work with the archives or return any documents. What I have seen (and has been reported) is that Trump's attorneys were going back and forth with the archives, and it is factual that Trump did let officials enter his home twice without warrants to collect documents, and a third time the FBI raided his home, in which documents were taken. So your statement seems to be disingenuous. It more than appears Trump was cooperating with the archives as well as the FBI. Many documents were retrieved by the archives before the riad. So your claim " AND Trump REFUSED to turn them over when asked"
Is just not factual. I ask for a source if you feel you can prove that statement.
" Well over 300 documents were removed "as Trump was literally walking out the door" AND Trump REFUSED to turn them over when asked"Here is the good, the bad, and the ugly regarding Trump and Biden as to how they handled their documents, the quantity, type, and timelines for both of them, thus far.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/h … ns-compareAs of now, the two issues are much different. First Trump took documents openly to his home in Florida. It appears when he was notified he looked at his options to keep documents by seeking advice for his attornies. When he discovered he could apparently not, he did work with the archives to send back any documents they wanted. I have not found any evidence that he just refused to return documents. He had on two occasions let agents come unto his home and take documents, and when requested to change the type of lock on the room that the documents were being held. I think it is important to not totally ignore these facts.
Do you feel what I have offered shows he did in some sense cooperate with returning the document?
It is clear those representing Biden returned documents quickly after they were found. I have a problem the documents were found on three different sites all sites were very much not secure. We do know factually his son Hunter Biden lived in the Biden home in the year 2018. So it seems he would have access to the garage documents.
To consider the number of documents, and the number of classifications--- we just do not have factual information on the Trump Documents taken or the Biden documents taken.
What is clear there are procedures for a VP to take classified documents. A president can declassify, and remove classified documents from the White House. It also seems very clear both men broke the law by keeping documents.
That's how I see it thus far. Both have broken the law by not returning documents. So, we will now see the cases play out. I would assume both men will need to put forth the logic they feel they had the right to do what they did. Trump claims he declassified the boxes and has witnesses that will testify to that. Thus far Biden has not given any explanation as to why he did not return the documents years ago.
There are differences in these cases. But it will not be proven Trump did not work with the archives and the FBI to return documents. And I think it just does not bode well how Biden is like 6 years late returning documents, and not even securing them. This is serious... There are very well-stipulated rules for how one removes classified documents from the White House, and how they are left while out of the White House. Biden is guilty of not returning the documents, and not storing the documents in a secure type area. This seems very cut and dry. One can't say, I forgot for 6 years. One can't say, I did not know how to store classified documents --- especially as a VP, and a man that spent 50 years in Washington.
I am surprised you seem to be making excuses for this man. It is clear in a few incidents he broke the law.
And I will also point out Trump seems to put forth he felt he had a right to take documents, and when he found he did not he cooperated to give them back,
Biden just has no curtain to hide behind, he has been in Washington for over 50 years.
Not cool to carry water for this guy at this point. He fully knew the laws that cover having classified documents, the need to return them, and how they needed to be stored. At best he seems to have clearly broken the law due to the above-mentioned. Seems very cut and dry.
The problem is, it is only Fox, not CNN, who has lost credibility. That is just a fact.
I would argue you must look past Fox and the right-wing media (known for altering facts and omitting information) for your information. It has been everywhere for almost a year now.
“They’re mine,” three of Mr. Trump’s advisers said that he stated repeatedly when he was urged to return boxes of documents, some of them highly classified, that the National Archives sought after Mr. Trump took them with him to Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Palm Beach, Fla., in January 2021.
followed by
nearly 18-month back-and-forth between the government and Mr. Trump ended in an extraordinary F.B.I. search for the documents at Mar-a-Lago last week.
The "proof" you seek is the fact that DOJ had to get a warrant to retrieve those documents. Common sense tells any non-cult follower of Trump that he refused.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/us/p … ments.htmlNo, the FBI as did the archives enter Trump's home and retrieved documents. Trump does have a document that proves he was working to return documents.
"May 10, 2022
Evan Corcoran
Silverman Thompson
400 East Pratt Street
Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
By Email
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
I write in response to your letters of April 29, 2022, and May 1, 2022, requesting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) further delay the disclosure to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the records that were the subject of our April 12, 2022 notification to an authorized representative of former President Trump.
As you are no doubt aware, NARA had ongoing communications with the former President’s representatives throughout 2021 about what appeared to be missing Presidential records, which resulted in the transfer of 15 boxes of records to NARA in January 2022. In its initial review of
materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials. NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask the President to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them. On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s
Office—affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum—formally transmitted a request that NARA provides the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of
specific documents following its review of the boxes. Although the Presidential Records Act (PRA) generally restricts access to Presidential records in NARA’s custody for several years after the conclusion of a President’s tenure in office, the statute further provides that, “subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke,” such records “shall be made available . . . to an
incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. §
2205(2)(B)."
Please read the entire letter at that link. This document will go to prove Trump was cooperating with the Archives. It is a factual document that can be used in a court of law as evidence of the fact Trump was cooperating with the archives. It certainly also shows the archives are not satisfied with the level of cooperation from Trump's Attorney. My document proves a form of cooperation early on, and that boxes were retrieved.
https://www.archives.gov/files/foia/wal … 0.2022.pdf
This letter very much shows there is a level; of cooperation. I prefer to believe the Archives to media reports.Sharlee:: I think you missed three very important points about that letter. It is from the NARA and addressed to Mr. Corcoran, who was or maybe still is one of Trump's attorney who is requesting a further delay of Trump's documents from the NARA to the FBI.
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
I write in response to your letters of April 29, 2022, and May 1, 2022, requesting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) further delay the disclosure to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the records that were the subject of our April 12, 2022 notification to an authorized representative of former President Trump.
to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. §
2205(2)(B)."
Trump had already left office when those documents were transferred to Mar-a-Lago. As a civilian, he had no need for those documents to conduct business as a president.
Here is the conclusion from the NARA. They are saying they are not going to honor Trump's request for executive privilege. If you read the whole document you would understand Trump is requesting a delay of turning over the documents to the FBI.
I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s “protective” claim of privilege. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a); see also 36 C.F.R. 1270.44(f)(3) (providing that unless the incumbent President “uphold[s]” the claim asserted by the former President, “the Archivist discloses the Presidential record”). For the same reasons, I have concluded that there is no reason to grant your request for a further delay before the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community begin their reviews. Accordingly, NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question , as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022. Please note that, in accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3), the former President’s designated representatives can review the records, subject to obtaining the appropriate level of security clearance. Please contact my General Counsel, Gary M. Stern, if you would like to discuss the details of such a review, such as you proposed in your letter of May 5, 2022, particularly with respect to any unclassified material"Sharlee:: I think you missed three very important points about that letter. It is from the NARA and addressed to Mr. Corcoran, who was or maybe still is one of Trump's attorney who is requesting a further delay of Trump's documents from the NARA to the FBI."
Oh my, this was not missed I need a document to prove Trump was working in some fashion with the NARA. Which this letter from NARA proves. It certainly gives dates, and what they had received in regard to documents. Please read this quote from the NARA letter to Trump's Atty.
"As you are no doubt aware, NARA had ONGOING communications with the former President’s representatives THROUGHOUT 2021 about what appeared to be MISSING Presidential records, which resulted in the TRANSFER of 15 boxes of records to NARA in January 2022. In its initial review of materials within those boxes, "
The context is clear and shows that Trump's lawyer was working with NARA, and was beneficial in getting 15 boxes to them in Jan 2022.
Some here have stated over and over Trump refused to give back the records. This letter completely shows he did cooperate via his Lawyer.
I think the letter is perfect evidence to prove my point. It is certain although Trump himself has stated he was cooperating with NARA to give them any of the documents they hoped to have. But, it would seem his word is not respected.
Do you trust the words of Debra Steidel Wall Active Archives that was having correspondence with Trump's lawyer?
I can assure you I read the letter completely, and it was informative to what had occurred, and what occurred after the letter.
Just needed to use this letter to prove Trump was in a fashion cooperating
with NARA, and having a proxy correspondent handle the matter.
I think in the end this letter is very important and does go to show correspondence was going on, and it did result in 15 boxes being returned. He also let the FBI in after that letter where documents were retrieved, and the FBI decided to raid his home thereafter.
I keep pointing out that at any of the times the FBI came to Trump's home, they could have literally taken all the documents. This makes me question motive. I am sure Trump's lawyer as well as NARA has any and all correspondence.
If indicted he may have documents and tape recordings of his correspondence with NARA. that could prove he was cooperating.
This is not to say he could not be indicted for his taking documents and not handling them properly In this respect I feel Biden is in the same boat.I read the whole letter. It is from the NARA telling Trump's lawyer that they are not honoring Trump's request to delay the turnover of their documents to the FBI. This is what Debra Steidel Wall said:
I have concluded that there is no reason to grant your request for a further delay before the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community begin their reviews. Accordingly, NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question , as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.
Trump requesting a delay does not sound like cooperation to me, does it to you?What I got from the letter was most likely the same as you. We are just considering different parts of the letter. Ms, Wall is very clear in her position in regard to explaining her view on not seeing her way clearly to delay speaking with the FBI. We have no disagreement with that or for that matter her reasoning throughout the letter.
Again the paragraph I pointed out was where I felt it supports my view (along with many other things I learned from reading) that Trump did cooperate in some fashion with NARA. By the time his lawyer received the said letter, Trump had returned 15 boxes. This in my view, indicates he was cooperating to a point. He also had the FBI come into his home, the first time with a warrant, On both occasions, it appears all documents could have been taken. I have tried to make a simple point, in my view, it is unfair to say he refused to cooperate. I think the clear presentation of ongoing correspondence could prove Trump did cooperate with NARA.
It certainly is clear NARA did not feel he was in compliance to the degree he should of. The entirety of the letter shows that is how they felt.
I think it is true the two cases between Trump and Biden are very different in some respects.
It appears Biden cooperated in returning the document quickly (as far as we know). However, he kept them and kept them in very insecure locations. And we have no idea how he came to have the documents. All the whys need to be answered. We could speculate on the Biden case, but it seems. foolish to do so. The whys might clear up the matter or they may get also work to have him indicted when he leaves office.
I want to know did he take the documents following all the procedures that one must take when removing documents from the White House or did he just take them.
I want to know why he did not keep them in secure locations at best.
I would like to know why he felt he needed to take the documents, to begin with. What purpose did he have for needing to take the documents?
He has been in Washington for 50 years, and I will not believe he did not know the rules all live by when taking documents from the White House.
Hope I have clarified my thoughts, and you can see we might just be coming at this issue from different corners. We all have a right to have different views.To me, "cooperating in 'some fashion'" is very disingenuous. It tries to imply something which on the face of it is not true. If it had been, Trump would not be facing obstruction of justice charges.
As to Biden, what makes you presume he knew the documents had been taken in the first place? It is very likely nobody knew classified documents had been included with the boxes of personal items that were moved.
Those involved with moving Biden's stuff made it very clear their intent was to comply with all regulations.
On the other hand, It is clear from all of the reporting and Trump's subsequent actions he knew exactly what he was doing when over 400 classified documents were sent to Mar a Lago - common sense demands that realization.
Trump's actions make it very clear he wanted to flout them.
So Trump has ONE document. A document that more than implies that NARA was fed up with Trump's obstruction. For example - requesting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) further delay the disclosure to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the records that were the subject of our April 12, 2022 notification to an authorized representative of former President Trump. - If Trump were cooperating, why is he asking NARA not to go to DOJ???
On the other hand, NARA, the FBI, and DOJ have a multitude of documents (many reported in the news) that say otherwise - including the need to go obtain a search warrant!!!
Another piece of evidence that suggests the gov't thinks Trump is lying is they are perusing obstruction of justice charges for Trump's attempts NOT to cooperate.Sorry not interested in your view on this one, agree to disagree --- so far apart in regard to our views.
Mine is not a "view". It is simply fact that you apparently want to discount.
Tracing this back to your first statement, I find words like "implies", "suggests" and "thinks". These are not "facts", but opinions only. You might want to rethink that concept that it is simply fact.
I use "implies" a lot where it is appropriate. Which one are you talking about?
I see Wilderness couldn't back up what he said.
This one is laughable - Do you consider this a fact?
" It is very likely nobody knew classified documents had been included with the boxes of personal items that were moved."
And this --- Is this factual"
" It is clear from all of the reporting and Trump's subsequent actions he knew exactly what he was doing when over 400 classified documents were sent to Mar a Lago "
I feel from following the post that you take views from CNN touts, and truely think they are facts. You continue post OP articles from CNN. You need to decipher OP articles from factual information. I realize it is easy to fall into media dribble. But much of what you share is your view, and not factual. Just media hype, an opinion. Which is fine if you have the right to your views.
When I state a fact, I post a source to back up the fact. As I have throughout this thread or I indicated my thoughts were my views.I'm sorry, did I state my quote was a fact? I didn't, did I?
As for "It is clear ..." being a fact. Originally, when it was first reported, the words "might of" or "probably" would have been correct. But in the many months since then, the mountain of evidence has grown so high that any reasonable, non-partisan person would say it is now fact that Trump knew he was transporting classified documents to his private residence.
The fact that your sources of information are so partisan doesn't change what is known to be true.
The difference is, of course, is that I have the facts to support my conclusions.
President Biden's approval rating keeps improving (although I suspect the classified document mess will depress it for a bit). He even had one poll that had him above water at 50 - 47.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -7320.htmlReally???? Because of Biden, America is becoming a cesspool. When will you REALIZE this. Biden is destroying America bit by bit by bit. Biden is THE WORST thing that happened to America. Trump, by far, was a MUCH BETTER president.
None of us realizes this except Trumpets. If your pumpkin faced hero were so great he would have won in 2020, such as it is though.......
Trump, by estimate of the vast majority of American Historians is, if not the worse, next to the very worse president we have had since the founding of the republic. That is certainly NOT BETTER than anything.
You have a right to your opinion, but I have a right to mine as well....Does your opinion include facts to back it or just wishes?
Trump gave us the lowest black unemployment in history. Biden has given us...
Trump gave us falling border crossings. Biden has given us...
Trump gave us the beginning of protection (a wall) at the border. Biden has given us..
Trump gave us low inflation and a great economy. Biden has given us...
Trump reigned government in to some small extent. Biden has given us...
Tell us again how Trump, despite his many failings and outrageous mouth, is not better than Biden with his recession, his millions of illegal aliens for us to support, his outrageous and exceedingly stupid spending plans and the inevitable giveaways to anyone with their hand out."Does your opinion include facts to back it or just wishes?"
Does yours, ever? Too often every opinion you expressed becomes gospel because you said so? It it rare that you support anything you State short of "your experience" which is hardly definitive or the last word in authority for anyone.
Here is my "proof/facts", where are yours! Unless you, as usual, are quick to "shoot the messenger"?
https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2 … ge=overallReally? You actually think there were more illegal border crossings under Trump (per year) than under Biden? What log are you living under?
Do you really think Trump did not build a wall, or that Biden did?
Do you really think inflation was as great under Trump as Biden?
OOOH, that is true! And look how well he did in the 2022 midterms. EVERY election-denier he backed LOST except in RUBY RED districts.
The difference is your opinion is based on facts.
I checked to see if Biden is ranked yet, and he finally is: 19 out of 45 (Grover Cleveland takes up two spots). Obama's average is 11.8 out of 45.
On the other hand, Trump's average is 42.5 out of 45. Worse than him are only the guy responsible for the Civil War and the president responsible for taking away all the freedoms blacks obtained after the Civil War.Hey, ESO, would you provide the link that clearly shows Trump comparative rating as President at the rock bottom by the vast majority of qualified historians?
Then in the face of such facts, I can almost expect like pride before the fall, that Wilderness will have an elaborate excuse saying that the historians are woke, or than every source for this information is liberally biased, on and on, ad naseum
There will always be an explanation that avoids what is clearly in the front of his face."Hey, ESO, would you provide the link that clearly shows Trump comparative rating as President at the rock bottom by the vast majority of qualified historians?"
That's a great idea! Compare average unemployment under both people. Compare black unemployment under them. Compare illegal border crossings. Compare inflation rates. Compare racist actions (not words twisted to indicate racism) such as refusing to consider whites or males for the highest court in the land. Or for a VP.
But leave out insinuations, imaginative guesses, assumptions and opinions. Just the facts, please.You are spinning your 45 records again, Wilderness. You are cherry picking. You still did not explain how former President Trump rates even lower than a former president (William Henry Harrison) who did not live a month while in office. I don't think qualified Historians are involved in guesses,assumptions and opinions. But take the entire term(s) and all aspects regarding effectiveness and rate the outcome against those of other Presidents. Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower managed to get into the top 10, so there is no bias against cons rvatives, per se.
Obama did the heavy lifting, dragging us out a recession that occurred during a GOP administration. Trump was taking advantage of that upswinging trend, taking credit for the efforts of others as he always does.I see. Trump did nothing (it was all Obama). Obama built the wall, Obama provided the lowest unemployment in history for blacks, Obama provided it all. And it's "cherry picking" to look at what is important to the country rather than oration styles. Things like unemployment, invasions or inflation just don't matter.
You will, instead, count the number of people that spit hatred at the President and compare the numbers of Trump and Biden. That will be the "effectiveness" measure, determining which President was more "effective".
C'mon, Credence - you are falling into the trap set by Esoteric, wherein everything depends on hating the ex-president. Nothing else matters, and every comment must express that hatred somehow.It is not about hating him, Wilderness. It is about an objective evaluation from those qualified to make it.
I did not like Reagan, Eisenhower and other conservative oriented Presidents, I did not say that I hated them. Their politics were unacceptable to me so I am going to vote against them, as I did in 1980.
Trump is one the few that tops the others because of his behavior, prior to his assuming office, during his term and afterwards. You keep bringing in emotional terms for a man whose behavior and record has been far more malicious and negative than anyone's before that held this esteemed office. You can dance around whether he is guilty or not, but a real leader would not have his name associated with the things he is being accused of, giving the consistent appearance of impropriety at his every step.
So in other words, I hate Trump in the same way that you and the other rightwingers hate Biden, is that fair?Well, an "objective" evaluation is not to simply say "Obama did it all" while ignoring such things as the wall, as inflation, etc.
I agree with your assessment of Trump. And will add that a "real leader" looks beyond the next election to see what the long term effect of his actions are. Something Biden has not done since he took office.
But I don't hate the man, I just find him exceeding stupid and concerned only with political power and not the country or it's people. If he were he would not have created the enormous inflation we're enjoying (his actions had very predictable results and he had to know what would happen). He would not be inviting millions of illegal aliens across the border and he would not ship them to the interior where they are now safe from ICE because of Biden's efforts. Such things are NOT the actions of a President that cares about the nation.
I don't like Donald Trump but at least I'm honest about what he did for the country. I don't like Biden, either, but I don't make up stories about him and I don't exaggerate his words. I just look at the factual results of his wild actions, actions that have produced exactly what we all knew they would and that have harmed virtually every person in the country.Well, an "objective" evaluation is not to simply say "Obama did it all" while ignoring such things as the wall, as inflation, etc.
It certainly is not objective to believe that ALL of the credit should go to Trump, what about the unemployment numbers of early 2020, who do we blame for that?
It is your viewpoint that says Biden does not care about the nation because Republican concerns are not at the top of his list. You can blame Biden for an overreach regarding the economy to correct an oncoming recession taking place during Trumps watch. I am satisfied with Biden's performance for the most part while I know that that would never be acknowledged by any Rightwinger. We are not making things up, all we have to do is follow the propenderence of the news to realize that this all cannot just be made up.
What you say about Biden is my opinion about Trump, what is the difference except for clear ideological differences and preferences?He won't blame Trump, that is for sure.
He PRETENDS Trump had a clean slate or was starting in the same type of bad economics that other Republican presidents have left their Democratic successors.
The objective truth is HAD Obama gone another 4 years OR Hillary had won, it would be they who had the lowest unemployment numbers. Why? Because Obama set the trend and so long as neither he nor Hillary screwed it up in the next four years, we would most likely have seen the same or better results.
On positive for Trump, is he didn't screw up what Obama had started (although with his tariff wars, he tried hard to screw it up)
It is called "transference" or "projection" when one side (the RIght, in this case) falsely accuses the other side of all the negative things of the former. All that does is acknowledge all those negatives about the Right as being true.
"He would not be inviting millions of illegal aliens across the border " - It is YOUR SIDE that is INVITING them by your lies of open borders.
" and he would not ship them to the interior where they are now safe from ICE because of Biden's efforts." - He is following the laws of a compassionate nation who understands that increased population leads to economic growth. He rejects the inhumanity of the Trump administration.Yeah, Wow! We all know that conservatives the country over hide illegals from ICE. We know they create "sanctuary cities". We know conservatives country wide deny they are getting welfare support. Conservative states give them driver's licenses and other support.
Right.OH so right... And so much more. The number of lethal drugs that this administration is allowing to pour into the US across the border, in my view, is due to just ignoring the problem our border has posed. The word Biden should not be used in the same sentence as the word compassion.
" He is following the laws of a compassionate nation "
The final CDC mortality data shows that between 2020 and 2021, overall death rates increased for all age groups except infants younger than one year. But the largest increase was among those ages 35 to 44, a group that was most affected by drug overdose deaths.
Deaths involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl increased by a marked 22% in 2021, according to the CDC data. Deaths involving cocaine and psychostimulants such as methamphetamine were also significantly more frequent, while those involving heroin decreased.
Drug overdose deaths also increased significantly throughout the pandemic, reaching record levels in 2021. Nearly 107,000 people died of a drug overdose in 2021, driving the age-adjusted death rate for overdoses up more than 14% in one year and 50% over the past two years."The number of lethal drugs that this administration is allowing to pour into the US across the border," - You will have to prove that bit of hyperbole since what I can find says the rates between 2020 and 2022 haven't changed much. If that is true, why do you use such misleading terms such as "pour into" UNLESS you are talking about Trump as well?
Seems like it is Trump with the problem and Biden is solving it according to this CDC headline. U.S. Overdose Deaths In 2021 Increased Half as Much as in 2020 - Said another way, Biden cut the RATE of increase of drug overdose deaths by half! And THAT is the actual story, not yoursSlowing the increase does not save the lives of those overdosing. Said another way, the rate of death is considerably higher under Biden.
Check CDC ... For stats .. sick of leaving unread links. Actually even CNN; posted the very stats I offered as well from CDC.
I note no source for your statement, supply proof of your view. I tend to believe the CDC over you.Check CDC yourself which tells the AHOLE and TRUE story (not just your truncated version) that under Biden, the the rate of increase in drug-related deaths was cut in half during Biden's first year
That doesn't say your stats are wrong. It says the way you presented them is misleading.
I thought the cite of CDC was source enough, but I guess not. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs … 202205.htm (It is probably the same one you used.)His first year offered stats from April 2020 - April 2021. Joe was only in office for 3 months. At which time he sent out his golden invitation. May better check Bidens first FULL year 2021, and have a look at 2022 LOL
Sigh - if you had read the source, you would have found this at the beginning of it.
Provisional data from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicate there were an estimated 107,622 drug overdose deaths in the United States during 2021, an increase of nearly 15% from the 93,655 deaths estimated in 2020. The 2021 increase was half of what it was a year ago, when overdose deaths rose 30% from 2019 to 2020.
Are you saying the CDC is wrong and that you are right?
Really???? Because of Biden, America is becoming a cesspool. - I will REALIZE it when you provide definitive proof rather than throwing around baseless hyperbole.
The problem with your destroying America claim, Trump beat him to the punch.
For example, Trump's own covid response team said he is responsible for a large majority of covid deaths in America. That would be over 1,000,000 by now, I think.
Another example, according to their own statements, world leaders (except Putin and Bolansaro, of course) believe Trump is responsible for making the world a much more dangerous and unfriendly place.
Yet another example is in Trump's futile attempt (Obama did a much better job), he instituted inhumane policies that separated something like 5,000 children away from their parents. (I think Biden has managed to reunite about half of those.)
Why in the world your side think those are good and honorable things is way beyond my comprehension (other than the beaten-wife syndrome I mentioned before.)"For example, Trump's own covid response team said he is responsible for a large majority of covid deaths in America. That would be over 1,000,000 by now, I think."
So Trump killed a million people...by some estimates that are pure guesswork. Whereas Biden has caused untold suffering with massive inflation...which is a fact we are still living with.
Similarly, some opinions, without support, believe the world is more dangerous, and put the blame on Trump.
Trump followed the law, while Biden ignores it and ignores his oath to protect our borders. Trump's "futile" efforts produced but a fraction of illegal crossings Biden has.
Yes, they are all good, while Biden's are all bad. I appreciate the fact that you cannot comprehend that, but then anyone with the Trump Disorder you exhibit will not comprehend it because it requires acknowledging that Trump some things well.
Old data from Jan 13... IMO this week will show his approval ratings plummeting.
No need to respond I am unfollowing this thread.
Wilderness: Here's a fact. The Trump Administration is by far the most indicted administration in history. Nixon comes in second, and Reagan comes in third. PolitiFact. Reason enough not to be admired.
I just wanted to set the record straight when some people here hyperventilate over the severity of the inflation America is experiencing in 2022 and 2023.
Terms like Massive have been used to describe it in order to drive fear into the hearts of readers. Now, while today's inflation hurts and is uncomfortable to a lot of people and some are even hurting a lot, at best you can call it modest or moderate inflation. You can see why from the table offered below.
To benchmark it, today's inflation has run from 4% with a quick one month peak at 9.1%. It is now 6.5%. What follows can be described as Massive[.b] but not catastrophic (Catastrophic would be the hyperinflation experienced by Germany in the 1930s, or Argentina twice in the late 1980s and again today.)
[b]High inflation was experienced in America between 1973 and 1982, almost 10 full years where inflation raged between 4% and 14.8%. It stayed above 12% from Aug 1979 until until Dec 1980!
Very High Inflation was seen several times in our history. From 1916 until 1920 (4% to 23.7%) AND from 1940 to 1941 (4% to 12.7%) AND 1946 until 1948 (4% to 19.7%)
So, when you feel compelled to describe what we are experiencing today, please use the appropriate modifier so as to not insult the Americans who suffered under much more horrific conditions..
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/i … ion-rates/Well, Eso, you and I know better, from what I understand the economy has been doing relatively well. Face it, if Jesus were a Democrat they would find some excuse to find fault....
You mean he isn't a Democrat? Seems to me liberals and Jesus have many of the same values.
Really??? The economy ISN'T doing well at all. In fact, it is heading towards a catastrophe! There are MORE homeless people. Rents are escalating. Please inform what universe are you living in?
The same universe that you are living in, except that my eyes are not wide shut. Where were we during 2020 in comparison?
ROFL.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investin … on-coming/ (Is that a catastrophe?)
https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/rec … al-how-bad (Is that a catastrophe?)
https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fann … ssion-2023 (Is that a catastrophe?)
That is the universe we live in - the real one.
And if we measured it now as we did then, rather than simply not counting the things that got too expensive to buy, it would be much more than it is.
Why is that simple fact ignored when you promote the highest inflation rate since the Great Recession?Wilderness, it is quite obvious that the inflation rate is astronomical in proportion. You SEE it, I SEE it. Most people SEE it.
You know as well as I that Wilderness DODGED again. I was addressing his misleading and wrong HYPERBOLIC descriptions.
And another misleading statement he made - "And if we measured it now as we did then ..." So you are you and Wilderness trying to convince us that the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't know what they are doing. When did you become the expert?
You DODGED again. I was addressing your misleading and wrong HYPERBOLIC descriptions.
And another misleading statement "And if we measured it now as we did then ..." So you are you trying to convince us that the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't know what they are doing. When did you become the expert?When I checked on how inflation was being calculated. Suggest you do it yourself (although it WILL require an open mind to understand what they are doing).
Just the tip of the iceberg is something called "chained CPI", where when a product becomes too expensive to buy people switch to a cheaper one, and the CPI is no longer calculated using the expensive one no one can afford. A great way to indicate the cost of living hasn't gone up...because people cannot afford to purchase what they did before but can still live. Just one example is switching from steak to hamburger because the cost of steak rose beyond what could be afforded, but hamburger costs what steak used to, so it is purchased instead. And the CPI remains constant because people had to reduce their standard of living.Unfortunately for your argument, that is not the way they calculate inflation. They use a common basket of goods to measure price changes month over month or year over year. As tastes change over time, they occasionally update what is in the basket.
That people might temporarily change what they buy to accommodate the higher prices has NO bearing on the prices in that basket of goods.
No, Wilderness, I will trust the experts and my training."That people might temporarily change what they buy to accommodate the higher prices has NO bearing on the prices in that basket of goods."
What a crock! First, with demand falling one can expect the price to fall as well, if only pennies.
Secondly, when people change what they are eating because inflation has driven up the cost of their preferred food then it is definitely the result of inflation and even more definitely a lowering of their living standard.
You can play with numbers until Hell freezes over but it doesn't change that we are seeing our standard of living fall because of inflation. And it doesn't matter one iota what the CPI says when they simply change the product mix to make the calculations appear better."when THEY simply change the product mix to make the calculations appear better." - Ahh, so there we have it. You believe the gov't fakes its data. It is really hard to discuss things with someone who lives inside conspiracy theories.
The government is quite open about what it did. The only problem is that no one knows it because it is not advertised as the reason for the numbers.
But in a sense you're right - it is extremely difficult to discuss such things with people that refuse to do minor math, preferring to hide between promoting socialism and a refusal to acknowledge problems with their beloved socialism. Refusal to accept that government lies is right in there as well, and when government changes the way it calculates in order to get lower numbers it is a lie. A lie because they are attempting to make people believe something is true when it is not and a lie because crucial information is left out.
You can do the math, Eso, and you are quite capable of understanding the result of changing the product mix towards cheaper products rather than what has been purchased in the past. You are quite capable of translating those numbers into what people are feeling and what they are facing; the only question is why you make stupid claims about what I believe rather than addressing the question head on.If what you say about the gov't purposefully changing the product mix to deceive you is actually true, you might have a point. But we both know that opinion is pure BS.
While the product mix does change on occasion, the changes are few and far between and based on changing consumer tastes over long periods of time.
(I see you didn't deny that you live inside a world of conspiracy theories)
What you have presented Wilderness is practical inductive & deductive commonsense.
True, but it is also straight arithmetic. Not rocket science, not number theory, not calculus, just addition and subtraction.
But wrong, nevertheless.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/co … eindex.asp
How the CPI is calculated has nothing to do with what Wilderness was hypothesizing.
Some here pooh-poo the idea that a shrinking American population will lead to lower economic growth and exacerbate that problem by opposing immigration, Russia has been experiencing that for years now and China is now following the same path.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/16/economy/ … index.htmlRepublicans and right wingers are more just afraid of the idea of cultural pollution, they are pusillanimous in their incessant fears and insecurities. Their talk about immigration being a threat to the American economy is just a distraction
There is nearly zero doubt (and zero with the numbers we're seeing) that more illegals will increase the GDP.
HOWEVER...when a slightly higher GDP is spread among a large increase in population the inevitable result is that the GDP per person drops. The original populations must give their income to the new comers, lowering what they get to keep. This is exactly what happens with large numbers (or even small numbers) of unskilled people are added to the population.
So yes, the standard of living of the old timers drops in order to raise the standard for the newbies. A "threat" to the economy of each individual whether liberals like to talk about it or not.That conclusion is rarely, if ever correct. The ONLY way your theory can be correct is IF productivity decreases as the population increases. Otherwise, the math just doesn't work out for you.
Also, tell me, why, when the US population was growing rapidly, didn't GDP per person decline just as rapidly?
For example, the population of the US grew from 225 million in 1980 to 332 million in 2022. According to you, the per capita GDP should have FALLEN over those years, correct?
But it didn't. It grew from $30,000 per person to around $60,000 per person.As usual you're ignoring the entire thrust of the comment. And I'm sure you know it.
When unskilled labor enters the market and is paid accordingly then the GDP per capita falls. If you think otherwise go back to school
I think several on this forum have mentioned Used Car Prices as a sign of skyrocketting inflation. What do you say now?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/16/business … index.htmlPersonally, I think Biden should allow the special council to search where ever his records might have ended up and without a warrant.
I have little doubt this was inadvertent and a result of piss-poor document management (as well as over classification), but it is important to try to make sure no others are floating around out their.
And NO, that doesn't apply to Trump as he made it abundantly clear he thought those classified documents were his to take.Wilderness, the other day it was reported that in New York City hotels, illegals are throwing away food. In addition to that, they are destroying hotel rooms. My suggestion: send ALL the illegals back to their country of origin. They are unskilled & can add absotutely nothing to the economy. In fact, they are TAXING the economy by draining our social services. What Biden needs to do is help Americans. It is Americans first.
Of course they are taxing the economy! Only a liberal, assuming that all wealth belongs equally to all people (socialism in a nutshell), can one make the assumption, however false, that they are not a drag on the economy.
Additional illegals, unable to compete in our job market and unable to produce the same value with their labor as educated Americans, will always cost the population. GDP will rise, but only as a nation; GDP per capita will always fall as those large numbers of unskilled people are now included in the calculation.You can hypothesize all you want, but your reasoning is faulty. It simply does not work the way you want it to. Skilled, unskilled, has nothing to do with anything relative to how GDP or GDP per capita is calculated. There is no variable to represent skilled vs unskilled labor. Here, I will show you.
GDP per capita, as you pointed out is simply GDP divided by population.
GDP itself is simply total hours worked multiplied by the output in dollars for each hour worked (i.e. productivity)
So GDP per capita is now equal to total hours worked multiplied by productivity.
But what is total hours worked? Nothing but average hours worked per person multiplied by population.
So now we have GDP per capita as being equal to average hours worked per person times productivity times population (GDP) divided by population
Proof; Assume GDP is 1,000. Assume Population is 100. Also assume total hours worked is 500 and productivity is $2 per hour.
From the above you get avg hours worked per person is 500 / 100 = 5
So, on the one hand GDP per capita = GDP/Pop = $1,000 / 100 people = $10/person
On the other hand, you have GDP per capita = Avg Hours Worked x productivity x Pop / Pop = 5 hours per person x $2/hour x 100 people / 100 people = $10/person
No where in that derivation above does "skill level" appear. To the degree skill impacts the result is hidden in the Average Work Hours per Person along with a lot of other factors that don't really bear on this discussion..
So, to get to your hypothesis that adding illegal immigrants to the mix naturally and inevitably lowers GDP per capita.
OK, let's add a person to the situation above. What happens to our two variables - Average Hours Worked and Productivity - given the well documented fact that the average immigrant, legal or not, is more hardworking and productive than the average native born.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-a … istrations
Since immigrants work harder and are more productive (opposite of your stereotype) than native born, then the math works out that both Average Hours Worked AND Productivity would INCREASE rather than be lowered as you insist.
The math says if the Net change in the variables is POSITIVE then GDP per capita must increase.
To Summarize:
1. At the fundamental level GDP per capita is dependent on Average Hours Worked per Person AND Average Output per Person IRRESPECTIVE of skill level.
2. Research shows that immigrants, legal or illegal, have a Net Positive effect on our two variables thereby RAISING GDP per Capta.Your entire premise falls completely apart when you assume that an unskilled worker can and will produce more value than a skilled one. The average income for an illegal alien is well under that of the average American, telling us that their "productivity" is also far less.
So. Rather than use 2 for a productivity of the illegal alien, use 1 and run the numbers. If there are as many illegals as Americans (for ease of calculation and visibility, not reality), then GDP goes up 50% while GDP per capita falls because there are twice as many people to divide that 1500 GDP by, and the average GDP is 7.50 using your assumptions.
But it gets worse. The illegal is only earning half what the American is and cannot support himself, let alone participate in the needs of the country, which have grown with the addition of so many people. Now the American must take from his $10 to give to the illegal to make up the difference there, leaving him less than he started with. If, for instance, it requires $7 to live, and the illegal only makes $5, the American must give up $2 of his $10 so that the illegal survives.
Now, the numbers don't match reality, just as they don't in your assumptive example. But the DO give a view into what happens when unskilled labor if brought in, and it does not depend on the assumption that an illegal will produce just as much value as an educated American trained to do the work."Your entire premise falls completely apart when you assume that an unskilled worker can and will produce more value than a skilled one. " - Where did I assume that. I said it didn't matter. Remember, most of the American workforce is unskilled - so what is your point?[/i
Why would you use one for the undocumented? I gave you proof a better number might be 3. It is only your unsubstantiated stereotype of the undocumented that leads you to that conclusion.
"If there are as many illegals as Americans (for ease of calculation and visibility, not reality), then GDP goes up 50% while GDP per capita falls because there are twice as many people to divide that 1500 GDP by,' - [i]You are assuming this happens instantaneously, which it doesn't do. If you allow the population to double naturally, thereby doubling demand over the same period, then ASSUMING the Average Hours Worked per Person AND the Average Output per Hour per Person remains constant, then GDP per Capita must remain constant (everything else remaining equal)
"The illegal is only earning half what the American is and cannot support himself, let alone participate in the needs of the country, which have grown with the addition of so many people. " - [i]Yet ANOTHER false assumption on your part that research has debunked. Also, where in the formula is "earnings"? I only see hours worked and output per hour.
"Now the American must take from his $10 to give to the illegal to make up the difference there, leaving him less than he started with. If, for instance, it requires $7 to live, and the illegal only makes $5, the American must give up $2 of his $10 so that the illegal survives."- What a bunch of illogical BS. Show me the research rather than give your biased conjecture.
Finally, do you disagree that native born add to the unskilled workforce in much larger numbers than non-native born? Or, are you saying every American worker by definition is "skilled" while every foreign worker is "unskilled" (which is demonstrably not true).?
They don't qualify for any social service programs. First and foremost in qualifying you need to be a citizen.
Of course, these costs would certainly vary in individual states. But unfair to say illegal migrants are not costing taxpayers. They receive state social services. However, I found article after article from different states claims of high costs of caring for migrants. So is it fair to say they are not a burden on taxpayers in individual states?
March 31, 2021 | Press Release | Immigration
AG Paxton: Illegal Immigration Costs Texas Taxpayers Over $850 Million Each Year
As the border crisis caused by President Biden’s policies surges illegal immigration and escalates criminal activity, Attorney General Ken Paxton stands committed to upholding the law and protecting Texans. In his January lawsuit that halted the Biden administration’s unlawful 100-day freeze on deportations, Attorney General Paxton uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars that Texas taxpayers involuntarily spent on illegal aliens every year:
Texans pay between $579 million and $717 million each year for public hospital districts to provide uncompensated care for illegal aliens.
Texans paid $152 million to house illegal criminal aliens for just one year.
Texans pay between $62 million and $90 million to include illegal aliens in the state Emergency Medicaid program.
Texans paid more than $1 million for The Family Violence Program to provide services to illegal aliens for one year.
Texans pay between $30 million and $38 million per year on perinatal coverage for illegal aliens through the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Texans pay between $31 million and $63 million to educate unaccompanied alien children each year. "
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/ne … -each-year
Mayor Eric Adams says that an influx of migrants could cost New York City $2 billion. He wants financial help from the federal government
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/15/nyre … rants.htmlFood stamps are available only to U.S. citizens and limited categories of lawfully residing immigrants. States vary but the restrictions are many.
https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-su … _fedprogs/
You need a social security number first and foremost. I don't think anyone needs to worry. We are treating these people as poorly as possible and starving them out at every turn. I guess it's better than what they've come from though.
In terms of public education..The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler vs. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) that undocumented children and young adults have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as do U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Like other children, undocumented students are obliged under state law to attend school until they reach a mandated age. I suppose maybe it's a case that the new politicized Supreme Court would want to take up?
And as far as the state of Texas goes, I think they're having a huge surge of new residents in business moving to the state. I'm not sure how much the immigrant issue really impacts them but I have posted before they receive plenty of federal dollars. You know if people down there don't like the situation that they're in they are certainly free to move about the country.
As far as President Biden causing a crisis at the border I just don't buy it. The policies have remained virtually unchanged since Mr Trump. Most Americans really won't look into immigration policy and the boring details. Why would they? Your party tells you what to believe. It's just easier that way. No thinking involvedI was referring to what many states provide, just pointing out that in many instances taxpayer funds are being used. I assume that the stats Paxson provided are accurate for what migrants are eligible for in his state.
"What is the immigration status for pending asylum?
You will have a pending asylee status if you've applied for asylum and are waiting for a decision on your application. If you have pending asylee status, you are no longer unlawfully present in the U.S. Having this status means you are authorized to stay in the U.S., pending the outcome of your application.Nov 15, 2022"
https://www.stilt.com/blog/2020/09/can- … s-pending/
This would seem to be a large majority of the catch-and-release asylum seekers. set free into the US to wait for file, and wait for an asylum hearing. Those that proceed to file will be eligible for the many benefits as they wait.
“Qualified” immigrants are (1) lawful permanent residents (LPRs); (2) refugees, asylees, persons granted withholding of deportation/removal,""Food stamps are available only to U.S. citizens and limited categories of lawfully residing immigrants. States vary but the restrictions are many."
This does not appear to be true at all. Not only do illegal aliens receive SNAP but TANF, school lunches and WIC. They get Medicaid and housing help. We educate their children (as you point out) and provide them with police protection.
We are not "starving them out at every turn" as you describe.
Below is a link to the Washington Examiner that mostly looks at immigrants as a whole but about half way down is a chart showing what illegal aliens receive on the average. They get more welfare than the average American does.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cash … 2-vs-4-431
The New York State Senate says "Welfare. Whether illegal aliens can obtain state benefits is not clear-cut. The short answer appears to be that they are not legally entitled to most benefits, but do in fact receive them."
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/artic … ns-receiveSeems to me that Faye is providing the law while you are giving your opinion. I believe Faye.
As to your citations. We now have two right-wing sources (one known to be anti-immigrant) and the other a much more respected think tank. They come to opposite conclusions.
The anti-immigrant so-called Center for Immigrant Studies is the source for the Examiner article. On the other hand, the right-wing, but much more respected CATO institute came up with OPPOSITE answer - that immigrants use much fewer resources overall, and as time goes on, the gap widens.
"Overall, immigrants consume about 28 percent fewer welfare and entitlement benefits than native‐born Americans. "
https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/imm … discussion
On CIS -
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate … on-studies
"Founded in 1985 by John Tanton, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has gone on to become the go-to think tank for the anti-immigrant movement ..."
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 … s-debunked
As to some illegal immigrants illegally receiving benefits - well stuff happens. Native born people run red lights. That means about as much.Of course. If you don't like the information then it means the source is bad.
But you might want to consider comparing the same thing. From your link: "we find that immigrants consume 28 percent less welfare and entitlement benefits than native‐born Americans on a per capita basis.".
This includes "entitlement benefits", which CATO defines as SS and any other similar programs. It does not, as far as I can see, provide numbers for ONLY the means tested welfare programs. As that is what I discussed you are once more on a wild goose chase to deny fact.
The USDA has never extended SNAP eligibility to undocumented non-citizens. Under SNAP rules, non-citizens who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence (LPRs, or individuals with green cards) can be eligible for SNAP assistance once they meet one of the following additional conditions: Live in the U.S. for at least five years. Work during 40 qualifying quarters. Be under the age of 18.
Also, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients aren’t eligible for SNAP.
In my own state of Arkansas, the guidelines clearly state that SNAP benefits are for US citizens with a social security number and a certain number of legally admitted non-citizens. Work registration is also an eligibility requirement.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assi … d-benefits"Whether illegal aliens can obtain state benefits is not clear-cut. The short answer appears to be that they are not legally entitled to most benefits, but do in fact receive them."
I can but repeat the words of the New York Senate. While you appear to be assuming that because the law says they can't get it, they can't get it. Nothing could be further from the truth - consider just one city (Sacramento) where the law clearly states one cannot aid a criminal, but the city does so daily and the mayor makes overt, plain statements intended to aid the illegal aliens in escaping ICE.
Or we can look at illegal aliens bringing in drugs - it is against the law but is killing hundreds of Americans every day.
You might want to consider that illegals are encouraged to get a SS number. According to the SS Administration in 2015, 554,000 numbers were given to illegal aliens that year. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ba … gal-aliensWere they "illegal" aliens at the time they got their SSN or were they, as Faye has pointed out a few times, now in a legal status? If they were in a legal status, then your case goes out the window.
I can only go by what the reports say. You assume they were legal then; the reports say differently. I'll take their word rather than your assumption.
As do I. Were your sources hard-right, anti-immigrant sources? Mine aren't
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-s … 2180846074
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny-met … story.html
I would suggest your source is wrong.Go back and read what the New York Senator said. Don't just refuse to hear because he isn't your political party, look at it with an open mind.
He plainly said that benefits were going to illegal aliens (not SS numbers) and that it was illegal to do so. Somehow you've tried to turn it into an argument over who can get a number because without that number you don't get benefits because it is illegal to do so.
Doesn't work that way, not outside of your fantasy that people never commit crimes and the law is always followed.I looked again, down to the bottom this time. It seems what he and you are upset about is the fact that some bureaucrats are not checking the immigration status of those receiving certain, limited benefits.
IF they followed the law, then those you are pissed at for getting help to live, wouldn't be. It isn't the undocumented's fault native born Americans can't do their job right.
BTW, your side started the SSN issue, Faye and I just corrected you.But it is absolutely the fault of illegal aliens that they are here, that my pocketbook is raided by those that refuse to do their job right, to support them.
Neither I nor America is responsible for supporting the rest of the world. Not even the millions of people that ignore the law and come into our country."But it is absolutely the fault of illegal aliens that they are here, " - You are dodging again - that wasn't what was under debate was it?
I am curious, how is your "pocketbook being raided"? It seems like the immigrants, legal and illegal, are putting money IN your pocketbook because research shows they return more into the economy than they consume. I have given that to you multiple, multiple times. But you are so cemented to your incorrect stereotypes about immigrants, you can't see the truth.You're the one that brought it up, not me. " It isn't the undocumented's fault native born Americans can't do their job right."
No, research does NOT show they pay their own way in our society. You have said that, many times, but repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Just a simple thought tells us better; an illegal family with just a couple of kids do not even pay for those kid's education, let alone all the other benefits of living here. Roads, police, libraries, museums, etc. are all beyond what they earn. Look up the average earnings of an illegal family and see if you think they can pay to educate even a couple of kids at; the cost for one child is $11,700; they simply do not have enough to pay for the education of one, let alone more.How many times do I have to show you that it does. It really seems a waste of time sending you research on a subject which, because it debunks your preconceived, unsupported notions, you ignore. Either that, or you sincerely believe you are much smarter than the authors of those reports.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-a … istrations
https://www.aclu.org/other/immigrants-and-economy
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/ma … -s-economy
https://www.fwd.us/news/immigration-fac … migration/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written- … mmigrants/
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/i … es-economy
It is reports like this that are the foundation of what I claim. Yours is a regurgitation of right-wing myths.
Point out the flaws in the above reports if you can. Where are they lying."Roads, police, libraries, museums, etc. are all beyond what they earn. " - I must assume that came from an authoritative source. What was it?
Common sense and arithmetic. Look up the cost of educating a child in school, look up the average income of an illegal family. Deduct what it costs for rent, food, utilities, etc. and see if there is enough left to pay for a couple of kid's schooling.
I understand that this line of thought is difficult for liberals - they'd rather take the lying word of Bid Daddy in DC - but it really is more valuable.So, let's see your source that breaks all that down.
" I guess it's better than what they've come from though." - That is a great point which I hadn't considered. Given how poorly conservatives want to treat these people, you can flip and old adage on its head and say they are coming from the Fire to the Frying Pan.
So, are you saying all illegals are doing that and regular customers never do as you describe? Or is it possible they are one-offs that anybody can do?
Also, isn't that bad activity better than Republican politicians shooting bullets into the houses of Democratic opponents?
As to your TAXING myth. As I have proven to Wilderness MANY times, that Right-wing talking point has been totally debunked.
What are the odds the uber-conservatives will cause another Republican gov't shutdown?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/politics … index.htmlEven the possibility of a debt ceiling crisis could shake market confidence and tip the nation into a recession. The Republicans are playing chicken with the economy. Just more performative politics, seems to be what they do best. Some have already signaled that it would be just fine with them if we shut down the government and default on our obligations. Today's Republican party is reckless. A bipartisan budget was already passed so what are they balking about now? When your credit card bill comes due you pay it or else you're a deadbeat.
President Biden should pull a Bill Clinton and force speaker McCarthy's hand just as Mr Clinton did with speaker Gingrich. By refusing to play, Biden would signal that if Kevin McCarthy wants to tank the world economy by allowing the U.S. to default on Treasury bonds, that’s on him."Even the possibility of a debt ceiling crisis could shake market confidence" - And we have PROOF of that the last time Conservatives decided to play chicken with the America's financial credibility.
I would offer Republicans want to be deadbeats, lol.
I see that DOJ did what was needed and that is having the FBI conduct a search of one of the places classified information might be located. They found six more documents.
Did Biden force DOJ to get a warrant for this search? NO, but Trump did!!! Did Biden make it easy for the FBI to conduct the search? NO, but Trump obstructed justice.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/politics … index.htmlWell Damn! In spite of all the naysayers' attempts to talk us into a recession and the Fed's successful attempts to cool off inflation, our economy just keeps booming!!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/26/economy/ … index.html
That is not to say the Fed will be so successful that it pushes the American economy into a minor recession, but it is proof that the "sky-is-falling" types from the Right don't know what they are talking about.The following MUST be a lie since CNN reported it. (That is sarcasm, in case you missed it).
First let me point out this doesn't apply to Trump who is a league of his own when it comes to exaggeration, misinformation, disinformation, and out right lying - he has no peers in that regard.
CNN, as it frequently does, fact checks things our politicians say. Even though many on here falsely believe they give Democrats a pass. they really don't. This latest fact-check is from a recent Biden speech.
Things they found WRONG:
* Biden said, “Last year, we funded 700,000 major construction projects – 700,000 all across America. From highways to airports to bridges to tunnels to broadband.” - I am guessing someone screwed up Biden's teleprompter because the figure is wildly wrong. What should have been said was 7,000 projects.
* Biden said, “Well, here’s the deal: I put a – we put a cap, and it’s now in effect – now in effect, as of January 1 – of $2,000 a year on prescription drug costs for seniors.” - This could have been misleading, but I think it was bad wording. In fact, the whole Inflation Reduction Act became effective Jan 1, 2023 - but not the cap part of it, which goes into effect in 2025.
* Biden said, “Back then (Trump era), only 3.5 million people had been – even had their first vaccination, because the other guy and the other team didn’t think it mattered a whole lot.” Again, I think someone fed Biden a bad line. The figure is TRUE for BOTH vaccines but very WRONG for just one vaccine>
* Biden said Republicans want to cut taxes for billionaires, “who pay virtually only 3% of their income now – 3%, they pay.” - This one is clearly on Biden since he said it more than once. The correct number is 8%, and even that is contested.
* Before touting the 15% alternative corporate minimum tax he signed into law in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, Biden said, “The days are over when corporations are paying zero in federal taxes.” - This is an exaggeration. It is NOT true that "these days are over" because there will always be one that slips through the cracks.
* Biden boasted "“As a result, the last two years – my administration – we cut the deficit by $1.7 trillion, the largest reduction in debt in American history.”" - MISLEADING because it lacks a lot of context. While "technically" true, there are many other factors pushing in the other direction.
* Biden said, “Wages are up, and they’re growing faster than inflation. Over the past six months, inflation has gone down every month and, God willing, will continue to do that.” - MISLEADING because it depends on when you start counting. His number is right, IF you start seven months ago. Otherwise, it is wrong.
What did Biden get RIGHT?:
* Biden said he was disappointed that the first bill passed by the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives “added $114 billion to the deficit.” - He was talking about defunding the increase in IRS staff.
* Biden said that “MAGA Republicans” in the House “want to impose a 30 percent national sales tax on everything from food, clothing, school supplies, housing, cars – a whole deal.” He said they want to do that because “they want to eliminate the income tax system.”
* Biden claimed the unemployment rate “is the lowest it’s been in 50 years.” - YES, that is true.
*Biden said that the unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic Americans are “near record lows” and that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is “the lowest ever recorded” and the “lowest ever in history.”
*Biden said that fewer families are facing foreclosure than before the pandemic.
* Much to the chagrin of Conservatives Biden said, “More American families have health insurance today than any time in American history.”
* Biden said, “And over the last two years, more than 10 million people have applied to start a small business. That’s more than any two years in all of recorded American history.”
BEFORE Biden speaks, I sure wish he would fact-check his own teleprompter.Interesting. The "sky-is-falling" and "depression-is-coming" conservatives keeps getting proven wrong.
Big Jump in job openings. Smallest rate hike yet. Inflation continuing to subside. GDP is still strongish.
I hope Americans stop listening to the conservative nay-sayers.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/01/economy/ … index.htmlThe problem is that the democrats BROKE the economy. I am not on the side of "the sky is falling" or "depression is coming." But the reality is the reality.
BEFORE inflation not seen since the 1980s inflation was at nearly zero. What caused the inflation?
Well, a LOT of things, and not ALL things Biden, but Biden still had a TON to do with it. The very first thing? Reversing Trump's energy policies which had the effect of killing American oil.
You will remember that we were oil independent for the first time in DECADES under Trump. And you will also know that the U.S. is THE richest nation in the world when it comes to oil supply, so shutting down our oil to go and get it from OPEC and other oil producing countries, many of which are evil, bad people and enemies seems very dumb to do—as well as letting go of the power we had to drive oil prices down.
Imagine how we could have helped the UK even had they not had to rely on Russia for their oil? We could have rushed to their aid and supplied them with plenty of it, and maybe even helped to curb their own inflation issues.
You will also know that oil is THE largest factor in our economy when it comes to how much things cost. Because all things plastic come from oil, and all things made require energy to make it, and all things that arrive in stores to sell to you arrive on planes, trains, and trucks—all of which run on diesel.
Biden contributed to supply chain issues by not taking swift action to abate them. And his oil policy, which he did immediately within hours of taking the oath of office, spiked oil prices almost immediately.
And then there were two bills he signed that would spend trillions of dollars, ALL of which is money that we do not have, that would have to be PRINTED. That also contributed to inflation.
Jobs are gaining? Not sure where you are hearing this, but worker layoffs are ramping up. Tesla, Amazon, Apple, Meta and many more companies have been laying off double digit percentages of their workforce.
Layoffs will only get worse WHEN the recession is made official, and it IS coming. We have already had two consecutive quarters of a reduction in GDP.
And about inflation going down? You are talking about numbers being reduced by 0.01% in each of the last two months. You DO realize inflation is still over 8% right? You DO realize that 0.01% is insignificant when the poorest of the poor—the ones who the democrats say they want to look out for—are suffering the most.
Smallest rate hike? Bravo. Keep in mind the ONLY REASON we HAD rate hikes to talk about is BECAUSE Biden spoiled the economy so bad, we HAD to.
What the American people understand is clear. Things were better under Trump than they were under Obama and now Biden, and things are MUCH WORSE under Biden than they ever were under Obama. Even the least brightest of democrats know this. They simply don't want to admit it.
You can spin the truth all you want, and the media can spin the truth all they want, but Biden caused all these problems and now he wants to say he is making progress FIXING them?
That's applaudable, Biden.
This would be like me lighting your house on fire and then asking for praise for bringing water to douse the flames. Makes no sense that any thinking person would find any remedy from the person who created the disaster in the first place a reason to cheer any more than it would make sense for you to cheer me for trying to put your house fire that I started.
And by the way, not that it matters, but just for the record. It's the GOP or Grand ole Party, or the republican party or the "right." RINO stands for "Republican in name only." That is, RINO's are people who call themselves republicans but are not actually republicans.
I could spend more time saying a whole lot more, but I have articles to write and other things to do. And none of this will be read anyway.Your "energy-independent" thought could use some support. The term 'energy-independent' is tossed around as if everyone 'knows' what it means. Apparently, judging by the term's use as a political tool, everyone doesn't "know" what it means—without some context.
For instance, if the term means we produce more energy than we use, (a net exporter of energy), then we have been energy-independent for a long time, at least back to 2006. And we still are today. We are still a net exporter of energy now. (at least as of 2021) We still are energy-independent.
But, if the term is used relative to petroleum, we have never been energy-independent. Even though we have, for most years, exported some oil, we still import oil for our own needs. That is a bit confusing until the types of oil products are added as context for the claims. In short, we export the bad stuff and must import the good stuff we use.
What do you mean by your energy-independent claim?
GA"Reversing Trump's energy policies which had the effect of killing American oil."
Which policies did Mr Trump have on energy that were reversed? I mean besides the inoperable bucket of bolts known as the keystone XL?If you are making the False claim that the Democrats broke an economy that, if fact, is not broken to start with then I beg to differ with you about not being on the "sky-is-falling" side.
"Reversing Trump's energy policies which had the effect of killing American oil." - Actually, oil production improved under Biden. See - https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/veri … 0f349c9cac
"Biden contributed to supply chain issues by not taking swift action to abate them." - Please explain what actions you think Biden could have taken. He had no control over the original decision to go with "just-in-time logistics, which is at the heart of the supply chain issues. He had no control over China's Covid-19 policy which shut down production for much of the world on a regular basis. He had no control over all those people who decided to retire instead of producing. He had no control over the massive increase in Demand when the pandemic restrictions were lifted. Exactly what did he have control over which actually impacts inflation?
"And then there were two bills he signed that would spend trillions of dollars, " - I believe he only signed one bill that had a Temporary impact on inflation - the American Rescue Plan. Economists have now determined that Plan had Little to do with lasting inflation. Estimates range from 0.3% to 4% of the peak inflation was due to the ARP. Also, its impact on inflation Peaked in late 2021 - SEE https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-polic … den-covid/
"Jobs are gaining? Not sure where you are hearing this," - I provided the link but DOL is the source
"And about inflation going down? " - It clearly is. Year over year inflation peaked at 9.1% in Jun 2022. It is currently 6.5% - SEE https://www.statista.com/statistics/273 … 0averages.
"What the American people understand is clear. Things were better under Trump than they were under Obama and now Biden, " - Sorry, you need to back up that false claim with data. If you look at this chart, you will see GDP under Obama and Trump were roughly the same while Biden beat Trump all to hell in 2021. In 2022, his rate is in line with Obama and Trump. If you use unemployment, Biden still beats Trump. SEE https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/U … rowth-rate
MAGA is the definition of RINO, btw. Also, Bush's GOP is on the opposite side of the political fence from the Lincoln's original GOP. Consider this - https://lithub.com/president-lincolns-r … overnment/It may be "well put", but it is very wrong.
That would be your view... You just do not seem to understand we all have one. LOL
No, it is not a "view", it is the provable truth.
I very rarely note you sharing much else than a view. A view you pick up from CNN. When reading the article as a rule they are also OP articles.
Then I would suggest you be more observant. Most things i put out are facts.
Oh, please! To reiterate for the millionth time, truth is what the so-called auhorities state is truth. The Nazis in Germany stated that Germans were superior while those who weren't Germanic were inferior depending on where they were on the hierarchal order. To the Nazis, what they were stating was so-called truth. Facts can be manipulated according to the type of desired truth to be represented. Don't you know this? There is such a thing as analysis & deciphering things. Truth is always dependent on those in power want the masses to know, remember that!
Yes, the USE of facts can be manipulated as we see your side doing so often. For example, claiming as fact that the FBI and Twitter were in cahoots when common sense would dictate otherwise. (Of course the Republicans won't believe THEIR OWN WITNESSES they called when they said the FBI is not involved - sort of like what your side does on this forum.)
Facts are facts and Truth is truth, no matter how it is used. They can be used honestly like Credence, Island Bites, Faye, Peoplepower, Kathleen, GA (sorry GA for grouping you in with a bunch of leftists, lol), and myself do or used in propaganda pieces."Yes, the USE of facts can be manipulated as we see your side doing so often."
Really - I will point out the mistruth you presented actually on this page...
I quote you -- "As I told others, Pelosi waited until Trump was done and gone before giving his speech what it deserved. "
Pelosi did rip that speech up while Trump was still at the podium and thanking all that attended his speech.
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS ---
BUT A LIVE CLIP IS BETTER
CSpan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppoElx09wFk
"Facts are facts and Truth is truth, no matter how it is used. "
.Sharlee: Your video shows she did wait until Trump's speech was over, but he was still at the podium. The difference is the right wing hecklers interrupted Biden's speech. So aren't we splitting hairs here? Pelosi did it without saying a word. MTG and her cohorts did it by shouting and disrupting Biden's speech more than once.
According to Robert's Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedures, the Sergeant at Arms should have escorted the rowdy bunch out of the chamber for disrupting a SOU speech. In a sense, they were shouting fire in a crowded theater which is a violation of the 1st amendment.Was he gone? Had he stopped Speaking? I have made my point, if you see it differently that would be your right.
In regard to the heckling, I feel it was very much called for in light of what Biden was saying. As I have shared with you previously his speech was fact-checked. WAPO even offered up 4 Pinnocios, for him repeating his lie in a speech yesterday.
I would have been right with them booing and calling him out for lying. He was in "the Peoples House".
I actually think Republicans need to be more vigorous and use their voices to point out any and all out mistruths. Too much lying going on from this man and his administration, in my view.
I am sure you will staunchly disagree with my view. So, I feel this entire subject has been beaten to death... I shared my view, you shared yours -- I will move on to current news. There certainly are tons ... I ask all almost weekly what next? Looks like we have our weeks what next --- some form of the object was just shot down entering our airspace over Alaska.
I don't always agree with Bobert or MTG -- this time I would have been right with them. Sick of watching this man lies, and many Americans walking away believing his lies. I have no energy to placate supporters of this man or his administration.
So if you hope to knit pic that video. I feel it is very clear.Sharlee: You know what I'm going to say about Trump and his lying...right?
I do, and I have never denied that he did. Trump. is not the president, I did not appreciate his lies, I don't appreciate Bidens lies ---
I am not on either bandwagon, but I find Biden poses a danger to our Nation.Since you never called out Trump for lying, how were we supposed to know you didn't appreciate his constant lying? Why aren't you using the same term "appreciate" for the few times you catch Biden in a lie?
If you are so sick of Biden's occasional lying, why weren't you sick of Trump's constant lying?
I called Trump out for his lies when he lied. Sometimes I defended Trump when accused of lying when it appeared he had not.
Are you for real? When was that? I must have missed it.
All I remember were excuses for his lies. I even seem to remember you saying (more than once) that Trump have never lied, that he just exagerated or was taken out of context.
I must have confused you with someone else.
That is what I remember as well. Never a bad word to say about Trump until forced to even though his bad actions were there for all to see.
Your statement is somewhat correct. I do defend Trump when I FEEL he is being wrongly accused. I also have entered conversations and defended Trump, If I FELT he was wrongly accused. I have clearly been disappointed with something he may have done or said, or if he shared a mistruth.
I also have made it clear if he is the Rep candidate, I will be once again voting for him. I will be supporting anyone candidate from the Republican party Backs in 2024. This does not mean I will not continue to clearly point out a lie from my candidate. A lie is a lie, no matter who promotes it... So I need no list of Trump lies. Just are unnecessary with me --- It is very apparent there are enough lies to go around in both parties.
The subject of this conversation before it came ( or I should say was diverted) around to me, and my long past comments -- It was all about fact-checking Biden's State Of The Union". Maybe, we have fully discussed that, and time to move on.
" I even seem to remember you saying (more than once) that Trump have ( HAS )never lied, that he just exagerated (EXAGGERATED) was taken out of context."
Maybe a quote would help make your comment more truthful. I don't ever recall making a statement that made that claim. Perhaps it was someone else.
" In a sense, they were shouting fire in a crowded theater which is a violation of the 1st amendment."
What "sense" is that? Did the intend to stampede the audience? Was the intent to spread panic? Did they warn of imminent danger, encouraging people to get up and run?
No, no one "shouted fire" in a crowded theatre, or any semblance of it. They DID call a liar out on his lies, while Pelosi intended great disrespect and showed it.Wilderness: So the GOP gang who called Biden a liar during his speech did not show great disrespect to the office of the President of The United States of America by disrupting his SOU speech?
Here is Biden's big lie at the SOU and how disruptive the GOP gang was.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/b … e-97015774Fact-checking President Biden’s 2023 State of the Union address
Here's a roundup of 13 statements in Biden's State of the Union that were wrong or needed context.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ct-checker
I don't feel he should be given a stage to lie such as a State Of The Union speech. You talk about "great disrespect to the office of the President of The United States" --- What about the people he is supposed to present --- Americans? He shows little respect lying from that podium, in the House Of The People.
2022/11/07 ›
Nov 7, 2022 — The Washington Post crowned President Biden with its Trump-era "bottomless Pinocchio" rating after he told multiple untruths and committed ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … nt-gaffes/
I am so thankful some spoke up... Perhaps those that were watching will delve into the information he was trying to sell by lying.I won't bore you with the 10,000+ documented actual lies from Trump. But I will take your conclusion from the Washington Post piece to task.
You said "I don't feel he should be given the stage to lie such as a State of the Union." Well, let's see if there is much behind such a "feeling".
1. "“I stand here tonight after we’ve created — with the help of many people in this room — 12 million new jobs, more jobs created in two years than any president has ever created in four years.”" - That is TURE, the Post AGREES with that. They just said it needed context, although I am not sure why.
2. “We’ve already created 800,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs, the fastest growth in 40 years.” - Also TRUE and the Post agrees. Their caveat was that it took to May to do it.
3. “For too many decades, we imported products and exported jobs. Now, thanks to all we’ve done, we’re exporting American products and creating American jobs.” - The Post said that is TRUE as well, just that there is more to the story.
4. “America used to make nearly 40 percent of the world’s chips. But in the last few decades, we lost our edge and we’re down to producing only 10 percent.” - Again, the Post said this is TRUE, this time with no caveat.
5. "“We used to be number one in the world in infrastructure. We’ve sunk to 13th in the world.”" - This is getting tiresome. The Post said this is TRUE as well..
6. “It’s not fair the idea that in 2020, 55 of the biggest companies in America, the Fortune 500, made $40 billion in profits and paid zero in federal income taxes? Zero.”" - Once more the Post doesn't disagree, it just talks about the source.
7. “Because of the law I signed, billion-dollar companies have to pay a minimum of 15 percent.” - The Post says Biden spoke the TRUTH here as well.
8. “Pass my proposal for a billionaire minimum tax. … Because no billionaire should pay a lower tax rate than a schoolteacher or a firefighter.” - This is neither a lie or the truth.
9. “In the last two years, my administration cut the deficit by more than $1.7 trillion — the largest deficit reduction in American history.” - While the Post claims this is misleading (as did CNN) it is nevertheless technically TRUE.
10. “Under the previous administration, America’s deficit went up four years in a row. Because of those record deficits, no president added more to the national debt in any four years than my predecessor. Nearly 25 percent of the entire national debt, a debt that took 200 years to accumulate, was added by that administration alone.” - AGAIN TRUE, but a little misleading.
11. “Some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I’m not saying it’s a majority. … Anybody who doubts it, contact my office. I’ll give you a copy.” - This is absolutely TRUE, just read Sen Scott's manifesto.
12. “While the virus is not gone, thanks to the resilience of the American people and the ingenuity of medicine, we have broken covid’s grip on us. Covid deaths are down nearly 90 percent.” - Did you catch the first six words While the virus is not gone? What he said is TRUE.
13. “Ban assault weapons once and for all. We did it before. I led the fight to ban them in 1994. In the 10 years the ban was law, mass shootings went down. After we let it expire in a Republican administration, mass shootings tripled.” - The Post DOESN"T say this is false. In fact they present studies to back it up. What the Post does say that "some" experts disagree with the studies methodologies - of course many experts do not.
So, I am not sure what you are basing your "feeling" on. It certainly isn't the Post article because it shows that Biden told the TRUTH in the 13 instances you reference.I don't live in the liberal Trump time warp. However, as I have said, we have a new guy in the White House, and I prefer staying current. Trump's long lies in no respect cancel out Biden's long list of lies, do they?
When Trump was president we frequently had conversations in regard to his mistruths. Not interested in continuing to mull over old issues. As I said (and have now been called out on ) I called him out when I felt he was lying, defended him when I felt he was not lying, and being accused of lying. That's all she wrote ---- I call it like it is.To look at just one of this ridiculous list, the news reported just the other day that 2022 set a record for the worst import vs exports in our history.
So when you, or the POST, says "Now, thanks to all we’ve done, we’re exporting American products and creating American jobs." the rest of the story most definitely needs to be included with the lying statement (lie: an attempt to convince a listener that something is true when it isn't, such as our trade deficit got better).But import-export wasn't what Biden was talking about, was it. To refresh your memory, Biden was talking about talking about higher exports (which is TRUE) and creating American jobs (which is also true).
To rehearse a little more - Biden's policies INCREASED exports and INCREASED American jobs. Are you saying that didn't happen?
Besides, using the phrase "To look at Just one", is a bit misleading since all the others were TRUE as well.From your post, he said: "Now, thanks to all we’ve done, we’re exporting American products and creating American jobs. Obviously true as we do export, but the rest of the story is that we imported at a record rate, far more than ever before in our history.
Now you can take that however you wish, but when I heard it, it was an obvious ploy to try and make it sound like we were on the top end of the export/import ladder. The intent was to make it sound far better that it was, and in my book that makes it a lie.
Others were similar, like #6. They may (or may not) have paid taxes, but if not it was either illegal OR they took advantage of tax laws just as everyone else in the country does. The obvious implication is that they were all illegal or immoral when the truth was that they were both legal and moral in their tax payments. Another lie, then.
#9 - he cut the deficit by 2T because he had run it up even more the year before. Once more, the rest of the story went unsaid, giving the impression he did something he did not.
#11. Unsaid was that it was never going to go anywhere, and that it was a couple of people talking about it without any intention of following through. Once again, the implication is that Republicans want to cut it, once again completely false. Another lie, then, if you look at the whole picture instead of a tiny part of it.
You can twist it into what it was not, but too many of your wondrous claims just aren't there. Not when one looks at what people were intended to get from it rather than what the specific words mean.Wilderness: You think Biden lies?, but Trump claims he doesn't lie. He uses what he calls "Truthful Hyperbole."
Sounds like all the other politicians to me. I just tend to object to someone telling me a politician isn't lying when they are very plainly trying to get me to believe something that is not true.
(But not sure how Trump entered here - the entire thing was about Biden, not Trump. We could also talk about Pelosi, Bezos, Winfrey and my grandmother if you'd like.)1. Trump enters it through hypocrisy. You complain about what you perceive as a Biden lie but let pass without comment the 10,000+ lies Trump told. Based on that contrast, one could draw the conclusion you don't know what a lie is.
2. Getting you to believe something that is not true. Wouldn't that characterize your comments? You never give the rest of the story.I told you what a lie is, in my opinion. Do you disagree?
If a statement is made that is meant to deceive, then I agree, that is a lie. As a consequence, everybody lies a lot. You, me, Sharlee, everybody. So, sense you choose not to discern the difference as to quality or quantity, of the lies - calling someone a liar has no meaning because it is 100% true. I bet you can catch Jesus in a lie (which, apparently by your reckoning, that makes Jesus as bad as Trump).
Not being able to see shades of gray puts a person in a terrible logical conundrum.Close. "Meant to deceive" means an intention to deceive. Not an error, not an false belief on the part of the deceiver - a statement the deceiver knows is untrue but said anyway. Perhaps with a twist, perhaps with only part of the whole story, but one made with an intent to deceive. It is not a lie (IMO) if the speaker believes the intended message to be true - it is a mistake.
I agree to a point.
If a person "honestly" holds a false believe and bases their statement on that, then that probably falls out of the "meant to deceive" category. On the other hand, if somebody "believes" in something that is obviously wrong and nothing but a willingness not to accept the facts (e.g. election denialism) then I can't give that person a pass.
Nevertheless, since 100% of people actually lie many times in their lifetime and you do not make things relative (shades of gray), then calling somebody a liar is meaningless because it is always true.It's really quite comical to hear you complain I don't recognize shades of grey while you also complain that Trump lies tens of thousands of times...without consideration to his beliefs. Justifying that by deciding that YOU get to decide what is "reasonable" to believe just adds to the comedy.
I am not "complaining", I am just observing and reporting what I see.
As to Trump, what has his "beliefs" have to do with his serial lying? It is not the case with him where he doesn't know right from wrong or what is real and imagined.
To take a simple example. He found it necessary on at least two occasions, maybe three, that I know of where he found it useful to lie about where his father was born. In at least one of his books he said New Jersey. In one or more speeches or interviews he said Germany.
It will be interesting to watch you defend that blatant lie.
Another, much more recent example, is his continued lying about having not lost the election and that the election was rigged. He know, and we have records of him telling others, that he knew he lost. While lying about his father is curious, lying about the fundamentals of democracy is, as we are seeing, extremely dangerous.
Yet, I fully expect you to defend again, his campaign to destroy democracy through these lies.
Nobody says that I need to find something reasonable or not, I simply state the obvious that most others who aren't under Trump's spell say.
Trump lie bad --- Biden lie good... Ya can't win with liberals, the mindset is set differently, and in stone.
There appears to be no shade of gray for conservatives. For example:
* You are straight - period, everything else is choice
* As soon as an egg is fertilized, it is human with all the rights of one that is living outside the womb. (For those who oppose contraception, I guessing the baby is alive as soon as the egg is produced).
* Jaywalking is no less serious than murder.
* If you aren't caught running a red light, you aren't guilty of committing a crime even though you ran the red light.
* A person who lies once is just as bad as a person who lies 10,000 times.
Liberal are able to discern the difference in all those cases.
And YES, with everything considered, Trump is a VERY BAD person and Biden is a VERY GOOD person. I don't think you will find any person is not a Trumplican who would disagree with that view.Where do you get these things? From your own overactive imagination or do you go to a kindergarten somewhere for them?
I like this method of defining "Trumplican": any who do not feel as you do about the two men is a "Trumplican".I get most of them from comments from your side on this or similar forums. Others come from statements of known Conservatives.
They can't be from my imagination because I simply don't think in those black and white terms."My side"? My side is that of truth. Things like "Jaywalking is no less serious than murder." or "If you aren't caught running a red light, you aren't guilty of committing a crime even though you ran the red light." have no place in truth. Just like the intention to convince a reader that such things are common beliefs from "my side" have no place in truth.
"My side is that of truth." - I have to beg to differ. That is not always true because you have allowed yourself to be deceived in certain areas.
For example, just to rehearse one issue, is your defense of Trump's transgressions. That is the red light analogy. You keep trying to convince us that since Trump is not indicted and found guilty, he is, ipso facto, innocent and did not commit any crime. All of the evidence points to him running the red light, that is undisputable (although you will probably try). There is no doubt in most people's minds that Trump has committed crimes. We are just waiting for somebody to do something about it.See? There it is again. I have not provided "defense" of Trump at all - that you claim I have is pure, 100% imagination.
If you think Trump has been found guilty by a jury of his peers (not just your own opinion) the provide a link to the court case. If you cannot then quit claiming he is guilty, for you do not know.Wilderness: If someone was shot and killed and you are the only witness, by your definition of guilt, they are not guilty until deemed that way by a court of law. The whole world saw and heard what Trump did on Jan. 6, but by your definition, he is not guilty until he is proven to be guilty by a court of law.
For God's sake, Trump is guilty of asking Rafensburger to break the law to find 11,500 more votes. and it is recorded right here as evidence to be held in a court of law by a jury of his peers. The only reason it hasn't happened is because Trump has a cadre of very high paid lawyers who can delay and distract any court proceedings.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/04/was … orgia-vote"Wilderness: If someone was shot and killed and you are the only witness, by your definition of guilt, they are not guilty until deemed that way by a court of law. The whole world saw and heard what Trump did on Jan. 6, but by your definition, he is not guilty until he is proven to be guilty by a court of law."
First must be charged with a crime to have a day in court. Trump has been investigated to holy hell and back and has not been charged with a crime as of yet. It would seem many investigations have not served up any crimes.
Yes, the world witnessed Jan 6th. What you just don't seem to understand, people have varied views of what not only went on that day at the Capitol but also have varying views on if Trump even played a part in the mess.
You feel Trump gets off from his many crimes due to having high-paid lawyers. You do realize some very good lawyers have conducted, and still are conducting investigations on Trump.Yes, I do realize they are still investigating Trump. There is even an ongoing grand jury investigation currently taking place.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/04/was … orgia-voteI have only heard a little bit about what follows when the grand jury questions Pence. Unless Pence can exonerate Trump, I think the investigation will wrap up (nobody left to question) with an indictment.
Also, we should get an idea on what the Atlanta DA is going to do on Thursday when part of the special grand jury is released. I am on pins and needles.And he may well be indicted. Meaning that someone (Democrats) think he is guilty AND that they think they can prove it.
Indictments do not indicate guilt, you know. Except to those that do not need a court - then anyone they don't like is guilty of terrible, nefarious crimes because they say so.More likely Republican prosecutors.
And now we take another step backward and narrow the definition of guilt to OLNY when a jury (who is prone to errors themselves) says he is guilty. AND we are back again to NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED unless you are found guilty of it, which, we all know, is an absurd position to hold.What part of "I don't know" do you not understand? They are very simple words, easily understood - why do you insist that the meaning is "No crime" rather than the message imparted by the words themselves?
I understand you find it absurd to require a trial by a jury of peers to find a guilty verdict. I get that. It just isn't how our system of justice works - the hanging mobs for rustlers and horse thieves went out a hundred years ago, and there never was one for hanging anyone named "Trump".
You'll need to revamp our entire system, starting with SCOTUS, to get to where you are - where you and only you are necessary to pronounce guilt.What about this piece of evidence as a smoking gun? Try to interpret that to mean something that it is not. You know damn well that will be irrefutable evidence if Trump's case is brought to court.
As Sharlee says all of Trump's actions are subject to interpretation by whomever witness it, but there is not interpretation of what he is asking Rafensburger to do. Guilty as charged.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/04/was … orgia-vote
How about this one?
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/22/11064595 … d-by-trumpHas he been tried for it, in front of a jury? Has he defended himself in front of that jury/ No? Then neither I nor you can actually claim he is guilty of a crime.
It really isn't difficult to understand - all you need do is decide that YOU are not the jury of the world, that you have not listened to a defense, that you do not know the legal ins and outs of the defense, and that a trial is thus necessary to determine guilt.
Or you can claim guilt without a trial or hearing a defense, going back to the hanging mobs of the old west.Sort of ironic, Wilderness.
I consider that today is the 94th anniversary of the (1929) St. Valentines Day Massacre, when Al Capone directed the murder of members of a rival gang in a Chicago parking garage.
Until he was finally charged, arrested and prosecuted for income tax evasion, according to your reasoning, he too, was innocent because he evaded the legal process for so long. That did not mean that he was not guilty of so many crimes which was obvious to most everybody. So, just because Trump uses his ill-gotten gains to evade the system does not necessary mean that he cannot be considered accountable. And just as it was for Capone, it shall be for Trump in due time.You're taking the same stance as PP and Eso: if not guilty then innocent. While we require evidence and a trial to determine guilt, until that time the presumption is innocence. Not factual; only presumption, for one (not even the much hated Trump) is required to prove innocence; only that they are not guilty. There is a world of difference between the two whether you acknowledge that difference or not.
And THAT means we don't know, but will presume innocence and refuse to punish....until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of peers. AFTER hearing both prosecution AND defense - something that has not happened yet.
It may well be that Trump will be punished in due time, but until that time the presumption is innocence and he shall be treated accordingly. Not with unending, unproven and untested claims of guilt. The term for that is libel, not guilt and not proof of guilt.No, we need a trial to convict somebody and send them to jail. What you don't understand, apparently, is a person can be guilty of a crime but not be penalized for it.
Back to the red light. You observe somebody you recognize voluntarily run a red light. What you are telling us is he committed no crime. If that is the case, what do you call it? What do you say about the culpability of that person?"No, we need a trial to convict somebody and send them to jail. What you don't understand, apparently, is a person can be guilty of a crime but not be penalized for it."
Your logic is guilty until proven innocent --- This is not justice in any respect. Hopefully, your form of justice never catches on or our society will be set back 100 years.
Mine --- I will stick with innocent until proven guilty with factual evidence.Sharlee: So then Biden and his son are innocent until they are proven guilty by a court of law?
most certainly --- I actually posted a thread on the ongoing Hunter Biden and his dad's investigation issue.
I think if you check my comments you will see I have the same standard in regard to the Bidens.
I try to be very non-bias when it comes to pinning a crime on another human being. I certainly do admit to a bias when it comes to Bden, on many fronts.
On the thread, I have posted articles with names and faces offering information on the allegations and much of the evidence that the GOP congress is putting up for all to see. But I won't hang anyone in smoke and mirrors. As I have always shared in regard to Trump, he has not been indicted for any crime. I think some of our best have investigated Trump and came up empty-handed.
My thread is the source of my view on the Biden investigation issue. Just not willing to convict until evidence is presented in a hearing or court of law.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/356 … s-to-media
OK, you just told the world by extension that:
* That you believe Hitler is innocent of murdering the Jews
* That you believe Al Capone is innocent of ordering murders
* That you believe the guy you saw of running a red light is innocent of doing so.
* That you believe Hunter Biden is innocent of any wrong-doing what so ever.
I think I am getting your mindset now.
They simply don't understand the obvious logic, Credence.
"That did not mean that he was not guilty of so many crimes which was obvious to most everybody" - Carries no weight with those defending Trump. Capone was not convicted, therefore he did nothing wrong regardless of what the evidence shows.
If one listens to the call it is very obvious Trump felt he won Georga by hundreds of thousands of votes. So, it will be up to the interpretation, first of an AG to make the call after interpreting the full call, then If he feels Trump broke the law, he would indict, then it would be up to a full jury to also interpret the full call. Listen to the call, be impartial, and tell me if Trump first did not think lost, and second, did he feel he had many many more votes than the 11,7900 he needed? Did he sound as if he was asking Rafenburger to just cheat or lie and give him the needed votes?
It did not to me... During the entire call, Trump was offering numbers, and things he seemed to believe were true. Just saying. But one must listen to the call from start to finish. I see no evidence of a crime. Only a man that feels he was cheated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_Bdf_jGaASharlee: I listened to the entire audio. I have to say it was one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard. It pushed the limits of my tolerance.
If Trump believed he won the election by millions of votes why didn't he prove it? Instead he wanted access to the votes, so they could be counted by his team of people and more than likely make it look like he won the election.
He and his people had no records to prove it. Trump said several times it was rumored and people said... but it was all hearsay. He and his people tried to intimidate Raffesperger and pressure him to change the votes.
Ultimately, Trump realized he couldn't change their minds, so he settled for the 11,800 votes but thank god they didn't agree.
Dominion is suing Fox news for giving inaccurate information about there voting machines.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/08/dominio … wsuit.html
Trump accused Ruby Freeman and her daughter for messing with the ballots and increasing the ballots by three times the actual votes. This was all based on what Giuliani dreamed up. Their lives were put in danger as a result of those accusations.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/two-at … 022-04-21/
Trump lied through the entire phone call, based on what other people told him about the election results, including exaggerating on his own to pressure and threaten the secretary of state.
Is it criminal to lie when you are repeating others lies? Is it criminal for the President of The United States to change the election results by threating the secretary of state and accusing other elections workers of fraud when in fact there was no fraud?
Is Trump so dumb to believe what people tell him that he believes them without question? In my view, he is so obsessed with always winning he will believe anybody's story that he thinks will make him win..I did not share my personal view of the call, just that I felt individuals might get different views of the call. A jury is made up of individuals, and some might not pick up your view, or mine for that matter.
Just had hoped to point out that the call in a court of laws could be heard and taken differently."Instead he wanted access to the votes, so they could be counted by his team of people and more than likely make it look like he won the election. "
Instead of being counted by enemies that "more than likely made it look like he lost the election", right. And you cannot understand that one is no better than the other to someone convinced of fraud.What enemies? You mean the election workers he threatened and computers?
And being unreasonably "convinced" of fraud is no excuse. They knew better or should have known better.
"Instead he wanted access to the votes, so they could be counted by his team of people and more than likely make it look like he won the election. "
Instead of being counted by enemies that "more than likely made it look like he lost the election", right. And you cannot understand that one is no better than the other to someone convinced of fraud.
"Is it criminal to lie when you are repeating others lies?"
Now THAT is a very good question! Is it even a lie if believed? Can it be criminal to say what you believe to be true but is not? That's something that happens with a large percentage of witnesses (every law enforcement entity knows how unreliable witnesses are) - are they all guilty of perjury or some other crime?
That would be a good question for discussion. One could even expand it to jury members; if they listen to lies and believe them, rendering a verdict based on a lie, are they, too, guilty of a crime?Precisely. I was trying to point out that if many individuals (or a jury) listen to Trump's call in FULL, they will come out at the end with very different views.
If I were a juror, I know my own mindset, and I look at details --- such as the call was not one man to another, but had many others on the conference call.
All were introduced and listened to, as well as joined in. Secondly, Trump fully appeared to believe what he was saying and offered several reasons for how he came to believe the voting count was off by "hundreds of thousands.
So, is it a lie if one truely believes it is the truth and even gives some logic as to why they feel it to be true?
The call is a long one, and worth listening to. In my view, Trump to this day believes the election was fraudulent.
If I were on a jury, I would have a huge shadow of a doubt, after listening to the full call.
And I am one that feels there was only minor fraud, not enough to sway the outcome. The types of fraud we see in most elections. But in the very back of my mind, I still think --- maybe.Sharlee and Wilderness: How do you know that Trump believed what he was saying about winning by million of votes? That is only your opinion.
You don't know what he really believes. To me, he and Meadows sounded like gangsters with their threats and wanting Brad to allow them to have access to the voting apparatus the next day.
Trump was being ignorant by believing what he wanted to hear and forcing Brad to take action based on those lies.
It is a fundamental legal principle in the U.S. that ignorance of the law is no defense. If ignorance were accepted as an excuse, any person charged with a criminal offense could claim ignorance to avoid the consequences. Laws apply to every person within the jurisdiction, whether they are known and understood.
As I understand Brad was saying the law would not allow him to meet Trump and companies demands. Trump claimed that Ruby Freeman and her daughter tripled the ballot count by adding additional ballots with the same signature. He wanted his people to verify that. When in fact, he knew better. He also said that 1,000 of dead people voted and his people told them they got that information from obituary columns. When in fact according to Brad's records, they only found two votes for dead people.
Those ballots are protected property, even from the President of the United States.
On Jan. 6 he knew he lost the election or why else would have governors make up a fake certification slate to be certified? He is smart in that his hands weren't on the slates. Just like a mafia boss, he always has other people do his dirty work."Trump fully appeared to believe what he was saying and offered several reasons for how he came to believe the voting count was off by "hundreds of thousands." - Trump told others months before he knew he lost. Many close advisers around him told him he lost. It is conclusive that he is lying about not knowing he lost.
And if I were on the jury, especially after the prosecutors presented the mountains of evidence that Trump knew he lost, his "find me 18,001 votes (or whatever number), one more than I need to win." would be the "smoking gun" to me.
Why do you still think "maybe". Do you wonder sometimes that God doesn't really exist? (not questioning your religion)Trump was full of BS from the beginning. I don't care what he thinks outside beyond the proof to support it. I never did. Since when does the whole world stop just to let Trump get off?
"Trump told others months before he knew he lost. Many close advisers around him told him he lost. It is conclusive that he is lying about not knowing he lost."
You need sources for such a statement, a Trump quote.--- I think maybe due to I feel the Biden bunch is so corrupt they would have done anything to win. AnythingI provided sources from his own mouth a couple of posts ago
It all depends on whether it is reasonable or unreasonable to believe the lie.
Sharlee says "Trump "felt" he won Georga by hundreds of thousands of votes. " - NO, he didn't. There is plenty of testimony out there showing he knew he lost. He is pretending to be ignorant of the fact that he lost. He is playing stupid (for him, that is not hard to do).
Where can I purchase either your crystal ball or your telepathy device? Reading other's minds could be handy.
Again trolling read the context of my conversation. I was very clear in my view. Which I have a right to share.
Again you need to provide a source when you post something where your context indicates it is factual.
"NO, he didn't. There is plenty of testimony out there showing he knew he lost. "
You or I have no idea what Trump believes. As I said that would be an individual view of a juror that listened to the call in question.You keep putting up these weak defenses of the indefensible. Of course can tell you what Trump thinks regarding having lost the election; so can you.
All you have to do is listen to what he said originally.
https://www.wsj.com/video/can-you-belie … D504F.html
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … tu-vpx.cnn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJvQHVlkpPI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm2Ukm2uyE8
Please tell me truthfully that Trump didn't know he lost.
I give up, Mike. It is clear they choose not to understand no matter how simple you make it for them.
They are the poster children of Obtuse.
I feel we need to play a wait-and-see game before accusing or assuming Trump has committed a crime. As well as Biden -- is also being investigated for several issues.
And once again, to save Trump, you are suggesting people not use the minds god gave us.
I watched Trump, who is easy to identify, run a red light on his own volition and not, as Wilderness absurdly suggested, because he was rear-ended and shoved across the street.
Based on that, I have every right to conclude Trump broke the law even though you want to wait and see if he is ever tried and found guilty.
Actually, Biden is NOT being investigated for anything. The fact that classified documents that once were in Biden or Pence's possession ended up in the wrong place does not mean Pence or Biden are personally being investigated. And neither are being investigated for anything else.
YOU see WIlderness run a red light. He was not found guilty of it. You just said he did not commit the crime of running red light - Agree?
Was Wilderness hit in the rear and pushed through the red light? Was it truly Wilderness at the wheel (I presume you did not collect ID's, verifying it was not his twin brother)?
No defense allowed, no guilty verdict declared. By those outside the hanging mob, anyway.Nope, none of those things, Sharlee simply watched him (who she recognized or he yelled out the window "I'm Wilderness" as he drove by) run a red light all by himself with no help.
In any case, you are deflecting from the point once again by being obtuse.
If I saw Wilderness commit a crime that required a trial (not a traffic violation) I would offer testimony at his trial. Your simple anology just does not meet the criteria. Your comment indicates a violent crime. If one can't prove intent, as in the Jan 6th issue, one should not be labeled with committing a crime.
"Wilderness: If someone was shot and killed and you are the only witness, by your definition of guilt, they are not guilty until deemed that way by a court of law. The whole world saw and heard what Trump did on Jan. 6, but by your definition, he is not guilty until he is proven to be guilty by a court of law."
If one can't prove intent, as in the Jan 6th issue, one should not be labeled with committing a crime. Example
I often accuse you of trolling --- I feel sometimes you do. Yet, that is just my pure view, I have no real proof of your intent. As you have no way of roofing Trump committed a crime, or that he incited a riot on Jan 6th.
As I said previously some believe Trump intended to cause a riot on Jan 6th. Just as many feel he did not in any respect encourage a riot.
If there is no actual evidence of a crime, such as documents, or a witness that can say I have proof Trump planned Jan 6th. An accomplished perhaps --- there is just nothing but conjecture. Do you believe Trump gave his sup[porters a perhaps dog whistle... Many did not hear any form of a dog whistle. They heard his words --- march peacefully to the Capitol.
That and that there has been no defense mounted or presented. That IS a vital part of justice; the ability to defend oneself.
ANd again, we are not talking about the justice system. We are talking about whether reasonable people can legitimately conclude someone committed a crime based on known evidence. You say we are not allowed to do that.
Amazing!
No, you may not put words in my mouth, and I have never said that. I HAVE said you cannot CLAIM guilt without a trial (the basis of our justice system), but that does not mean guilt does not exist.
"The only reason it hasn't happened is because Trump has a cadre of very high paid lawyers who can delay and distract any court proceedings."
So you claim. And you may be right. But until a court and jury has made the decision your only choice is to assume that the recording is fake. Because that's how justice works; the hanging mob went out with the old west.
Your next sentence is defense and also proof you do not see shades of gray. You clearly state that having committed a crime ONLY depends on having " been found guilty by a jury of his peers " Barring a finding of guilty by a jury of peers it is your clear statement no crime has been committed. Nobody ran the red light even though everybody saw it.
Either you're trolling or you do not understand the difference between defending our system of justice and defending Trump.
Or perhaps you do not comprehend the difference between "innocent" and "we don't know"? That WAS the comment that you copy/pasted; "you do not know".But we are not talking about "difference between defending our system of justice and defending Trump." are we? The topic is whether Trump is guilty of committing the (wait for it, and analogy is coming) crime of running a red light which millions of people watched him do or not.
You keep trying to deflect to this "defending or system of justice" non-sense. That is not under attack like our very democracy is by Trump and those who support him.
Why do you keep deflecting from the real issue?
"And YES, with everything considered, Trump is a VERY BAD person and Biden is a VERY GOOD person. I don't think you will find any person is not a Trumplican who would disagree with that view."
One GOOD, One just BAD... Do you ever read your posts? This one has sheer hypocrite all over it. Sound Like not gray here! LOL
You contradict yourself so frequently, makes one really wonder...
"And YES, with everything considered, Trump is a VERY BAD person and Biden is a VERY GOOD person. I don't think you will find any person is not a Trumplican who would disagree with that view."
I think Biden is a poor president and a man that has very little intelligence. I feel many would agree with my sentiment.
Guess we are at an impasse.
Yes, there are Biddunce that will agree with your view... How do you like the derogatory title I coined for Biden supporters?Is Biddunce the plural of Biddunce, or does it require an "s"?
Either way I like it. It goes will with "Trumpsters" or "Trumplicans".Again, one is true (the Trumplicans which is a term to describe those who blindly follow Donald Trump - about 88 million of you) and the other is not - your false claim that Biden is not intelligent.
Yet another false statement - that I claim Biden is not intelligent.
Do you think you will ever revert to truth rather that imagination to produce your statements? Personally, I've about decided you mean very little of what you post - that you are merely trolling, saying things designed to get a response without regard to whether they are factual or not.I didn't claim that you did - another person on your side did.
"that you are merely trolling, saying things designed to get a response without regard to whether they are factual or not." -- [i]and that is the normal response of somebody who can't face facts that are staring them right in the face. - the perfect response of a high-scoring Right-Wing Authority Followers
see https://link.springer.com/referencework … thorities.
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-win … ersonality
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28405"I didn't claim that you did (say Biden is not intelligent)- another person on your side did."
Yet above that, your post, replying to me:
"...your false claim that Biden is not intelligent."
Perhaps you need notes on what you write?Maybe it is you who needs notes. I was responding to this line written by another commentor - "I think Biden is a poor president and a man that has very little intelligence. I feel many would agree with my sentiment. "
It can definitely be plural by just adding an s. Yes, I just think it's time we have a nickname for Biden supporters. I feel a moniker for overzealous Biden supporters is long overdue.
Here is the problem - unlike Trumplicans and whatever they called rabid Bernie supporters, there just isn't a large cohort of people who unreasonably like Biden.
Biden gives us great reasons to like him.
If it were true, it might be fitting. But it is CLEARLY not.
No, you don't get to put words in my mouth.
One side of the room was no different than the other, that's all. The outward manifestations may have differed, but the bottom line is that both intended to show disrespect for the leader o four country, and did so.
Thus to complain about Republicans heckling a Democrat while ignoring a Democrat "heckling" a Republican...well, it is disingenuous at best. Personally, I would put Pelosi's actions higher on the "disgusting" scale than the Republicans, given her visible location and her position as Speaker, but that's just me. You will, I'm sure, but a voice from the center of the room higher.One side of the room was very different from the other. Not sure where you are getting that they weren't.
When did a Democrat EVER call the SOTU speaker a LIAR while they were speaking? If you can show that, then you have a point.
What Pelosi did was, in my opinion, wrong, at least she waited until Trump was done to express what she thought about his speech. What she did is not equivalent to what what Wilson or MTG did.
Also, maybe Pelosi was helping Trump shred documents as he likes to do.
Also, if you object to the White Dress, then you must object to the Republicans who were making even more noise at the time.Amen --- No one will take the crown for a disgusting ploy like Nancy ripping up Trump's speech. She hoped for a place in history --- she got one.
Thatis how I saw it as well, Peoplepower....
While you are right, PeoplePower, I will go with Sharlee on this one now. Pelosi should have waited until he gave up the podium.
You do bring up a good point. Clearly, they should have kicked MTG and group out, but given the speech is over, does Robert's apply? I don't know.
Also, given the white dresses were chanting along with the Republican applause, would it apply there either?
And that is true. I am not perfect (just nearly so).
Again your view... One only needs to have a look-see - right here on this thread.
Sharlee is entitled to her view, thank you.
That is true, and I am entitled to speak the truth and correct the record.
Truth is oftentimes subjective. What is truth is determined by those in power. Everyone knows this.
That's true when your are devoid of critical thinking skills and the ability to think for ones self.
That is just what is we fight against and those in power will continue to hold on to it precariously, always nervous as to when the chloroform will wear off from those they mesmerized and bamboozled.
Obviously, you have serious problems with the concept of Democracy in principleOh lordy, lordy, I gotta pass on this one. Trying to keep the cap on.
But just imagine a couple of paragraphs of the inferences and implications behind the use of 'critical and free-thinking' denigrations, and that's what I would have said.
GA
No read your context, that was your view. It is clear you feel all your views are factual. That would also be your opinion.
And if the view is factually wrong, I am entitled to correct the record.
No, you do not --- you have the right to disagree with that view. But to openly rebuke another view as being unacceptable due to your not agreeing with that view -- is truly a problem.
You can make that claim, but Trump wasn't begging the Saudi's for oil nor was he draining the strategic reserves. He took the oil from the GROUND, our ground. lol.
I'd entertain you further, but I know where this will lead. Down a rabbit hole of farcities and justifications and denials that just aren't worth my time.
There is a reason gas prices were $4 a gallon under Obama, $2 a gallon under Trump, and $4 a gallon under Biden.
It's not rocket science.Yes, and a reason that gas bills and electric bills have jumped o 35%.
Your comment looks like it addresses mine, if not this response will sound even dumber than you think it already is.
It is hard to address your non-rocket science rationalization if you won't say what you mean by energy-independent. Didn't either of the two I offered fit what you meant by your criticism?
I'm not baiting for a links war or sharpshooting opportunities, I just don't think you can support your claim about energy independence—within the context of the two choices I offered. I don't see a generally-accepted third definition, so I asked what you meant.
No "farcities(?)" or political partisanship, just a question.
GAIt has been a very long time since I have seen the word "sharpshooting" used in the proper context. Thank you.
Nor was Biden "begging" OPEC for oil. Please provide the proof where Biden begged.
Also, you are cherry-picking gas prices. In FACT, at the end of Obama's term, in 2022 constant dollars, gas was $3.97 (2.14). At the end of Trump's term, it was $3.90 ($2.17). At the end of 2022, they were $3.36 ($3.36). [/i] SEE https://www.in2013dollars.com/Gasoline-(all-types)/price-inflationSPRINGBOARD
There is much evidence of how Biden started his war with the oil industry. One must take note, and not forget the oil industry is powerful and answers investors above all else. They use a business plan and strategize how to keep their bottom line out of the red... In the first week, Biden signed EO"S to draw a red line on the American oil industry. He appeared to come out swinging... And I might add he was swinging at a powerful crew, that carry the power to decrease or increase oil production.
In my view, Biden started a war, that sunk him quickly, and put us on the path to inflation. Yes, there were other variables, but none like starting an energy war.
So, let's start with the first threat Biden lobbed at the American oil industry. In my view, Bidens war was totally lost on day one (Jan 27th, 2021). He threatened the wrong group, and we have paid for higher energy costs (Gas, and utilities) due to Biden's words.
I feel he lost his war on day one... I offer Biden's words
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … overnment/
"The order directs the Secretary of the Interior to pause on entering into new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or offshore waters to the extent possible, launch a rigorous review of all existing leasing and permitting practices related to fossil fuel development on public lands and waters, and identify steps that can be taken to double renewable energy production from offshore wind by 2030. The order does not restrict energy activities on lands that the United States holds in trust for Tribes. The Secretary of the Interior will continue to consult with Tribes regarding the development and management of renewable and conventional energy resources, in conformance with the U.S. government’s trust responsibilities.
The order directs federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies as consistent with applicable law and identify new opportunities to spur innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure. "
The oil companies went into full gear and stopped researching leases, due to this fool great new Green deal"... Why would anyone even think the oil company would pour in money to investigate new wells that Biden more or less claimed we would not be used in the near future due to his push for green energy?
In reality in my view, the Oil companies would bare the costs of closing wells, and these costs are very high.
So, back to the purpose of the Oil Companies --- it could all comes down to making money. Anyone with a bit of a brain should understand --- Biden's EOs, in my view, threatened the oil company, and they have pushed back and will continue to push back.
You are smart not to enter into the weeds on this issue. It is complicated, and in many instances, common sense, such as rising gas and utility costs will not hold water with some.
In my view, it was Biden's policies, and poor problem-solving skills that caused the problems we are seeing with all energy costs.
Shar"There is much evidence of how Biden started his war with the oil industry." - If you mean holding them to account for price gouging, then more power to him.
"Ge came out swinging... " - If you are talking about General Electric, then they aren't an oil company.
"In my view, Biden started a war, that sunk him quickly, and put us on the path to inflation. " - That may be your view, but it is wrong. He didn't start "a war" with oil, he is trying to hold them accountable (something Conservatives hate to do of anybody, apparently). It had absolutely nothing to do with his drop in poll numbers. Only Conservatives took notice and of those non-Conservatives who did, they applauded Biden's effort to reign in oil prices. And Putin was behind the temporary rise in gas prices. On an inflation adjusted basis, gas is cheaper now under Biden than it was under Obama or Trump.
I appreciate your using Biden's words. They prove my point he is not at "war" with oil, just its reasonable use. BTW, pausing NEW leases has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing oil production (under Biden, it increased, BTW) for two reasons - it had no short-term impact on production and oil companies weren't drilling anyway in order to keep prices high.
Why should oil companies who are earning massive profits get subsidies? Giving subsidies to a profitable industry defies common sense and they should have been done away with a long time ago.
If what you say is true, then the oil companies are pretty dumb for not investing in renewable energy WHICH, despite their fake ads to the contrary, studies show they are NOT doing?
Finally, if what you say is true, WHY AREN'T oil companies closing wells left and right? Why would they jeopardize their RECORD profits? Why is America producing MORE oil than ever?[/i]As always you feel your view is the only one that matters... I have a view, I shared that view with SPRINGBOARD. As the comment is addressed.
To be blunt I don't respect anyone that can't respect others' views
Anyone that used language like -- ".That may be your view, but it is wrong." or "If what you say is true" --- I shared a view, I certainly did not word my comment to be taken as factual. I did share a link to share a source that added to how I came about my view.
I have no intention of conversing with you on this subject. Admittedly, Our views are very far apart.Well, I certainly can't say you are right. And by not correcting the record, it leaves false information out there. So no, I am not being disrespectful, I am being honest because truth matters.
Also, isn't it a bit disingenuous to put thoughts out there (such as "In my view, Biden started a war, that sunk him quickly, and put us on the path to inflation. " you now claim you don't mean when I push back that not one of the three things you claim to be true actually are.Here we are another comment that you feel you can insult my view. First, read my comment in full, I carefully stated before sharing a thought that that thought was purely my view.
I suggest you learn to respect others' views. In reality, most of us here on the forum share views without insulting one another. You need to learn to decipher views, from statements being made that define facts. My comment is a conversation that another user and are sharing views. You may not like the views, but you have no right to insult other views. I realize some today feel this is appropriate --- I don't, and I am not willing o sit back and placate this type of attitude.
Nothing I stated was untrue, or true, it was my view. You are once again insinuating I am being untruthful.
I am not going to be trolled and insulted without cause. I suggest you just stop trolling my comments. I find it very much uncalled for, and a bit creepy, and scary. I reported your earlier insults on another thread. Hopefully, you stop bothering me. My only recourse is to report your insults.
This is my view, and I shared it and addressed it to a specific user. I have no interest in your opinion whatsoever.
"SPRINGBOARD
There is much evidence of how Biden started his war with the oil industry. One must take note, and not forget the oil industry is powerful and answers investors above all else. They use a business plan and strategize how to keep their bottom line out of the red... In the first week, Biden signed EO"S to draw a red line on the American oil industry. He appeared to come out swinging... And I might add he was swinging at a powerful crew, that carry the power to decrease or increase oil production.
In my view, Biden started a war, that sunk him quickly, and put us on the path to inflation. Yes, there were other variables, but none like starting an energy war.
So, let's start with the first threat Biden lobbed at the American oil industry. In my view, Bidens war was totally lost on day one (Jan 27th, 2021). He threatened the wrong group, and we have paid for higher energy costs (Gas, and utilities) due to Biden's words.
I feel he lost his war on day one... I offer Biden's words
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … overnment/
"The order directs the Secretary of the Interior to pause on entering into new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or offshore waters to the extent possible, launch a rigorous review of all existing leasing and permitting practices related to fossil fuel development on public lands and waters, and identify steps that can be taken to double renewable energy production from offshore wind by 2030. The order does not restrict energy activities on lands that the United States holds in trust for Tribes. The Secretary of the Interior will continue to consult with Tribes regarding the development and management of renewable and conventional energy resources, in conformance with the U.S. government’s trust responsibilities.
The order directs federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies as consistent with applicable law and identify new opportunities to spur innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure. "
The oil companies went into full gear and stopped researching leases, due to this fool great new Green deal"... Why would anyone even think the oil company would pour in money to investigate new wells that Biden more or less claimed we would not be used in the near future due to his push for green energy?
In reality in my view, the Oil companies would bare the costs of closing wells, and these costs are very high.
So, back to the purpose of the Oil Companies --- it could all comes down to making money. Anyone with a bit of a brain should understand --- Biden's EOs, in my view, threatened the oil company, and they have pushed back and will continue to push back.
You are smart not to enter into the weeds on this issue. It is complicated, and in many instances, common sense, such as rising gas and utility costs will not hold water with some.
In my view, it was Biden's policies, and poor problem-solving skills that caused the problems we are seeing with all energy costs.
Shar"
Turn around is fair play. Hunter Biden is going after those who misused the data on his laptop (which he claims he never dropped off at the repair shop) On the list are:
* the repair shop owner for stealing his data and distributing it (Biden claims somebody must have stolen his laptop for it to have ended up at the repair shop. The owner claims Biden signed a contract, so that should be easy enough to prove.)
* Rudy Giuliani
* Rudy's lawyer
* Steve Bannon
Biden wants the Delaware DA to bring investigate and bring charges against these men.
This, of course, doesn't absolve him of any wrongdoings he might have done, but, if his story about the laptop is true, then others need to be indicted as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/01/politics … index.htmlOn another front, President Biden is stepping up to confront China on the battle for a free and independent Taiwan. It is time to grow our Navy.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/02/politics … index.htmlTo You Naysayers, Pessimists, and Partisans out there.
Blockbuster jobs report should 'dash' recession fears, says Moody’s chief economist
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/ … index.htmlAnd for those that prefer reality rather than a liberal based fantasy.
"Yet many economists believe we are heading for some type of economic recession."
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/econom … -rcna67826
"Wall Street economist says recession in 2023 will look like biggest crisis of the 1970s"
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/wal … isis-1970s
"economists see an overwhelming chance that the U.S. economy sinks into a recession next year as a result of the Federal Reserve's massive interest rate hikes."
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/is- … ts-say-yes
Thank you, but I will wait at least a year before resuming normal spending habits. Recessions are NOT fun.Wilderness: Your articles are forecasts and dated December and January and two are from Fox News. They are old news, opinion pieces. The news that Esoteric posted is hot off the press today. Besides, I don't trust Fox News as far as I can throw them.
I have been reading a lot about the upcoming prediction in regard to the economy --- Many economists are still predicting a recession, a different form of recession.
It just might not look like the recessions we've previously experienced in the U.S.
Feb 2, 2023, Daily Update: February 2, 2023
https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-in … ary-2-2023
Jan. 31, 2023 -- https://www.nbcnews.com/business/econom … -rcna67826
Yet many economists believe we are heading for some type of economic
"Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during the opening bell in New York City on Jan. 18, 2023. Survey after survey shows economists and CEOs expect a recession, but there's no certainty of what an economic contraction would look like – or if the U.S. economy will suffer one at all. It just might not look like the recessions we've previously experienced in the U.S."
Forbes Jan 20, 2023 -- Here is where the economy stands now and if economists still believe a recession is likely—
https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2023/0 … 54e3d130bfSame issue that Wilderness has - two of the three links are effectively old news. I have an observation and question regarding the first link.
- Investing in inventory, which the article implies is a bad thing, is generally a sign the businesses think things are getting better. If a recession is coming, why are they buying inventory that they can't sell?
- The fact that jobs keep increasing, not decreasing, indicates that business, writ large, is not planning for a recession is coming either.
That said, in certain sectors who went overboard in hiring over the last few years - tech - are correcting course and laying off people. But that is apparently 1) an anomaly and 2) a very small portion of the workforce.
Each link is old news which predates the latest Moody analysis. Just like the Feds saying that inflation is temporary, your conservative media is finding themselves in the same boat.
I know recessions are not fun. I have lived to many to count, including the Reagan recession which killed my business.
I'll forgo those where I was too young to remember such as 1948 -1949 (D) and 1953 - 1954 (D)
I will start with 1958 (R), 1960 (R), 1969 (R), 1973 - 1975 (R), 1980 (D), 1981 (R), 1990 (R), 2000 (R), 2008 (R), 2020 (R).
Do you see a pattern there?Yeah. Every few years we have a recession. We also have slow periods that liberals will call a recession when it is not in order to try and make Republicans look bad.
So now you are calling the NBER "liberal"? Amazing! Come on, admit it, conservatives suck at good economic times.
Just a point in fact, prior to "liberal" economics being used (i.e. Keynesian), there was a 2008-type recession every 5 - 7 years, almost always under conservative administrations.
Since the "liberals" took over, that was extended to once every 10 - 12 years, almost always under a conservative administration. Check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … ted_States (formed the outline on my book on recessions and depressions)So true---- IT could be looked at as hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy only if it were true, but it is not.
WILDERNESS WROTE:
Yeah. Every few years we have a recession. We also have slow periods that liberals will call a recession when it is not in order to try and make Republicans look bad.
So true---- IT could be looked at as hypocrisy.
I totally agree with wilderness. So, in my view, liberals certainly do show hypocrisy frequently. I actually feel they don't even realize it when they show hypocrisy. It seems to be second nature that they do it easily without even thinking very much about it.
You need to realize we all have views, and the right to free speech."We also have slow periods that liberals will call a recession when it is not in order to try and make Republicans look bad." - This is stated as fact, not a "view". And the fact is not true.
Related Discussions
- 34
Don't Give Trump Credit for the Success of the Biden Economy
by Willowarbor 6 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...
- 9
The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Well You Know The Thing...
by Sharlee 3 years ago
The elite on wall street to include investment banks have smashed earning expectations today. While American worker struggles with rising consumer good prices due to President Joe Biden’s inflation.JPMorgan Chase --- “second-quarter earnings of $11.9 billion, or $3.78 per share,...
- 137
Inflation, what is up with that?
by Scott Belford 9 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...
- 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,...
- 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,...
- 47
Who is to Blame for the Fiasco in Afghanistan - Biden or the Military
by Ralph Schwartz 3 years ago
Politico, a far-left Democrat website reports that President Joe Biden refused to be swayed by his top generals to keep 3,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, instead ordering their swift removal, a stubbornness that "paved the way for havoc" in the country,About 4 weeks ago, General Mark...