Always a good question: what proportion of the police, FBI, military are hyper-right conservative racist Trumpsters?
And I realize that I repeated myself in that list of adjectives.
Hey, he was lucid enough to change the lock on one of his storage rooms while his lawyer was looking for his stolen documents in another location. And he had a hidden room connected to his bedroom that the FBI also did not search. And the FBI let him get away with it.
Always a good question: what proportion of the police, FBI, military are hyper-right conservative racist Trumpsters?
And I realize that I repeated myself in that list of adjectives.
Always a good time to show people what they had, and want again now that he's four years more senile...
Hey, he was lucid enough to change the lock on one of his storage rooms while his lawyer was looking for his stolen documents in another location. And he had a hidden room connected to his bedroom that the FBI also did not search. And the FBI let him get away with it.
A long-awaited report cleared President Joe Biden of any wrongdoing in his mishandling of classified documents Thursday but dropped a political bombshell by painting the Democrat as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."
Special prosecutor Hur wrote that a jury would not want to convict Biden, who came across to investigators as a "sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory."
"It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness," the special counsel said.
“He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 — when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’).”
And: “He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died.”
He presents as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
And he’s the leader of the free world . . . at least officially.
Whoever’s really calling the shots in the White House, it’s not anyone Americans elected.
Biden’s lawyers, Richard Sauber and Bob Bauer, claim they “do not believe that the report’s treatment of President Biden’s memory is accurate or appropriate”: We guess they feel saying that is their duty to their client.
But three times in the last week, Biden has publicly identified long-dead men as leaders he spoke to recently.
As we wrote before Hur’s report broke, his decline is obvious.
His staff won’t let him do a Super Bowl interview, plainly for fear he’ll poop the bed trying to answer a few softball questions before the largest TV audience of this election year.
It’s simply unconscionable for Democrats to nominate this guy for re-election: If he was too far gone to put on the stand last October, how can he possibly function for the next five years?
We’d be calling on the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare him unfit, except that’d put Kamala Harris in the hot seat.
For the record, the evidence Biden knowingly broke the law seems indisputable: In a recorded conversation with his ghostwriter in February 2017, for example, Biden said he “just found all this classified stuff downstairs,” apparently documents about the 2009 Afghanistan troop surge — stuff he had no right to have (but “I didn’t want to turn them in”), let alone share with a complete civilian.
He knew he had this stuff in 2017. Did he call up anyone like Pence did and say, oh I just found these and you better come get them ? Nope. They just sat until Trump got busted and they started looking at everyone else. Biden had no intentions ever of giving them up before the shit hit the fan with Trump.
Yep, vote for Joe because although he is unfit for much of anything let alone POTUS and CIC, he is innocent and Kamala will become POTUS for sure when Joe is either removed by the 25th Amendment or he can no longer put two words together or simply drops dead.
Even with all this and the other things going on involving Joe, he can do no wrong. He gets a pass on everything. I am becoming resigned to the fact that he will most certainly be re elected. Sigh ...
He even shut down our LNG exports to our allies. Now they have to go to Putin to stay warm.
He put a hold on the construction of "another" LNG export plant to review the environmental and climate change impact. The US still exports plenty of LNG to our allies with the many terminals already in operation.
It’s OK to inconvenience people to make long term progress. Natural gas appliances can be replaced over time, and it’s better for your health. I find it hard to fathom that appliances become less efficient over time, because it’s rarely that way. More expensive, probably; when’s the last time a new iteration was cheaper? Not his fault - thanks, capitalism! And it’s good for the people to become richer - because corporations are people, too, IIRC. Regarding food, under the Orange Failure the USDA was crippled and that hurt the USA’s food supply. Biden’s administration is trying to reverse that damage and deal with the very real problem of hunger. Unless someone (remember, corporations are people, too) gets in his way. And, Climate Change is the threat. It makes no difference if you want to use gas or electric if the weather is so messed up that we can’t grow things. So for Biden to take it seriously - in the face of so many business interests telling him not to - is a sign of character and benevolence as well as being able to listen to science, which is smarter than a businessman.
Agreed, but Kurtster does have a point about putting the horse before the cart...poor or too forced planning for the inevitable transition. Though I'm not sure why he and others are so hell bent against any type of transition. I love electric cars...quiet, excellent acceleration, easier to maintain and not to mention the lack of (direct) exhaust.
Thanks. Hell bent against transition ? No, not all. It is the way it is being done is the problem.
This is simply one more unfunded mandate that always ends up causing more problems than it solves. The costs and the turnaround time to create an infrastructure are simply being ignored and thinking people see that. Our energy infrastructure cannot handle present demand and by adding extra demand prematurely will bring on avoidable infrastructure failure prematurely.
Presently we only have 2 energy networks that are safe and reliable. One that handles liquid petroleums and the other that handles natural gas. The one for nat gas is the best, safest and most reliable, not to mention the cleanest burning of all the others. It is also the generally acknowledged bridge or transition fuel. Yet the powers that be are hell bent on killing it. The same people pushing us to electrification also oppose any efforts to rebuild the energy grid, always citing environmental reasons for their opposition. They insist on ignoring the reality of their processes. We can't have above ground transmission and we can't bury it either. That and no one wants to pay for it. Sure, put in more charging stations that the grid cannot handle. Right. Even if we did not have EV's, the grid is still in desperate need of rebuilding and no one wants to address that. That is where the resistance comes from. And that this resistance is called climate change denial, is insulting to put it mildly.
And the less efficient appliance(s). The primary one in play are dishwashers. Redesign them to use less water. We already know how well that worked with toilets. The net effect is more water will be used to prep dishes in order to give the dishwasher a chance of actually cleaning them. Sorry, I also don't live in a place where water is scarce. So if you do (figuratively speaking), I call that a personal problem. I have 20% of the world's fresh water about 25 miles away from where I live. Having grown up in the West where water was always scarce I made a conscious choice to live here because of that some 40 years ago realizing its future importance. You live in a desert ? That means that water is inherently scarce. You adapt, but that doesn't mean that everyone else adapts to the way that someone living in the desert does. There is not a one size fits all solution, yet the insistence that there is or will be one whether it works or not is the problem.
So here we are. You, of all the regulars in these types of threads are the only one who seams to be willing to consider what I am talking about as reason based at any level. I thank you for that. Everyone else sees my thoughts as defective MAGA based unreality at the very least or kindest. Look at all the knee jerk crap being thrown at you for even daring to try see more than one side of this discussion.
Lastly, the problem for me is the enablers of the thinking going into the creation of this fear based unfunded mandate. I take these actions as deliberate as opposed to stupid leading to predictable "unintended" consequences. The consequential results are intended. It is their modus operandi. Create a new problem to manage but never solve. The end game is power and control. Biden is the current face of these enablers. That is how desperate they are to maintain their power.
Agreed, but Kurtster does have a point about putting the horse before
the cart...poor or too forced planning for the inevitable transition.
Though I'm not sure why he and others are so hell bent against any type of transition.
I love electric cars...quiet, excellent acceleration, easier to maintain and not to mention the lack of (direct) exhaust.
steeler wrote:
You are exactly right. Any debate should be about the transition, not the need to transition.
There were a lot of people who were convinced that the automobile would never replace the horse and wagon...or bicycle.
The biggest difference now is the risks we accept by not changing.
This is a net damage discussion. Electric vehicles have their own environmental damage... it's just less than gas cars. If someone wanted to reduce the US carbon footprint, they would focus on making electric trucks and SUVs less expensive than gas ones, and support gas cars and hybrids that get better mileage. It might be hard to win Iowa running on the "eliminate gas pickup truck" platform...so tie it to their farm subsidies and avoid direct confrontation.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 17, 2024 - 9:06am
black321 wrote:
Agreed, but Kurtster does have a point about putting the horse before the cart...poor or too forced planning for the inevitable transition.
Though I'm not sure why he and others are so hell bent against any type of transition.
I love electric cars...quiet, excellent acceleration, easier to maintain and not to mention the lack of (direct) exhaust.
You are exactly right. Any debate should be about the transition, not the need to transition.
Itâs OK to inconvenience people to make long term progress. Natural gas appliances can be replaced over time, and itâs better for your health.
I find it hard to fathom that appliances become less efficient over time, because itâs rarely that way. More expensive, probably; whenâs the last time a new iteration was cheaper? Not his fault - thanks, capitalism! And itâs good for the people to become richer - because corporations are people, too, IIRC.
Regarding food, under the Orange Failure the USDA was crippled and that hurt the USAâs food supply. Bidenâs administration is trying to reverse that damage and deal with the very real problem of hunger. Unless someone (remember, corporations are people, too) gets in his way.
And, Climate Change is the threat. It makes no difference if you want to use gas or electric if the weather is so messed up that we canât grow things. So for Biden to take it seriously - in the face of so many business interests telling him not to - is a sign of character and benevolence as well as being able to listen to science, which is smarter than a businessman.
Agreed, but Kurtster does have a point about putting the horse before the cart...poor or too forced planning for the inevitable transition.
Though I'm not sure why he and others are so hell bent against any type of transition.
I love electric cars...quiet, excellent acceleration, easier to maintain and not to mention the lack of (direct) exhaust.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 17, 2024 - 8:42am
Steely_D wrote:
Itâs OK to inconvenience people to make long term progress. Natural gas appliances can be replaced over time, and itâs better for your health.
I find it hard to fathom that appliances become less efficient over time, because itâs rarely that way. More expensive, probably; whenâs the last time a new iteration was cheaper? Not his fault - thanks, capitalism! And itâs good for the people to become richer - because corporations are people, too, IIRC.
Regarding food, under the Orange Failure the USDA was crippled and that hurt the USAâs food supply. Bidenâs administration is trying to reverse that damage and deal with the very real problem of hunger. Unless someone (remember, corporations are people, too) gets in his way.
And, Climate Change is the threat. It makes no difference if you want to use gas or electric if the weather is so messed up that we canât grow things. So for Biden to take it seriously - in the face of so many business interests telling him not to - is a sign of character and benevolence as well as being able to listen to science, which is smarter than a businessman.
Democrats push for national healthcare coverage. Republicans push back. Why? Why would they not want their constituents to have health care thatâs affordable? Because whyâre in the pocket of, theyâre beholden to, theyâre puppets of others. They certainly arenât trying to make the nation better.
I agree with what you're saying, but rather than trying to hurt people, maybe the "real" republicans just think (wrongly) the people are better served (in the aggregate) by keeping healthcare private?
Again, I dont agree and think we should have a universal healthcare system, provided by private providers but financed by the gov. Reason being, healthcare isnt an option, its not elective, and people, especially older folks, should be protected from the stress of financing necessary procedures. Further, risk management 101 shows that to minimize costs, put everyone in the pool, increase diversification, reduce variability and costs...increase preventive care, reduce emergency care, expand value based care and also reduce costs.
On topic, Biden is taking away options from us, Americans, not growing them. He is banning petroleum based transportation. We even have a date. Natural gas powered appliances are being eliminated. We have dates for that, too. Other appliances are being made less efficient and more expensive. Even our food choices are being reduced because of Biden's declaration that Climate Change is the existential threat. The only one that matters when it comes to his policy decisions.
Itâs OK to inconvenience people to make long term progress. Natural gas appliances can be replaced over time, and itâs better for your health.
I find it hard to fathom that appliances become less efficient over time, because itâs rarely that way. More expensive, probably; whenâs the last time a new iteration was cheaper? Not his fault - thanks, capitalism! And itâs good for the people to become richer - because corporations are people, too, IIRC.
Regarding food, under the Orange Failure the USDA was crippled and that hurt the USAâs food supply. Bidenâs administration is trying to reverse that damage and deal with the very real problem of hunger. Unless someone (remember, corporations are people, too) gets in his way.
And, Climate Change is the threat. It makes no difference if you want to use gas or electric if the weather is so messed up that we canât grow things. So for Biden to take it seriously - in the face of so many business interests telling him not to - is a sign of character and benevolence as well as being able to listen to science, which is smarter than a businessman.
So, back to the topic headline, yay for a President who - within the limitations of politics and contracts and international relationships - chooses to give the USA more options instead of fewer.
On topic, Biden is taking away options from us, Americans, not growing them. He is banning petroleum based transportation. We even have a date. Natural gas powered appliances are being eliminated. We have dates for that, too. Other appliances are being made less efficient and more expensive. Even our food choices are being reduced because of Biden's declaration that Climate Change is the existential threat. The only one that matters when it comes to his policy decisions.
Sorry, autocorrected the word Emiratis for me. Those are the people.
My point, which you got and somewhat were consonant with, was that as long as we are in the clutches of those who control oil/gas, then we are beholden to them. The President of the USA doesnât really control the price at the pumps, the folks selling it to the USA do.
However, recognizing that there are only so many dead dinosaurs down there, and that the cost to our livelihood in ecological terms is so massive, moving away from burning petroleum whenever possible is the right goal. Folks pushing against the use of electricity in lieu of fossil fuels are ignoring the dependence on others, the threat to the environment, and the eventual disappearance of the petroleum product. And who would want us to still be paying for oil? Not the USA, if they want independence and financial stability. They should be looking away from the oil biz.
So, back to the topic headline, yay for a President who - within the limitations of politics and contracts and international relationships - chooses to give the USA more options instead of fewer.
In the âstay safeâ category: AQI here in Dubai was 153 earlier. Leaving tonight.
I’m visiting Abu Dhabi right now. A little research will show you that ADNOC (their national oil company) PROFITS about $2.7 million dollars a day from our reliance on gas and oil. The amount of wealth here, passed out to legit emirates (no immigrants or in laws) is mind-blowing. Mind blowing.
So who do you think is pushing Americans to eschew electricity (which can be created a number of ways) in lieu of petroleum? Certainly not the USA.
Very confused by your remarks.
An emirate is a type of municipality, for lack of a better term, in the Arab world ruled by an emir.
We could keep that $2.7 million per day home if we would simply drill, baby, drill. Better we supply our own and keep our money at home to be recirculated and used to generate wealth and prosperity for us, not someone else. This would be an example of putting America first.
Eschew electricity ? Petroleum is what is being pushed in America to be eschewed. Actually the entire world.
The only actual problems with electricity as a power source that I can think of are its generation costs, scarcity, storage problems and distribution networks.
Oh, and the wind. We use wind as a means to generate it and also as an excuse to withhold the supply.
Some facts or opinions, you decide which is which.
Controlling energy and access to it is the easiest way to enslave a people.
Tesla wanted to provide free electricity with wireless transmission. Look at the opposition and by who that he faced. His life did not end well and we are still not sure who took his records in order to prevent his work from progressing any further.
The standard of living is most dependent of the cost and reliability of energy.
No civilization (that I can think of) that depended on renewable energy has ever survived, let alone expanded and prospered.
Even the Amish depend on combustible hydrocarbon based energy as a fuel source to power critical needs necessary for survival. Mostly propane and gasoline. Their refrigeration is generally powered by propane.
Back to you. Stay safe.
Edit: I am seeing many reports of dead, frozen EV's as a direct result of the Polar Vortex that has taken over most of the US for the past week. They and their charging network has simply stopped working. When charged, their range drops as the temperature drops. Might as well ride a bicycle in the snow.
