So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?

[Wayward Son]

Actually, lower fossil fuel prices would be the result of us getting off fossil fuels.

If we drastically reduced the amount of fossil fuels we consume, there would be less demand, and prices would fall.

But why do you care, cherry?  I know you're not someone who worries about climate change.  If you were, you would've been screaming about it during the Trump Administration.  You'd be screaming about how Republicans in general deny the problem even exists and actively try to thwart any mitigation of the problem.  Like with Covid, you are outraged that Democrats don't do enough to address the problem, but turn a blind eye when Republicans actively make the problem worse.

I don't get you. 

[cherrypoptart]

I don't know about man made climate change that's true but everyone does know for sure that pollution is real. I'm against pollution and fossil fuels are a huge part of it. If we had enough renewable energy we could have electric cars that don't even require fossil fuels to recharge. And even without electric cars, cars that get greater fuel economy are a good thing also, very doable right now, and without the problems of range and convenience electric cars run into. Higher prices "persuade" more people to make that happen. They also get more people on mass transit.

Whether that's worth destroying the economy or not I'm not sure. It certainly isn't worth risking hyper-inflation, so there may need to be compromises but despite Tom not seeing much evidence for it, this is what Biden ran on and what I don't like is that even though the higher prices are a predictable part of his agenda, just like Al Gore wanted back in the day since the internal combustion engine is man's greatest threat, as soon as we get the high prices that would start changing behaviors, Joe cries uncle and mercy and starts running around like a crazy man complaining that prices are too high and he wants Saudi Arabia to pump more and individual gas stations to charge less.

One of the biggest obstacles to the transition to greener energy is this. The lack of predictability. Who is going to want to invest the billions necessary in the infrastructure, manufacturing, and research when if you do come out with something that is very competitive as gas prices above $5 a gallon and oil over $100 a barrel, our own government whether Republican or Democrat is going to economically sabotage and bankrupt you?

If Biden was true to his word, he would just say that if prices are too high for you then you need to find ways to use less like mass transit, greener cars either electric or that get 50mpg, car pooling, living closer to work, infrastructure for safe bicycling, or what have you. Instead he's saying don't worry about doing any of that because I'm going to get prices back down again.

[Tom]

this is what Biden ran on

Again, it isn't.
I know this because I would have preferred that Biden actually run on some concrete environmentalist platform, but he didn't.

[Fenring]

this is what Biden ran on

Again, it isn't.
I know this because I would have preferred that Biden actually run on some concrete environmentalist platform, but he didn't.

To be fair, both Hillary and Biden didn't really run on anything. That doesn't quite mean they didn't have plans, but their campaign strategy was to say little and avoid losing themselves points. But it does seem fairly evident that the left has of late been favorable toward ideas like a carbon tax, and what is that other than throttling demand through prices? I mean, other than a cash grab, that is.

[wmLambert]

Actually, lower fossil fuel prices would be the result of us getting off fossil fuels.

If we drastically reduced the amount of fossil fuels we consume, there would be less demand, and prices would fall.

But why do you care, cherry?  I know you're not someone who worries about climate change.  If you were, you would've been screaming about it during the Trump Administration.  You'd be screaming about how Republicans in general deny the problem even exists and actively try to thwart any mitigation of the problem.  Like with Covid, you are outraged that Democrats don't do enough to address the problem, but turn a blind eye when Republicans actively make the problem worse.

I don't get you. 

Of course you do. You just don't want to accept truth, and only go for the stupid green agenda. Climatic warming is not a bad thing. Warming is better than cooling. We are in an ice age now, and thankfully, there is an hiatus of the glacier-forming cooling. As long as the warming endures, we will be able to grow what we need to survive. Those who claim the current warming spawns bad weather like Hurricane Ian, and creates drought ignores the past three years of no hurricanes at all, nor the third year of El Nino variations and the super volcano going off in the Pacific off Acapulco.

The real reason for the Green agenda is for political power. Almost anything done to date - looting trillions of dollars from Mankind for illusory Climate Change efforts has been useless. Every prediction was unfounded.

BTW, how have Republicans made the Covid problem worse? Wasn't it DeSantis who rejected the Democrat Gestapo commands to destroy society and then have the least bad effects? Johns-Hopkins said face masks just concentrate the virus so the people rebreathing it are more susceptible - so the smart thing is not use them. Why isn't Fausti in jail?

[Tom]

But it does seem fairly evident that the left has of late been favorable toward ideas like a carbon tax...

Biden is not a leftist.

[rightleft22]

Whether that's worth destroying the economy or not I'm not sure

I think that is a false choice. Moving away from fossil fuel dependence and developing energy alternatives could be very good for the economy.
This pavlovian all or nothing thinking and fear from both the far right and left isn't helpful.

Personally a move away from fossil fuels to cleaner methods makes environmental and economic sense on it own without having to tie it to proving of client change. Of course big Oil doesn't want you to think that and they have been very good at getting people to work against their own best interests, not that any one on this site would allow themselves to be manipulated by big business.

Climatic warming is not a bad thing. Warming is better than cooling

OMG do some real research out of your burble. - Global warming (a rise of just a degree - globaly)  is more likely to lead to the next ice age.

[Tom]

It's not a matter of flawed research, I'm afraid. William is mentally ill.

[Fenring]

But it does seem fairly evident that the left has of late been favorable toward ideas like a carbon tax...

Biden is not a leftist.

It doesn't matter whether he is or not. What matters is what moves $$. As an example, many large corporations (including on Wall Street) are ramping up their ESG creds, even devoting entire departments to it and plastering their literature with it. Are these corporations 'leftists'? That's not really the right question. Maybe a true believer would also do these things, but the motive ceases to matter when there are multiple motives for an action. Biden will do whatever the needs of his corporate partners requires, and if that includes going for a carbon tax if that's the way the wind blows, he'd do it. Not because he secretly always wanted to, but because his people are in with the crowd in favor of this, and eventually they may have to give it to them. It's just my contention that doing so would be a de facto voluntary inflationary move.

[Tom]

I think you'll find that there are very few groups with lots of money who would also like to see the price of gasoline artificially increased. It's not something you'd do to make your donors happy.

[Fenring]

I think you'll find that there are very few groups with lots of money who would also like to see the price of gasoline artificially increased. It's not something you'd do to make your donors happy.

It's more like, one day the winds will have shifted enough that the primaries will have this as a fundamental. Or at least, if it happened it might happen this way. It didn't this past time, but I also don't see it as far-fetched to argue that elements of the left would see a carbon tax in place if they could. And yes, a lot of the public rhetoric is far removed from the bottom line on Wall Street. But few business owners are as plainspoken as Buffet to say that they serious don't give a s*** about these things, and moreover love oil companies. Granted, he's a Republican, but among the more people pay lip service to a concept, the more they are potentially locking themselves into being in service to that concept.

[Fenring]

Or I could rephrase it this way: do you think it was cost effective for Caesar to throw gold at the plebs? The answer is, yes if it gets you something, no if you can get that something without it. Even the psychopathic donors would do something inflating costs if they felt they would lose their base without it. That's why the greatest champions of renewable will eventually be the same parties that were previously fighting against it. It won't be some kind of snuggly green companies that sweep away the old power brokers.

[Ouija Nightmare]

I feel like OPEC+may have overplayed their hand here. They will simply hasten the transition to alternatives.

Politically it should be spun as “I was right to push for the energy and infrastructure transition so we no longer need to be subject to the whim of the oil producers in fact we should have done more, if only the Republicans would stop serving their oil sheik masters and start serving America”

Just how much Sheik oil money is Jared managing again?

[TheDeamon]

I feel like OPEC+may have overplayed their hand here. They will simply hasten the transition to alternatives.

Politically it should be spun as “I was right to push for the energy and infrastructure transition so we no longer need to be subject to the whim of the oil producers in fact we should have done more, if only the Republicans would stop serving their oil sheik masters and start serving America”

Just how much Sheik oil money is Jared managing again?

You do realize the Republican line is to unfettered domestic drilling and production. Domestic oil production would help drive down oil prices and take money out of the pockets of those Sheiks both directly(American produced oil purchases), and indirectly(lower prices being supported on the market).

Yes, our refineries would need to adjust to light sweet crude. But they can do that easily enough. They just need to be certain that the next time Democrats get a chance, they're not going to destroy the supply chain for political reasons.

[Tom]

I'm always so confused by the Republican lie that somehow it's regulations that are holding back domestic production, and that somehow we'd produce near-infinite oil if the government would just let us -- when the truth is that domestic producers were so terrified by their overproduction in 2019 and 2020 that they cut the number of operating wells in half and still haven't bothered bringing the majority of them back online.

[yossarian22c]

I'm always so confused by the Republican lie that somehow it's regulations that are holding back domestic production, and that somehow we'd produce near-infinite oil if the government would just let us -- when the truth is that domestic producers were so terrified by their overproduction in 2019 and 2020 that they cut the number of operating wells in half and still haven't bothered bringing the majority of them back online.

Because in Republican land its always the government's fault. Inflation, who cares about record corporate profits, its fixing bridges or feeding poor people that's to blame. Energy, ignore all the evidence of the harms of fossil fuels and dangerous countries that make the most money off them, we could supply the whole world if you just let people drill everywhere in the US without any environmental or safety regulations. Corporations are people, the best people. 

[Tom]

I totally didn't see this coming.
No joke: Biden's decision to pardon all first-time federal offenses for marijuana possession (and the request for a re-evaluation of its classification schedule) is arguably the best thing any president has done in my lifetime. I have no doubt that the timing is politically motivated, and it's not as effective as something that also touched state offenses, but this is an unambiguous good that removes a ridiculous barrier for thousands of people.

[msquared]

Wait for Cherry to show up and claim Biden has released tens of thousands of convicted felons in to society and that they will all start to rape and murder in the next few months.

[cherrypoptart]

It should be mentioned that Biden supported the law that he's now against. So he's admitting that he's been wrong for the last 28 years. I suppose though if his son isn't in prison for much worse, at least it makes sense that Biden would do this much for those guilty of much less.

I'm not going to go apoplectic again on this but it's not going to work out as great as the promises we're given. It's just another flush by Biden and Democrats in our country's swirling around and down the drain into the sewer. It's a part of how I was raised though, that drugs are bad, bad for you and bad for society. Apparently we're passed all that now with the President himself giving the green light to using marijuana. And nobody buys the lip service about this not applying to kids. Of course kids are going to see this and see that bright green light from the President telling them to go, go, go, no matter what anyone including Biden says the actions speak louder.

Yes lives were ruined by prison but even more will be ruined now by the Presidential stamp of approval on casual drug use. Nancy said no, no, no while Joe says go, go, go.

I suppose I couldn't avoid some slight apoplexy after all.

[wmLambert]

I totally didn't see this coming.
No joke: Biden's decision to pardon all first-time federal offenses for marijuana possession (and the request for a re-evaluation of its classification schedule) is arguably the best thing any president has done in my lifetime. I have no doubt that the timing is politically motivated, and it's not as effective as something that also touched state offenses, but this is an unambiguous good that removes a ridiculous barrier for thousands of people.

Look at his actions again. Most prisoners plea bargained down from multiple crimes and even though pardoned for marijuana sentences will not be released for their other crimes. There are not thousands of released convicts guilty of harmless usage. The number I've heard  is much smaller Also, the current dope being used today is far more potent than a generation ago. If he wanted to hurt drug lords by making dope legal and therefore less expensive, the cartels laugh at him as they are pushing fentanyl through a "secure" border, and making thousands of dollars on every one of the millions of illegal aliens.

[jc44]

It should be mentioned that Biden supported the law that he's now against. So he's admitting that he's been wrong for the last 28 years. I suppose though if his son isn't in prison for much worse, at least it makes sense that Biden would do this much for those guilty of much less.

I dunno - on the whole I don't recon 28 years between passing a law and then going "maybe that wasn't the best idea" is a screeching U-turn. Forcing a standard where any decision, once made, must be irrevocable no matter what happens in society/politics in the meanwhile doesn't seem sensible, and on the whole I would be very suspicious of any politician who never changed their mind about anything.

[rightleft22]

It's a part of how I was raised though, that drugs are bad, bad for you and bad for society.

Same, and in the years sense I was taught that I have watched as how the 'drug wars'  hasn't made the world a safer place while many could argue that its made it less safe. I've watched as the 'war' was used to target specific segments of the population. 

It should be mentioned that Biden supported the law that he's now against

I have supported many things in the past that today I would be against its call learning. Learn better do better.

As it comes to marijuana the ship has sailed, as it has for alcohol (which I was also taught was bad for me and society). To pretend that our kids are not aware of marijuana and alcohol is absurd.
My observations is that kids are more likely to be tempted by the forbidden fruit. We still have issues with kids and adults abusing alcohol, and we will continue to have kids and adults abusing drugs. But just maybe 'war' against such abuses wasn't working and doing the same thing and expecting different results was just insane and we have realized that. So time to try different.
Being addicted to the 'old way' of doing things can be just as harmful as any addiction. Learn better do better and that is what I think we have here

I continue to believe that recreation drugs and alcohol is bad for me and society. That the world would be better and healthier if everyone abstained.... or didn't over eat, avoided sugar, exercised, be kind to one another... I believe a lot of things that may be true but have little baring on reality. I eat too much, exercise too little and am not always kind. But sometimes I do better.

I don't want my life defined by the mistakes I made and that I have worked on to do better, or defined by using my freedom to make a choice about marijuana if I believe that responsible use will not harm me.... and so 'do unto others' as they say. So good on the administration for making a change to the law, that was a long time coming.

[Tom]

Nancy said no, no, no...

...and it would be hard to overstate the hugely negative effects that "War on Drugs" had on American society, especially among the minority groups that it was intended to hurt and marginalize in the first place.

[Grant]

I am just dropping in for my occasional check-in at this sounding board for an orientation. There are not enough bonafide Democrats, where I live, who have the temerity to express their opinions in public. When I was here last, the general perception was that an incoming Biden presidency was going to address the following concerns. :

1- A COVID vaccine would be expedited to prevent the deaths of a “cool million” Americans. (per DonaldD).
2- N-95 masks would be abundant, because Democrats, unlike Republicans, don’t like to kill people (a concern for Y-22).
3- Government needed to rigorously enforce COVID containment policies, economic devastation be dammed, to prevent “avoidable” deaths.
4- The hilarious news story of a blind computer technician, who claimed to have an abandoned laptop owned by Hunter Biden, would be discredited as “Russian misinformation” (per virtually all leftists on this forum, taking a cue from Joe).
5- Speaking of Joe, we were not concerned about his age, or that he could not keep his pajamas dry, because Kamala would be waiting in the wings to save the day (per Y-22).
6- America would be safe for Democracy, because Republicans foster an inordinate fear of voter fraud which prevents well meaning, but in-ambulatory, Americans from reaching a ballot box through their own devices.

Take your choice, and bring me current. Out of civic duty, I need to update my understanding of the other half of America.

I'm not a bonafide Democrat. But since I am something of a swing voter these days, I imagine that this post is meant for me more than anyone else. 

1. COVID-  Vaccine rollout was okay.  I honestly would have liked to have seen some more effort from the Feds on the education front, but *censored*, OSHA couldn't even mandate vaccination per the SCOTUS.  What else could they do?  I would have liked to have seen quicker rollout on this latest version of the vaccine, like by 3-6 months, but it was still pretty quick.  I'm not real happy with the CDC guidelines that I think are a step back from the successes of the past.  I have a major problem with the new RTW protocol, because I am seeing it abused and causing transmission in the workplace, and I don't like the new travel rules.  I think the CDC is being politically pressured again to help the economy and present "success".  Just like the presentation by Uncle Joe that Covid is "over".  But it's still better than probably what the Republicans would have done.  LOL.  I mean really, they were the ones complaining the most about the economy.  Grade C+/B-

2.  N95-  N95s are everywhere.  But I don't think Uncle Joe or the government has anything to do with it.  No grade.  Win for capitalism and globalism since most of the mask production is from China and Korea. 

3.  See #1.  See OSHA.  See SCOTUS.  See Republicans would never have even tried to mandate vaccines or restrictions.  See Republican governors screwing the pooch in many cases. 

4.  Never cared.  I think there may be more to this than I originally assumed.  I think there is talk about possibility of criminally charging Hunter Biden.  I would be concerned if there was definitely pressure placed on the DOJ.  Not sure if it would be a deal breaker for me because there are so many other more important things going on.  Grade C

5.  Definitely concerned about the age.  There does seem to be problems that are getting worse.  I don't really believe that Biden should run again.  The the Democrats can't find somebody else to win they have a real problem.  That said, he probably is still better than a lot of the Democrats he ran against in 2020.  Completely senile he might still be a better choice.  Grade D+

6.  Wut? 


More importantly for myself:

A.  If you lose, you lose, and you don't talk garbage about opposing politicians all the time.  Maybe not talk garbage at all.  Maybe bring a little dignity back.  Don't be an embarrassment.  Grade B+. 

B.  Don't go all radical nutso Bernie Bro.  No "stacking the court".  Student loan forgiveness is a hit but it's a compromise.  Grade C+/B-

C.  Don't tank the economy with overspending and government aide.  Grade D.  Too much cash thrown at problems.  Too much cash for COVID.  Overheated economy with low production.  Inflation.  Lack of responsibility. 

D.  International Relations:  Russia/China.  Quit fellating Pooter.  Quit crapping on NATO.  Stand against Russian and Chinese aggression.  Grow allies.  Grade B+.  This is the most important element for me, and it is where the most success has been.  The only thing that would have been better is getting Ukraine in NATO in January, or the US entering the war in some form to end it quickly instead of dragging this on for 8-9 months or longer.  NATO and the US can end the war in a week.  Not pleased with how things have ended up with the middle east and India backing Russia.  Real diplomatic failures, but it's not just the admin's fault.  But that is who will be blamed. 

E.  Energy policy.  D-.  We have supply problems.  Worldwide.  Helping cause inflation, recession, etc.  Yet no Keystone PL.  No work with industry to increase production.  No new push for nuclear.  The United States should be leading the world in new nuclear powerplant construction.  But China and India are.  I understand that domestic production can't snap back overnight, but I'm not seeing a bunch of federal effort to assist.  We're in a crisis here.  I'm not seeing anything on energy policy.  I'm seeing lots of screaming on environmental policy. 

F.  Afghanistan. F+.  Not pleased.  *censored*ed that one up.  I get that it wasn't necessarily his plan but he was the one holding the bag of $%&^ at the end.  I get that he at least allowed the DOD to get as many people out as they could.  But the whole thing was a goat rope. 


So I guess I have other priorities than what other people seem to have. Altogether, I'm not thrilled with Uncle Joe, but he's been a success at what he was supposed to be.  He's been a success NOT BEING a criminal instigator of riots aimed at overturning elections.  He's been a success at NOT BEING Lord Savior Cheetoh.  He's been a great success for NATO, Europe, and a bane for Pooter.  I've been waiting since 2014 for someone to kick Pooter in the nuts and stop losing.  Honestly Zelenskyy is the real reason.  But Uncle Joe has played his part.  Uncle Joe can screw up a bunch of things, but if he ends up being Pres when Russia is defeated and Pooter is boxed in or removed, I will vote for Uncle Joe for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th terms as POTUS.  He could be a picked head in a jar or a zombie and I'd vote for him.  He might finish what Reagan and Bush I started.  After 100+ years of Russia screwing up Europe and Asia and the world, it could finally be dealt with.  I'll forgive all the other stupid stuff like Afghanistan and Energy policy and throwing too much money into the economy because all those things can be recovered from.  (Not for the Afghani).  He can socialize medicine and I'd still roll with it if he stands up to Pooter and Xi. 

In the end, the US is simply waiting for a good Republican candidate again, but it is unlikely to get one.  The whole brand is *censored* now.  Even if you did get a good Republican candidate, I doubt the MAGA wing would vote for them.  They'd vote for Bernie first. 

[Crunch]

I totally didn't see this coming.
No joke: Biden's decision to pardon all first-time federal offenses for marijuana possession (and the request for a re-evaluation of its classification schedule) is arguably the best thing any president has done in my lifetime. I have no doubt that the timing is politically motivated, and it's not as effective as something that also touched state offenses, but this is an unambiguous good that removes a ridiculous barrier for thousands of people.

Thousands?  JFC.

In the fiscal year 2021, according to the commission [US Sentencing Commission], 1,005 people were in federal prison for trafficking marijuana, compared to just under 3,500 in 2015

At best, it changes the status for a handful of people but gives you a warm feeling that doesn't involve a bodily fluid running down your leg so you dutifully follow your orders and talk about how great it is. Predictable as it is disgraceful.

[msquared]

Wouldn't a pardon like this also be retroactive? So people who have this type of felony conviction on their record can now answer that question that they are not felons?

[Tom]

Yes.

[msquared]

That is what I thought, so Crunch is wrong again in the number of people affected. I wonder if he just got his talking points in his Monday morning e-mail and came running here to post it.

[msquared]

So last night Sean Hannity played a voice mail that Biden left for Hunter in 2018 basically telling Hunter he needs to get help. Hannity makes it seem like the message was something wrong or bad.

Listen to the message.  It is a parent trying to connect with an addicted child. Trying to tell them they need help and that the parent still loves them.

This is one of the most human things Biden has done.

Hannity says that if this message was from Trump the Dems would jump all over Trump.

I disagree.  If I heard a message like that from Donald to Don Jr it would make Donald more believable. It show a sense of compassion that  normally seems absent from Trump.

[Tom]

It is almost unthinkable that Trump would ever call one of his children to tell them he loved them.

[TheDrake]

Well we probably would jump all over Trump. Because his message wouldn't be about trying to help Don Jr. It would be about shaming him, telling him he's a loser, weak, and generally reinforcing all the negative stereotypes about people dealing with addiction that I see all the time in the Republicans who mock and disparage Hunter for being a drug addict.

msquared is right that if Donald managed to be compassionate and supportive, a bunch of us would probably be dumbstruck trying to puzzle out how his character completely changed, or if that means that all his public bluster is just for show.

Meanwhile, if CNN played any voicemail left by Trump, they'd be howling about how spies had gotten hold of the tape, how it constitutes an egregious violation of privacy, etc.

[yossarian22c]

It is almost unthinkable that Trump would ever call one of his children to tell them he loved them.

If you watch the video Don Jr posted about how touched he was to get mentioned in a rambling Trump speech it would be clear he doesn't call his kids to tell them they love them.

[TheDeamon]

Quit crapping on NATO.  Stand against Russian and Chinese aggression.  Grow allies.  Grade B+.  This is the most important element for me, and it is where the most success has been.  The only thing that would have been better is getting Ukraine in NATO in January, or the US entering the war in some form to end it quickly instead of dragging this on for 8-9 months or longer.  NATO and the US can end the war in a week.  Not pleased with how things have ended up with the middle east and India backing Russia.  Real diplomatic failures, but it's not just the admin's fault.  But that is who will be blamed.

NATO admission for Ukraine in January would have been complicated by the matter of Crimea and portions of Ukraine already held by "pro-Russian forces" even then. It would have immediately placed NATO in a state of war against Russia. This still applies should Ukraine be admitted right now as under international law(even the UN charter), Crimea is territory occupied by a hostile force, which immediately invokes the mutual self-defense clause for NATO.

As to *censored*ting on NATO. The US has been *censored*ting on NATO since Bill Clinton was in office, we've just typically been more polite about it. Yeah, yeah, the US is the only nation to have invoked the self-defense clause in the treaty, but that was after being asked by everyone in NATO at the time for them to do so. And NATO participation in Afghanistan did mean Bush43 was a lot more circumspect in how he handled the matter, but he wasn't all sunshine and rainbows on NATO either.

But NATO had their wake up call after Putin's activities at the end of February this year. The "unthinkable" that the US had been warning them about, if they kept neglecting defense, for nearly 30 years happened. Although it remains to be seen how long the wake up lasts, given Russia's very poor performance in the field.

[Grant]

NATO admission for Ukraine in January would have been complicated by the matter of Crimea and portions of Ukraine already held by "pro-Russian forces" even then. It would have immediately placed NATO in a state of war against Russia. This still applies should Ukraine be admitted right now as under international law(even the UN charter), Crimea is territory occupied by a hostile force, which immediately invokes the mutual self-defense clause for NATO.

I think there is a whole bunch of "wiggle room" in that statement.  Including NATO telling Zelenskyy straight up, "we're letting you IN, but to prevent a war.  We won't invade Crimea or help you retake it.  Launch and attack and we pull out."  It's that simple.  People seem to think there is some rulebook that is going to force somebody to do something they don't want to do.  That's ridiculous. 

As to *censored*ting on NATO. The US has been *censored*ting on NATO since Bill Clinton was in office, we've just typically been more polite about it.

I love the fantasy conjecture that somehow the previous administration was just "continuing policy" that had been laid out by Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.  They were just "less polite" about it.  Maybe that should clue you in to how important being polite is?  All you "JUST TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!" and "KEEPIN IT REAL!" dumbasses.  That's why YOU are a plumber and not in charge of international negotiations.  I'm not denigrating plumbers.  They're critical individuals.  But some people seem to have taken their personal lack of a skill set as a positive.  Even Dave Chappelle had to bring this up in his "When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong" sketches. 

There is a vast difference between telling allies "y'all are screwing the pooch" in private, and going all "*censored* NATO" in public.  The MAGA wing of the Republican party has made a complete 180 on NATO.  That's new.  I don't recall anybody except maybe Pat Buchannan wanting to leave NATO in 1998. 

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“I would be fascinated to hear how California redistricted in such a way to prevent Republican governors.

California does a poor job of maximizing their gerrymandering capabilities. About 47% of registered voters are Democrats, 24% are Republicans, and 23% are independents. With that state wide break down if they drew the most broken gerrymandered districts possible there would be zero Republican representatives from the state of California. As it is they get 11 or about 20% of the seats from California. So California's independent redistricting commission massively favors Republicans. If the state legislatures drew it for maximum party advantage (see Republicans in Wisconsin/NC/Penn) the Republicans would not have representation at the national level from California.”

Let your ”fascination” run wild.

Even plumbers, those “critical individuals” understand that stuff runs downhill. The leftist agenda of transplanting third-world politics into cash-rich western republics has been spectacularly successful in California, and succeeded in consolidating wealth/power into the hands of Los Angeles and San Francisco Democrats who now preside over the northern most states of Mexico. As a career promoter it has served the likes of John Podesta; https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/john-podesta-asked-hillary-clinton-to-court-needy-latinos-in-wikileaks-email?context=amp , and Rahm Emanuel; https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Elections/2011/0115/Chicago-s-Latinos-get-an-earful-on-Rahm-Emanuel-s-immigration-record

both in the service of our first third-world President. ”Needy Latinos” to be sure.

This is how that nonsense manifest in California:

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission

https://apple.news/AzFM1sJAyQt2HOjHoFbSgBQ

It got so bad, in a bipartisan manner I might add, that voters intervened in 2008, with sporadic results;

https://www.wedrawthelinesca.org/

[noel c.]

Grant,

“Maybe that should clue you in to how important being polite is?  All you "JUST TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!" and ‘KEEPIN IT REAL!’ dumbasses.”

I do not recall the NATO response to Trump being wholly unsuccessful in prompting increased investment in defense. Did you witness a different reality? I do recall the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years as overseeing a disastrous decline in NATO preparedness.

[Wayward Son]

Noel, rather than going through all that irrelevant stuff, you could have summarized your response to yossarian's question by simply saying, "You're right." 

[Grant]

Grant,

I do not recall the NATO response to Trump being wholly unsuccessful in prompting increased investment in defense. Did you witness a different reality?

Yeah.  Let me share my secret reality, that I get from actual spreadsheets and charts and reports on NATO spending. 

NATO spending started to plummet in 1991.  Guess why?  Would you like to know what happened in my different reality that made this happen?  Maybe you could share what was going on in your reality first?  Tell ya what, I'll keep it a mystery.  Shhhhhh.  Don't tell anyone.  They'll never guess what happened in my different reality in 1991 that caused NATO spending to drop like a rock for the next 8 years. 

NATO spending popped back up a little and leveled out during the aughties.  Then started to drop again starting in 2009.  Would you like to guess what happened then?  In my secret reality?  Shhhhh!  I'm not going to tell you.  It's my secret.  But what was going on in YOUR reality in 2009?  Did anybody really think there was a threat in Europe?  Who was that?  Who was that who said something about the 1980s wanting their foreign policy back?  Oh wait, that was in my reality.  In your reality it must have just been crazy Euros who didn't see any threats in Europe. 

NATO spending actually started to pop back up, starting in 2015.  At least in my reality. I have no idea why.  What happened in your reality in 2014?  To, you know, change people's minds about Europe?  Because I have no idea.  Maybe The Lord Declassifier In Chief with his MIND became POTUS in 2014 in YOUR reality.  That would explain it.  Because I'm at a loss at what happend in MY reality to cause NATO to start increasing defense spending in 2015, instead of waiting until 2017 to increase spending when The Perfect Caller of Ukraine became POTUS.  Such a negotiator.  Such tiny hands.  So sad.  The mainstream media.  Fake news.  Hillary. 

Despite what you have heard from the FAKE NEWS, I had a GREAT meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.  Nevertheless, Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!

I mean, that's *censored*ing beautiful.  That's high *censored*ing diplomacy right there.  Right up there with telling the G7 leaders over dinner that Crimea belonged to Russia because everyone who lived there spoke Russian, and stumping for Russia to rejoin and remake the G8.  Sorry to say it was Mackrel and Macaroon that stood tall that day. 

Maybe it was when the Great 5th Grade Communicator mentioned NATO being "as bad as NAFTA".  Maybe it was when the Chatte Grabber refused to endorse Article 5 but lecture NATO on spending, right after travelling to Saudi to kiss their asses.  Maybe it was when His Brilliance said NATO was "obsolete".  All of this of course happening in my reality.  Not sure what happened in yours. 

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/3/pdf/220331-def-exp-2021-en.pdf

All of this of course stemming from a complete lack of understanding what the role of NATO is and continues to be, and how this impacts military spending.  If the purpose of NATO is to defend against major threats to Europe, then the purpose of NATO is to defend against Russia.  If this is the case, then a dollar spent by Poland is worth five dollars spent by the United States.  Because Poland just has to spend money to put a tank with four guys, ammo, and fuel, on the border.  The United States has to spend to buy the tank, ammo, fuel, and then the ship, and the people to sail the ship, and then a couple of trains, and the people to run the trains, then the fuel for the ship and trains, to bring the tank all the way from Texas to Poland.  See?  If your goal is to defend against Russia, a dollar spent by Poland and Germany is worth more than a dollar spent by the United States.  But that would take a certain amount of understanding and thought about how war happens and is paid for.  I'm sure that kind of understanding is beneath certain great looking stable geniuses. 

Another part of the problem is comparing apples to oranges.  The pinko Euros have different kind of defense budgets.  The pinkos don't have to add health care costs to their defense budget, because they have socialist pinko healthcare systems that pay for everybody.  Hence, their healthcare is in a different budget. Last year, the DOD spent more on healthcare for military members and their families than it did for maintenance for all ships and submarines in the entire US Navy.  More reason to transition to Skynet. 

[noel c.]

WS,

”Noel, rather than going through all that irrelevant stuff, you could have summarized your response to yossarian's question by simply saying, ‘You're right.’  ”

The problem with saying that is that you apparently do not understand what I said.

[noel c.]

Grant,

Without exhausting yourself, did NATO spending decline beginning with Bush, and increase under your nemesis… small hands and all?

Is Germany, even now, a NATO slacker?

[yossarian22c]

WS,

”Noel, rather than going through all that irrelevant stuff, you could have summarized your response to yossarian's question by simply saying, ‘You're right.’  ”

The problem with saying that is that you apparently do not understand what I said.

You didn't support your argument that California gerrymandered their way out of governors races. Nor did you support the idea the California currently gerrymanders to maximum advantage for democrats.

You through some vague bombs, immigrates blah, blah, blah, 3rd world, blah, blah, democrats evil, blah blah, democrats power hungry, blah, 3rd world, blah, blah. You didn't actually construct any meaningful argument. Particularly not one that had anything to do with gerrymandering in the state of California. 

[noel c.]

Y-22,

Substitute the electorate in vote-laden San Francisco, and Los Angeles counties with illegal squatters, and statewide elections are permanently skewed. There is no way that California will ever grow its economy again.

The election commission is powerless to eject illegal colonists. I must hand it to your crowd, the dems do play a long-game.

[noel c.]

Grant,

Health care, right? :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Global_Military_Spending.webp/718px-Global_Military_Spending.webp.png

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

Substitute the electorate in vote-laden San Francisco, and Los Angeles counties with illegal squatters, and statewide elections are permanently skewed. There is no way that California will ever grow its economy again.

The election board is powerless to eject illegal colonists. I must hand it to your crowd, the dems do play a long-game.

So you're claiming illegal immigrants are voting? Any evidence that illegal immigrants are voting in numbers large enough to sway elections?

[msquared]

It does not matter how many illegals vote. If more than 1 does it all of the elections are suspect.

[Grant]

Without exhausting yourself, did NATO spending decline beginning with Bush, and increase under your nemesis… small hands and all?

Is Germany, even now, a NATO slacker?

I'm going to repeat, NATO spending cratered beginning in the last year of Bush I, and continued through the Clinton years, then dipped again during the Obama years until 2014, when the invasion of Crimea occurred and everybody started waking up.  His Subpoenaededness had nothing to do with increased NATO spending.  It was already on the upswing.  Pooter is responsible.  US Defense spending also dipped dramatically in the Clinton and Obama years, so Europe was simply reacting to the world stage basically the same way the United States was.  There wasn't a big threat to them. 

I can bitch pretty hard about Europe not being ready for Pooter, but they're a lot better off then they were.  They certainly were not fellating them in Helsinki like some people were.  Some people were simply looking for a payoff or some quid pro quo.  Or maybe a way to cozy up to Kim in North Korea. 

[Grant]

Grant,

Health care, right? :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Global_Military_Spending.webp/718px-Global_Military_Spending.webp.png

That's right.  About $40 billion of that $800 billion is healthcare.  That's more than the entire military budget of Italy.  Havn't you heard about the high price of healthcare?  All military members, their families, and all veterans, have Tricare. 

[noel c.]

Grant,

Your healthcare calculation does not wash. Is Germany, even now, a NATO slacker?

[noel c.]

Y-22,

There is only an eighteen year lag between the appearance of a third-world squatter, and a voting “American”. If the founders only had the foresight to anticipate the potential conflation of the words “persons”, and “citizens”.

I am not even talking into account census tallies that determine representative districts. Gerrymandering was no secret to those of us who grew up in California. Where are you from?

[Aris Katsaris]

Y-22,

There is only an eighteen year lag between the appearance of a third-world squatter, and a voting “American”. If the founders only had the foresight to anticipate the potential conflation of the words “persons”, and “citizens”.

Persons used to count as 3/5th of a citizen, no, for purposes of representation?