American Politics Discussion

[Waylander]

On 30/09/2020 at 05:03, Bluewolf said:

2 old guys slugging it out... Is this the best America can offer people

As one author said, it is the best democracy that money can buy.

[Waylander]

1 hour ago, Khan of TF365 said:

Trump has announced he'll release his own social media platform.

Sounds like he seriously planning a come back if going for his own social media platform.

He is still campaigning too if the alternative media have it correct. 

I'm hoping a new face comes forward, quite like De Santis and his stand on vaccine freedom. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Waylander

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, Waylander said:

Sounds like he seriously planning a come back if going for his own social media platform.

He is still campaigning too if the alternative media have it correct. 

I'm hoping a new face comes forward, quite like De Santis and his stand on vaccine freedom. 

It's between Trump and De Santis for the republican nomination in 2024 tbh.

I suspect the democrats will lose big in the 2022 midterm elections and I think it's really likely there's another republican in office in 2024... and I think it will be either Trump or De Santis. Tbh, neither really fills me with confidence. With Trump you know exactly what you're getting, but he's so divisive it'd be just like his first 4 years - he'd get maybe another tax reform bill passed but after that it'd likely be the same gridlock we saw the last time around & what we see with Biden as well.

De Santis is Trumpy but he's a lot smarter and has been playing the political game for a lot longer. I think he could get more done than Trump could. Would what he gets done be any good? I'm not so sure.

I don't really like either of them, I think most general Republican politics are so right wing they'd make many conservative Tories blush. Very few moderates left in the party. But I also don't think democrats are that great - so ineffectual at governing really.

Neither party can really put forth anyone that the other side remotely finds palatable it seems. Honestly, the vaccine freedom stuff is so polarising - not just in the US but a lot of the Anglosphere. Personally, I don't think Florida's done a good job with COVID and I'm not sure De Santis's anti-mask, anti-vaccine policies & the issues with the undercounting of COVID cases.

[Waylander]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's between Trump and De Santis for the republican nomination in 2024 tbh.

I suspect the democrats will lose big in the 2022 midterm elections and I think it's really likely there's another republican in office in 2024... and I think it will be either Trump or De Santis. Tbh, neither really fills me with confidence. With Trump you know exactly what you're getting, but he's so divisive it'd be just like his first 4 years - he'd get maybe another tax reform bill passed but after that it'd likely be the same gridlock we saw the last time around & what we see with Biden as well.

De Santis is Trumpy but he's a lot smarter and has been playing the political game for a lot longer. I think he could get more done than Trump could. Would what he gets done be any good? I'm not so sure.

I don't really like either of them, I think most general Republican politics are so right wing they'd make many conservative Tories blush. Very few moderates left in the party. But I also don't think democrats are that great - so ineffectual at governing really.

Neither party can really put forth anyone that the other side remotely finds palatable it seems. Honestly, the vaccine freedom stuff is so polarising - not just in the US but a lot of the Anglosphere. Personally, I don't think Florida's done a good job with COVID and I'm not sure De Santis's anti-mask, anti-vaccine policies & the issues with the undercounting of COVID cases.

Apparently in lots of Italian cities major protests against vaccine passports and Sweden is alleged to have recovered the best with the least amount of medical intervention.

With De Santis, would be interesting to see how he positions himself.

I like him with vaccine choice though recall not liking some of his other proposed policies.

[Dr. Gonzo]

30 minutes ago, Waylander said:

Apparently in lots of Italian cities major protests against vaccine passports and Sweden is alleged to have recovered the best with the least amount of medical intervention.

With De Santis, would be interesting to see how he positions himself.

I like him with vaccine choice though recall not liking some of his other proposed policies.

The thing about Sweden and the way it handled coronavirus is they've got a much less denser population than many other countries. So what works with them might not work with other countries. I, personally, can understand some objections to "vaccine passports" - although I think for things like international travel, where certain countries require certain vaccines... that's nothing new and that shouldn't really be an issue - and countries should be able to have laws like that to protect their populations.

Personally, I don't mind it if private businesses require proof of vaccination. I do think if the government is going around giving tickets to unvaccinated people outside though, that's probably a step too far. I'm also surprised it's been such a polarising issue pretty much everywhere... but I guess that's just the world we live in today.

And really if there's one thing that marks American politics... it's polarisation. So many things have become big divisive issues - so the chasm between republicans and democrats is massive. There's even a big split between the moderates and left wing of the democrats to further highlight the divisiveness. It's honestly a bit similar to the UK in some regards - although I think there's less of a chasm between all parties in the UK, but the infighting of labour is a lot like the infighting of the democrats.

And tbf in most countries, the democratic party of the US would be probably two distinct parties (lib dem and labour probably if we wanted to use the parallel) - but the US's 2 party system sort of forces anything "left of centre" to fall under the umbrella of "democrat." Apparently both parties had left wing and right wing factions in their parties (which probably meant for more opportunity for compromise)

It really just makes it hard to get anything done politically in the US. I know the UK has sort of fallen into the trap of imitating US politics a lot - but I really wish it wouldn't. In the UK, tories, labour, lib dems, green... all have more in common with themselves than they do with any of the US parties. And treating politics like it's a spectator sport - which is really how it seems in the US - I think ends up harming the country at the end of the day. One big difference with the UK and our parliamentary system means that when there's no room for bipartisan compromise... the party running the government can still get things done. In the US it creates this horrible problem where it's hard for anything meaningful to get done.

They (all politicians) need to stop thinking of their political parties so much as "teams" and start treating the country like it's all the same team - and the parties are just the different people who could possibly captain the team.

[Waylander]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The thing about Sweden and the way it handled coronavirus is they've got a much less denser population than many other countries. So what works with them might not work with other countries. I, personally, can understand some objections to "vaccine passports" - although I think for things like international travel, where certain countries require certain vaccines... that's nothing new and that shouldn't really be an issue - and countries should be able to have laws like that to protect their populations.

Personally, I don't mind it if private businesses require proof of vaccination. I do think if the government is going around giving tickets to unvaccinated people outside though, that's probably a step too far. I'm also surprised it's been such a polarising issue pretty much everywhere... but I guess that's just the world we live in today.

And really if there's one thing that marks American politics... it's polarisation. So many things have become big divisive issues - so the chasm between republicans and democrats is massive. There's even a big split between the moderates and left wing of the democrats to further highlight the divisiveness. It's honestly a bit similar to the UK in some regards - although I think there's less of a chasm between all parties in the UK, but the infighting of labour is a lot like the infighting of the democrats.

And tbf in most countries, the democratic party of the US would be probably two distinct parties (lib dem and labour probably if we wanted to use the parallel) - but the US's 2 party system sort of forces anything "left of centre" to fall under the umbrella of "democrat." Apparently both parties had left wing and right wing factions in their parties (which probably meant for more opportunity for compromise)

It really just makes it hard to get anything done politically in the US. I know the UK has sort of fallen into the trap of imitating US politics a lot - but I really wish it wouldn't. In the UK, tories, labour, lib dems, green... all have more in common with themselves than they do with any of the US parties. And treating politics like it's a spectator sport - which is really how it seems in the US - I think ends up harming the country at the end of the day. One big difference with the UK and our parliamentary system means that when there's no room for bipartisan compromise... the party running the government can still get things done. In the US it creates this horrible problem where it's hard for anything meaningful to get done.

They (all politicians) need to stop thinking of their political parties so much as "teams" and start treating the country like it's all the same team - and the parties are just the different people who could possibly captain the team.

Yes a reasonable point about population density in Sweden.

I know they like the coffee there and through fasting ( I have iBS) i have found my IBS likes tea and coffee yet not peppermint tea. Make of it what you will.

Re the US I notice often they have the budget that needs to be passed to pay federal employees and it becomes a political football. Can't see that happening here there would be major protests if they ever tried.

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 minutes ago, Waylander said:

Yes a reasonable point about population density in Sweden.

I know they like the coffee there and through fasting ( I have iBS) i have found my IBS likes tea and coffee yet not peppermint tea. Make of it what you will.

Re the US I notice often they have the budget that needs to be passed to pay federal employees and it becomes a political football. Can't see that happening here there would be major protests if they ever tried.

 

 

I think a few years back, they didn't pass the budget after the last one had expired and there was a government shutdown that lasted for a short while. I think it caused a lot of anxiety for people who work for the federal government... as well as for the people who provide services for the federal government but are employed by someone else.

The last budget expired at the end of last month, but they got a last minute deal to fund the government until just right before Christmas.

You're absolutely right that it's used as a political football, and honestly I think it's borderline criminal up that they're likely going to be holding civil servants' wages hostage right before Christmas so then both parties can squabble over little political points rather than pass any meaningful laws.

I also can't see something like that happening in the UK. Or really... most countries. I think most countries require budgets being passed and have some sort of better system in place than what America does with it's government shutdowns.

I think in the UK if a budget can't be agreed by passing the Finance Bill then it would lead to a vote of No Confidence as it's seen as a big failure of the government to command the House of Commons - so by itself not passing the Finance Bill wouldn't cause a general election... but the subsequent No Confidence vote likely would. I think in a situation like that though it might be likely a party would vote for confidence in their own government and attempt to renegotiate a finance bill that would likely pass.

I think in the 90s there was a failure to pass a Finance Bill but it didn't lead to a no confidence vote... so I'm actually not sure how it would work out in terms of parliamentary procedure. I feel like someone like @The Premier Steve'sor @Inverted would know better than me

[Waylander]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think a few years back, they didn't pass the budget after the last one had expired and there was a government shutdown that lasted for a short while. I think it caused a lot of anxiety for people who work for the federal government... as well as for the people who provide services for the federal government but are employed by someone else.

The last budget expired at the end of last month, but they got a last minute deal to fund the government until just right before Christmas.

You're absolutely right that it's used as a political football, and honestly I think it's borderline criminal up that they're likely going to be holding civil servants' wages hostage right before Christmas so then both parties can squabble over little political points rather than pass any meaningful laws.

I also can't see something like that happening in the UK. Or really... most countries. I think most countries require budgets being passed and have some sort of better system in place than what America does with it's government shutdowns.

I think in the UK if a budget can't be agreed by passing the Finance Bill then it would lead to a vote of No Confidence as it's seen as a big failure of the government to command the House of Commons - so by itself not passing the Finance Bill wouldn't cause a general election... but the subsequent No Confidence vote likely would. I think in a situation like that though it might be likely a party would vote for confidence in their own government and attempt to renegotiate a finance bill that would likely pass.

I think in the 90s there was a failure to pass a Finance Bill but it didn't lead to a no confidence vote... so I'm actually not sure how it would work out in terms of parliamentary procedure. I feel like someone like @The Premier Steve'sor @Inverted would know better than me

My reading of it is one side wants to increase spending substantially and the other side won't approve that level of borrowing and somehow this is tied in with federal employees getting paid.

Surprised they do not find a way to take that out of the issue as I am sure the federal employees are not getting that money it is more down to  the political pet projects.

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 17/10/2021 at 03:53, Gunnersauraus said:

I was watching this documentary about trump last night. Some of the things he has done are terrible. It said about the trump university and his money that was linked to finding Iranian terrorists. Hes has corrupt as they come. He shouldnt have been allowed to be president 

I think the Trump University (btw those words together are actually quite funny) scandal and the links to Iran's Revolutionary Guard funding are two separate things. One was a for-profit school accused of defrauding it's students - the students sued and after fighting in court for a bit Trump University eventually settled with the plaintiffs.

The other was Trump's hotel in Baku accused of money laundering for the Revolutionary Guard. Which, btw, they're not really terrorists - that would be a bit like saying the Royal Marines are a terrorist organisation; they're a military branch of Iran - but unlike the army/navy/air force there... their loyalty is to the Supreme Leader, rather than the country. They're designated a terrorist group by the US... but they're a million miles away from groups like Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.

Honestly the best comparison I can think of with the Revolutionary Guard is they're a bit like the Waffen SS of Nazi Germany. They're a part of the military, but it's made up of the ideological diehards who have to volunteer and then pass selection (ideological purity tests, really) if they want to serve there. I think they're awful, awful people... but they're not terrorists because they're part of a sovereign country's military.

The issue there wasn't so much Trump was aiding terrorists... but rather Trump was finding a way for Iran to avoid the effect of US sanctions.

And tbh, I'm not sure if I believe that was the case because he had imposed incredibly harsh sanctions on Iran after becoming president. And I don't think the evidence that came out against him was all that... good... because nothing ever happened.

Could he have imposed harsher sanctions in hopes it would lead the IRGC to launder more money through his Azerbaijan hotel? Maybe - but without proof it's a bit of a conspiracy theory.

I think there's plenty to criticise Trump with that's factually provable (like the Trump University scandal & the January 6 insurrection) rather than the more tenuous stuff (like this IRGC stuff or him getting pissed on by Russians on camera).

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Waylander said:

My reading of it is one side wants to increase spending substantially and the other side won't approve that level of borrowing and somehow this is tied in with federal employees getting paid.

Surprised they do not find a way to take that out of the issue as I am sure the federal employees are not getting that money it is more down to  the political pet projects.

Imo both parties use stalling on passing a budget and forcing government shutdowns as a political tool for stopping the other party's Presidential agenda dead in it's tracks prior to midterm elections to try to make the president's party look as bad as possible, so they win more seats during the midterm elections.

And I think historically it's actually worked out for both parties using it that way... so they probably don't see much incentive to change things.

[Waylander]

Do you think this happening as the last election was so close meaning the government has to fight for every decision to get it passed and in this instance even some of the Democrats think the budget is too large?

[Guest]

@Dr. Gonzo I knew they were separate things. It's just amazing how bad he is and that people thought they could trust him. I mean all politicians are liars but he is really corrupt 

[Dr. Gonzo]

51 minutes ago, Waylander said:

Do you think this happening as the last election was so close meaning the government has to fight for every decision to get it passed and in this instance even some of the Democrats think the budget is too large?

Yeah, I think that's exactly what's happening. Biden's agenda is being held up by 2 democrats just as much as it's being held up by the Republicans. One of them wants both parties to meet him in the middle, the other... well... I don't know what she really wants tbh. I think she wants more lobbyist and corporate money coming in for her next election campaign... even though that's in 4 years.

But I think with how divided everything is in America, everything is going to be a fight to and every president's agenda will be held up unless there is less of a split in the senate (or house, but in this case the house is comfortably under the democrats control - but the senate has an even split, so two senators differing from their party can hold everything up).

Tbh, it makes sense if you think about it purely politically. Sure, nothing meaningful really changes for any of the citizens of the country (and I think that's why consistently congress has generally low approval ratings year in year out)... but it's an effective way at taking power from the other party and winning seats without actually having to do anything.

And that's why both parties play the same game at the expense of the taxpayers. Power and prestige for minimal effort on their part.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Dr. Gonzo I knew they were separate things. It's just amazing how bad he is and that people thought they could trust him. I mean all politicians are liars but he is really corrupt 

I think corruption in politics (not just US politics) is... sort of normal. It shouldn't be - but it is. Especially in the US where there's basically unlimited campaign contributions (which is basically just legalised bribery) - it's how you end up with so many laws that were written by lobbyists and corporations rather than the lawmakers that claim to have written them (and that's been caught happening a lot in the US, but nothing really happens with it).

I dunno if any other western leaders were as brazen as Trump was, with the whole funneling as much taxpayer money into his hotels & golf resorts any opportunity he got. He did break laws as president, but they probably won't be enforced because US politics is full of similar corruption and it would mean a lot of politicians going after each other in a pretty hypocritical way.

I actually think it's a massive problem for America because money is such a huge part of their political machine... and there's no real incentive for lawmakers to pass laws that wash away the stink of the corruption. They're allowed to make stock trades with inside knowledge of how laws will change too (and a few got caught selling their stocks after they were briefed on how bad covid would be and before the market crashed - all while they were trying to minimise how bad covid would impact the economy).

But personally, I can't understand how anyone would vote for Trump after hearing him perform in those first debates. The guy is shit at stringing coherent sentences together & contradicts himself all the time if you give him enough time to talk... but in politics the electorate is often more motivated by emotion than reason and some political issues he did a very good job of hitting the right emotional notes. As president, I think he also did a good job hitting the emotional notes that made him lose a lot of moderate support compared to Biden... so it swings both ways.

I honestly expect every US politician to be at least a little bit corrupt, I don't think there's much ethics in politics... especially US politics. Imo there's never really been a "good" US President in my lifetime... but I do think Trump's open corruption puts him down in the rankings with Bush (who is, imo, the worst US president in my lifetime for his war crimes and the damage he did to the Middle East and his spread of global terrorist groups - some of which the US is now backing in some countries and fighting in others).

[Waylander]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think corruption in politics (not just US politics) is... sort of normal. It shouldn't be - but it is. Especially in the US where there's basically unlimited campaign contributions (which is basically just legalised bribery) - it's how you end up with so many laws that were written by lobbyists and corporations rather than the lawmakers that claim to have written them (and that's been caught happening a lot in the US, but nothing really happens with it).

I dunno if any other western leaders were as brazen as Trump was, with the whole funneling as much taxpayer money into his hotels & golf resorts any opportunity he got. He did break laws as president, but they probably won't be enforced because US politics is full of similar corruption and it would mean a lot of politicians going after each other in a pretty hypocritical way.

I actually think it's a massive problem for America because money is such a huge part of their political machine... and there's no real incentive for lawmakers to pass laws that wash away the stink of the corruption. They're allowed to make stock trades with inside knowledge of how laws will change too (and a few got caught selling their stocks after they were briefed on how bad covid would be and before the market crashed - all while they were trying to minimise how bad covid would impact the economy).

But personally, I can't understand how anyone would vote for Trump after hearing him perform in those first debates. The guy is shit at stringing coherent sentences together & contradicts himself all the time if you give him enough time to talk... but in politics the electorate is often more motivated by emotion than reason and some political issues he did a very good job of hitting the right emotional notes. As president, I think he also did a good job hitting the emotional notes that made him lose a lot of moderate support compared to Biden... so it swings both ways.

I honestly expect every US politician to be at least a little bit corrupt, I don't think there's much ethics in politics... especially US politics. Imo there's never really been a "good" US President in my lifetime... but I do think Trump's open corruption puts him down in the rankings with Bush (who is, imo, the worst US president in my lifetime for his war crimes and the damage he did to the Middle East and his spread of global terrorist groups - some of which the US is now backing in some countries and fighting in others).

I agree with corruption in US politics.

I agree on previous US policy in the Middle East.

I know Trump has used chapter 5 bankruptcy several times in his business past though not aware of any corruption say like Watergate while he was in office. Was there any?

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, Waylander said:

I agree with corruption in US politics.

I agree on previous US policy in the Middle East.

I know Trump has used chapter 5 bankruptcy several times in his business past though not aware of any corruption say like Watergate while he was in office. Was there any?

I mean there’s the whole calling Georgia’s elected officials and trying to get them to change election results - that’s probably the closest to Watergate in terms of pure illegality with political purpose.

But most of his corruption was in funneling taxpayer money to properties he owned. Think it was something like $70m of taxpayer money going to him

[Waylander]

20 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I mean there’s the whole calling Georgia’s elected officials and trying to get them to change election results - that’s probably the closest to Watergate in terms of pure illegality with political purpose.

But most of his corruption was in funneling taxpayer money to properties he owned. Think it was something like $70m of taxpayer money going to him

It was a strange election with a lot of claims and some results that in other elections would have got a lot of Republican candidates elected, though not this one.

There was also that embarassing vote in one of the Northern states perhaps Wisonsin where the result was overturned due to machine tabling error. The Republican candidate was shocked they got it wrong and went on camera saying this was the 21st Century how could this go wrong in America, (wonder what the Dem candidate felt too after being overturned). This was early in the election.

With the money surely if that amount of money was going to Trump someone would have outed it, they were not slow with Russian claims, or were his companies providing 'services' so it was over charging?

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 minutes ago, Waylander said:

It was a strange election with a lot of claims and some results that in other elections would have got a lot of Republican candidates elected, though not this one.

There was also that embarassing vote in one of the Northern states perhaps Wisonsin where the result was overturned due to machine tabling error. The Republican candidate was shocked they got it wrong and went on camera saying this was the 21st Century how could this go wrong in America, (wonder what the Dem candidate felt too after being overturned). This was early in the election.

With the money surely if that amount of money was going to Trump someone would have outed it, they were not slow with Russian claims, or were his companies providing 'services' so it was over charging?

 

 

I think it was referred to an ethics board for review in January, but since then I haven’t heard anyone talk about it. But it was the second one - charging higher rates for the secret service that had to follow him around to his properties.

The Russian claims are weird because the story kept changing, and the Mueller report - if you read the whole thing in full - says that some weird coordination probably did happen, but he could not recommend further action against a president.

This paragraph from the wiki of it explains why the Mueller report is at least a bit troubling:

“Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime. This decision was based on an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution, and Mueller's belief that it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime even without charging him because he would have no opportunity to clear his name in court; furthermore it would undermine Trump's ability to govern and preempt impeachment. As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him", with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence. The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation". The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly,referencing impeachment.”

(from here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report)

And it was weird seeing a US president say so much that sort of looked like what you’d see in opinion articles on RT 

Honestly though in 2021… the US & Western world talks a big talk on human rights, corruption, and law and order - but are keen to hop into bed with the Saudis and keen to keep strong business ties with China… I do think there’s maybe a case for western countries trying to change countries through diplomacy and influence through closer ties.

But I dunno if I’d make that case for Putin’s Russia. They just seem belligerent - even ignoring any claims of election interference anywhere in the world - the annexation of Crimea & using our country as a killing ground for ex-spies (and killing/harming innocent people in the process)… I understand why we’ve got frostier ties with Russia than we did say 10 years ago.

[Guest]

Apparently trump wants to launch his own social media platform. Not sure if this is old news but what's it gonna be called? Corrupt,racist,climate change denying, riot insighting twat.com

[Waylander]

This report comes from a Biden meeting in Scranton

Joe Biden Frustrated in Scranton: ‘This Is the United States of America Dammit!’

 

---

 President Joe Biden appeared frustrated Wednesday that his agenda was stalled in Congress, raising his voice during a speech in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

“What are we doing?” Biden asked after telling a story about parents driving their cars to McDonalds to get internet access during the coronavirus pandemic to do online schooling.

“This is the United States of America, dammit!” Biden shouted. “What are we doing?”

Biden spoke about a number of his priorities, admitting that it was a struggle to get his agenda passed through Congress, where Democrats control both houses.

During his speech, Biden acknowledged the pessimistic tone of his media coverage from the national media about his multitrillion-dollar agenda.

“They have understandably believed there is no possibility of my getting this done. This has been declared dead on arrival the moment I introduced it,” he said.

But Biden appeared confident he could get some bill passed, despite several weeks of stalled negotiations.

The president mocked former President Donald Trump for failing to pass infrastructure spending.

“Last four years you’d hear every month is, you know, infrastructure month,” Biden says. “Didn’t do a single damn thing. Nothing. I mean, nothing for four years.”

Biden faces ongoing frustration as he struggles to break the logjam in Congress, putting the future of his radical agenda in question. The president has already cut his $3.5 trillion funding proposals to $1.9 trillion in an effort to convince Senate moderates to support it.

Biden appeared nostalgic for the old days of bipartisanship in the Senate, recalling when he was friends with Republicans.

“I got on pretty well in the Senate for all those years. A lot of Republicans friends as well as Democratic friends. For real. … We used to travel a lot,” Biden recalled.

Biden also appeared nostalgic for the old days, appearing at an electric trolley museum to promote the future of America’s infrastructure.

“I remember riding the trolly,” he said, recalling his childhood before his family moved to Delaware. “I lived at the end of the line.”

Biden also boasted of his history riding Amtrak, promising massive investments into the rail system to get more cars off of the road and more passengers on trains.

“We will take, literally, millions of automobiles off the road,” he said.

He acknowledged that Scranton, Pennsylvania was “built on coal” but that it was time to shift to green energy like solar and wind.

“Coal built this town, but we gotta provide other avenues to make the same kind of living…” he said.

Biden repeatedly insisted that his multitrillion-dollar bills would not add to the federal deficit or add to the national debt.

“It does. not. increase. The debt.,” he emphasized slowly, despite widespread skepticism that both bills will be able to pay for his radical tax and spend agenda.

He admitted that he avoided even talking about the spending numbers.

“When you talk about the number, we shouldn’t even talk about the numbers because it’s all paid for,” he said.

https://www.cracknewz.com/2021/10/joe-biden-frustrated-in-scranton-this.html

 

[Waylander]

12 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Apparently trump wants to launch his own social media platform. Not sure if this is old news but what's it gonna be called? Corrupt,racist,climate change denying, riot insighting twat.com

I imagine a version of, Make America Great Again.

I think the US is becoming much like the late Republics of Rome before the Ceasars took over. 

[Coma+]

 

[Coma+]

On 15/10/2021 at 16:07, Eco said:

Texas is having themselves one hell of a year. 

First, it was their abortion law, which made it illegal for women to have an abortion after cardiac activity was detected, which is around six weeks and OFTEN occurs before a woman knows she is in fact, pregnant. And to keep this in fact, they have 'deputized' citizens to self clinics or women going about an abortion and then legal action will be taken. 

Now, they are requiring schools to provide books to their kids on each side of the argument on what they deem is a 'controversial' topic. This seems like a good idea personally, as I enjoy looking at both sides myself, however, in a record from a school's meeting, a 'controversial topic is....the holocaust. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/teachers-told-offer-books-opposing-180003000.html

 

Sometimes I'm reminded of this feeling I've had since I was a kid, which is I don't belong here. Texas, the state that loves Trump, guns, walls, and pretending they are bigger than the country as a whole. 

I've had this feeling about being the US in general. 

[Azeem]

Well technically past judgements are a legit legal defence

[Azeem]