#46 President Joe Biden

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

I think I heard on NPR that the keystone could still keep going because once lawyers take it to court in hopes of an inevitable stall of the EO the work can still go on. Of course I may have misheard.

wss already stalled in Nebraska courts.

So the keystone is still going and no jobs are going to be lost?

Why would we want to Keystone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/general-motors-plans-to-exclusively-offer-electric-vehicles-by-2035.html

I don’t want keystone. I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to claim that all these jobs are immediately lost to an EO if the EO is stalled in court and construction can continue.  However going electric by 2035 isn’t necessarily the answer without a huge green energy infrastructure and faster charging and more miles between charges.  Gonna drive across country and see the family, but I have to stop and charge for several hours every 200-300 miles... Additionally the manufacturing and harvesting of the natural resources for the  batteries that power them create another set of ethical and environmental problems as does the eventual and inevitable disposal.  Mass rapid transit on a national scale would be much more environmentally friendly, as would stopping factory and industrial farming practices.

The Juggler

BIDEN APPROVAL RATING TIME!

A hair below 55%. A whopping10% higher than his predecessor and right where just about every other president has been over the last 40 years (except Obama and Bush 41 who were around 60%)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

mrussel1

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

I think I heard on NPR that the keystone could still keep going because once lawyers take it to court in hopes of an inevitable stall of the EO the work can still go on. Of course I may have misheard.

wss already stalled in Nebraska courts.

So the keystone is still going and no jobs are going to be lost?

Why would we want to Keystone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/general-motors-plans-to-exclusively-offer-electric-vehicles-by-2035.html

I don’t want keystone. I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to claim that all these jobs are immediately lost to an EO if the EO is stalled in court and construction can continue.  However going electric by 2035 isn’t necessarily the answer without a huge green energy infrastructure and faster charging and more miles between charges.  Gonna drive across country and see the family, but I have to stop and charge for several hours every 200-300 miles... Additionally the manufacturing and harvesting of the natural resources for the  batteries that power them create another set of ethical and environmental problems as does the eventual and inevitable disposal.  Mass rapid transit on a national scale would be much more environmentally friendly, as would stopping factory and industrial farming practices.

No argument.  I was just pointing out that it's a dying natural resource, so why would we invest in a pipeline, more fracking, etc. 

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

I think I heard on NPR that the keystone could still keep going because once lawyers take it to court in hopes of an inevitable stall of the EO the work can still go on. Of course I may have misheard.

wss already stalled in Nebraska courts.

So the keystone is still going and no jobs are going to be lost?

Why would we want to Keystone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/general-motors-plans-to-exclusively-offer-electric-vehicles-by-2035.html

I don’t want keystone. I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to claim that all these jobs are immediately lost to an EO if the EO is stalled in court and construction can continue.  However going electric by 2035 isn’t necessarily the answer without a huge green energy infrastructure and faster charging and more miles between charges.  Gonna drive across country and see the family, but I have to stop and charge for several hours every 200-300 miles... Additionally the manufacturing and harvesting of the natural resources for the  batteries that power them create another set of ethical and environmental problems as does the eventual and inevitable disposal.  Mass rapid transit on a national scale would be much more environmentally friendly, as would stopping factory and industrial farming practices.

No argument.  I was just pointing out that it's a dying natural resource, so why would we invest in a pipeline, more fracking, etc. 

because jobs and freedom lol

mrussel1

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

I think I heard on NPR that the keystone could still keep going because once lawyers take it to court in hopes of an inevitable stall of the EO the work can still go on. Of course I may have misheard.

wss already stalled in Nebraska courts.

So the keystone is still going and no jobs are going to be lost?

Why would we want to Keystone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/general-motors-plans-to-exclusively-offer-electric-vehicles-by-2035.html

I don’t want keystone. I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to claim that all these jobs are immediately lost to an EO if the EO is stalled in court and construction can continue.  However going electric by 2035 isn’t necessarily the answer without a huge green energy infrastructure and faster charging and more miles between charges.  Gonna drive across country and see the family, but I have to stop and charge for several hours every 200-300 miles... Additionally the manufacturing and harvesting of the natural resources for the  batteries that power them create another set of ethical and environmental problems as does the eventual and inevitable disposal.  Mass rapid transit on a national scale would be much more environmentally friendly, as would stopping factory and industrial farming practices.

No argument.  I was just pointing out that it's a dying natural resource, so why would we invest in a pipeline, more fracking, etc. 

because jobs and freedom lol

Yes, exactly.  Going back to a point I made earlier, suddenly "conservatives" are all about the gov't creating jobs for no reason.  If the gov't needs to create jobs, let's create STEM jobs, nursing, in need fields.  Retrain people.  I'm 100% supportive of that.  I'm not supportive of a bunch of jobs in a field that is dying and we should let die ASAP. 

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

I think I heard on NPR that the keystone could still keep going because once lawyers take it to court in hopes of an inevitable stall of the EO the work can still go on. Of course I may have misheard.

wss already stalled in Nebraska courts.

So the keystone is still going and no jobs are going to be lost?

Why would we want to Keystone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/general-motors-plans-to-exclusively-offer-electric-vehicles-by-2035.html

I don’t want keystone. I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to claim that all these jobs are immediately lost to an EO if the EO is stalled in court and construction can continue.  However going electric by 2035 isn’t necessarily the answer without a huge green energy infrastructure and faster charging and more miles between charges.  Gonna drive across country and see the family, but I have to stop and charge for several hours every 200-300 miles... Additionally the manufacturing and harvesting of the natural resources for the  batteries that power them create another set of ethical and environmental problems as does the eventual and inevitable disposal.  Mass rapid transit on a national scale would be much more environmentally friendly, as would stopping factory and industrial farming practices.

No argument.  I was just pointing out that it's a dying natural resource, so why would we invest in a pipeline, more fracking, etc. 

because jobs and freedom lol

Yes, exactly.  Going back to a point I made earlier, suddenly "conservatives" are all about the gov't creating jobs for no reason.  If the gov't needs to create jobs, let's create STEM jobs, nursing, in need fields.  Retrain people.  I'm 100% supportive of that.  I'm not supportive of a bunch of jobs in a field that is dying and we should let die ASAP. 

I hear that. One of my biggest problems with retraining is making sure that people are getting retrained for jobs that will exist and pay on a similar level as to what they are accustomed. Also retraining needs to be paid for, and you can’t expect people to just not have an income while they are being retrained.  Some of these skilled laborers can make 6 figures welders, roughnecks etc and I think you’d be hard pressed to convince them that retraining them to a 30 an hour job making clean cars for a better environment is a good sell.  That’s why people are trying to keep oil and gas alive.

mrussel1

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

I think I heard on NPR that the keystone could still keep going because once lawyers take it to court in hopes of an inevitable stall of the EO the work can still go on. Of course I may have misheard.

wss already stalled in Nebraska courts.

So the keystone is still going and no jobs are going to be lost?

Why would we want to Keystone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/general-motors-plans-to-exclusively-offer-electric-vehicles-by-2035.html

I don’t want keystone. I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to claim that all these jobs are immediately lost to an EO if the EO is stalled in court and construction can continue.  However going electric by 2035 isn’t necessarily the answer without a huge green energy infrastructure and faster charging and more miles between charges.  Gonna drive across country and see the family, but I have to stop and charge for several hours every 200-300 miles... Additionally the manufacturing and harvesting of the natural resources for the  batteries that power them create another set of ethical and environmental problems as does the eventual and inevitable disposal.  Mass rapid transit on a national scale would be much more environmentally friendly, as would stopping factory and industrial farming practices.

No argument.  I was just pointing out that it's a dying natural resource, so why would we invest in a pipeline, more fracking, etc. 

because jobs and freedom lol

Yes, exactly.  Going back to a point I made earlier, suddenly "conservatives" are all about the gov't creating jobs for no reason.  If the gov't needs to create jobs, let's create STEM jobs, nursing, in need fields.  Retrain people.  I'm 100% supportive of that.  I'm not supportive of a bunch of jobs in a field that is dying and we should let die ASAP. 

I hear that. One of my biggest problems with retraining is making sure that people are getting retrained for jobs that will exist and pay on a similar level as to what they are accustomed. Also retraining needs to be paid for, and you can’t expect people to just not have an income while they are being retrained.  Some of these skilled laborers can make 6 figures welders, roughnecks etc and I think you’d be hard pressed to convince them that retraining them to a 30 an hour job making clean cars for a better environment is a good sell.  That’s why people are trying to keep oil and gas alive.

Agreed on all.  I'm highly supportive of govt funded retaining.  Most people hate NAFTA. I don't.  The failure of the deal was not seeing the future and retraining 25 years ago. 

Hobbes

mickeyrat said:

One of my all-time favorite GIFs:

JeBurkhardt

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

I think I heard on NPR that the keystone could still keep going because once lawyers take it to court in hopes of an inevitable stall of the EO the work can still go on. Of course I may have misheard.

wss already stalled in Nebraska courts.

So the keystone is still going and no jobs are going to be lost?

Why would we want to Keystone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/general-motors-plans-to-exclusively-offer-electric-vehicles-by-2035.html

I don’t want keystone. I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to claim that all these jobs are immediately lost to an EO if the EO is stalled in court and construction can continue.  However going electric by 2035 isn’t necessarily the answer without a huge green energy infrastructure and faster charging and more miles between charges.  Gonna drive across country and see the family, but I have to stop and charge for several hours every 200-300 miles... Additionally the manufacturing and harvesting of the natural resources for the  batteries that power them create another set of ethical and environmental problems as does the eventual and inevitable disposal.  Mass rapid transit on a national scale would be much more environmentally friendly, as would stopping factory and industrial farming practices.

You also have the rural reality vs more urban reality. When I am in bigger cities, you see a lot more charging stations. I live in a rural area, and the closest city that has electric charging ports is about 15 miles from me. To the best of my knowledge they have 4 charging stations. Huge infrastructure investment needed indeed.

HughFreakingDillon

I was kind of looking forward to not hearing about the next press secretary. but here we are. Jen Psaki this, Jen Psaki that. I'm not sure why someone in such a high profile position would treat it as though she were speaking to a gossip column about a rival movie star. Lose the snark and get back to professionalism. stick to the facts and stop goading the right into social media fights and rants on fox news. 

there's just no point. 

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

I was kind of looking forward to not hearing about the next press secretary. but here we are. Jen Psaki this, Jen Psaki that. I'm not sure why someone in such a high profile position would treat it as though she were speaking to a gossip column about a rival movie star. Lose the snark and get back to professionalism. stick to the facts and stop goading the right into social media fights and rants on fox news. 

there's just no point. 

The only issue I have heard was the Space Force comment, which I didn't think was a big deal.  Teh reality is that when you name the members of the arm "Guardians", you're open to some snark. 

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I was kind of looking forward to not hearing about the next press secretary. but here we are. Jen Psaki this, Jen Psaki that. I'm not sure why someone in such a high profile position would treat it as though she were speaking to a gossip column about a rival movie star. Lose the snark and get back to professionalism. stick to the facts and stop goading the right into social media fights and rants on fox news. 

there's just no point. 

The only issue I have heard was the Space Force comment, which I didn't think was a big deal.  Teh reality is that when you name the members of the arm "Guardians", you're open to some snark. 

it all started with the "I'm going to circle back on a couple things, I know circling back is going to anger conservative twitter". that shit just isn't necessary. 

then she made a comment about how "we're all happy trump is off twitter", yet followed it up with a comment about "this may surprise many of you, but we don't talk much about trump". 

and i know the reality. my point is, her position is supposed to present dignity and professionalism; the voice of the president. stick to the facts and keep your bullshit off camera. 

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I was kind of looking forward to not hearing about the next press secretary. but here we are. Jen Psaki this, Jen Psaki that. I'm not sure why someone in such a high profile position would treat it as though she were speaking to a gossip column about a rival movie star. Lose the snark and get back to professionalism. stick to the facts and stop goading the right into social media fights and rants on fox news. 

there's just no point. 

The only issue I have heard was the Space Force comment, which I didn't think was a big deal.  Teh reality is that when you name the members of the arm "Guardians", you're open to some snark. 

it all started with the "I'm going to circle back on a couple things, I know circling back is going to anger conservative twitter". that shit just isn't necessary. 

then she made a comment about how "we're all happy trump is off twitter", yet followed it up with a comment about "this may surprise many of you, but we don't talk much about trump". 

and i know the reality. my point is, her position is supposed to present dignity and professionalism; the voice of the president. stick to the facts and keep your bullshit off camera. 

I don't know man.  Most of this doesn't bother me because 'conservative' media has lost all credibility and high ground.  They are persona non grata to me.  The first comment may be a bridge too far, but the second one was an answer to a question she was posed and I think it was perfectly appropriate.  I think it's self evident that Trump being off twitter is positive and it's been a gift to the Biden admin to start. 

Merkin Baller

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I was kind of looking forward to not hearing about the next press secretary. but here we are. Jen Psaki this, Jen Psaki that. I'm not sure why someone in such a high profile position would treat it as though she were speaking to a gossip column about a rival movie star. Lose the snark and get back to professionalism. stick to the facts and stop goading the right into social media fights and rants on fox news. 

there's just no point. 

The only issue I have heard was the Space Force comment, which I didn't think was a big deal.  Teh reality is that when you name the members of the arm "Guardians", you're open to some snark. 

it all started with the "I'm going to circle back on a couple things, I know circling back is going to anger conservative twitter". that shit just isn't necessary. 

then she made a comment about how "we're all happy trump is off twitter", yet followed it up with a comment about "this may surprise many of you, but we don't talk much about trump". 

and i know the reality. my point is, her position is supposed to present dignity and professionalism; the voice of the president. stick to the facts and keep your bullshit off camera. 

Let me know when she starts posing for pictures with known white supremacists. 

HughFreakingDillon

i think you guys are setting the bar a bit low on this. i'm not comparing her to the sludge that trump employed. i'm talking about just doing the job as it is meant to be. 

Gern Blansten

I like the "Psaki bombs"....love her

Her snark makes up about .005% of her mic time.  That's acceptable in my book.

tbergs

HughFreakingDillon said:

i think you guys are setting the bar a bit low on this. i'm not comparing her to the sludge that trump employed. i'm talking about just doing the job as it is meant to be. 

She's doing it mostly like previous press secretaries before the Trump admin. There was always some snark, dodging of questions and back and forth, but never a barrage of lies and attack against journalists like the last 4 years. Psaki is being normal for that role.

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

i think you guys are setting the bar a bit low on this. i'm not comparing her to the sludge that trump employed. i'm talking about just doing the job as it is meant to be. 

I heard that too.  I was listening a couple of times and thought, "Man this is nice to have normal press conferences again. I do wonder when the news will start to get a little tougher on her and Biden".  Then I heard the snark.  I laughed at one but mostly thought that it would be nicer if that all went away.

OnWis97

The media is also sensitive to how "unfair" they were to the Trump Administration (the most victimized victims to ever be victimized). There's some both-sidsing of her.  All the being the victim has some impact in their favor. So while Trump's mouthpieces were throwing out low-hanging fruit that needed to be called out, effort is being made to call her out because "fairness."

HughFreakingDillon

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

i think you guys are setting the bar a bit low on this. i'm not comparing her to the sludge that trump employed. i'm talking about just doing the job as it is meant to be. 

She's doing it mostly like previous press secretaries before the Trump admin. There was always some snark, dodging of questions and back and forth, but never a barrage of lies and attack against journalists like the last 4 years. Psaki is being normal for that role.

there was snark lobbed at the previous admin? I'll admit I'm ignorant on this one, since before sean spicer, I have never known the name or any "newsworthy circumstance" of any press sec. 

I get it that it can be considered somewhat loose with the press, especially with dodging of questions, I guess I just assumed the role would be a touch more dignified than that.