Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

#46 President Joe Biden

1212224262741

Comments

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,814
    Yes, but the promises made in Georgia are real, and Biden has been pretty locked in that he will honor those promises, like the two freshman senators.  
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 17,428
    edited March 4
    tbergs said:
    This is pretty much how I feel about the current stimulus checks as well. I will just be adding our check to savings and redistributing some to college funds for our kids. Eventually some will bleed in to the economy, but not much.

    Opinion by Editorial Board
    March 3, 2021 at 4:02 p.m. CST
    Add to list

    AS PRESIDENT BIDEN and the Democratic-majority Senate move toward final passage of a covid relief package, a key question has been how far they would be willing to go to make sure that cash payments go only to the neediest people. The answer began to emerge Wednesday, and unfortunately, it appears to be “not very far.” The White House and Senate Democrats have converged on a plan that would trim a House-approved plan somewhat but still enable stimulus payments to reach millions of upper-middle-class individuals and households. In addition to being unjustifiable as a response to the covid crisis, showering public money on those who don’t need it would further commit the governing party to a mistaken concept of progressive policy.

    The revised plan would provide $1,400 to individuals earning up to $75,000 per year and at least some money to those making up to $80,000. For couples, the corresponding figures are $150,000 and $160,000. This is indeed an improvement, in terms of careful “targeting,” over the House’s plan, which phased out payments to individuals earning between $75,000 and $100,000, and couples making between $150,000 and $200,000 per year. Yet this still means that government cash will flow to all but roughly the top quarter of the U.S. income scale — despite January’s 10 percent rise in personal income, already boosted by a $600 direct payment in December, and despite data showing that individuals or households making more than $78,000 tend to save direct payments rather than spend them.

    Economists at the nonprofit Opportunity Insights estimated that restricting payments to couples earning less than $78,000, and singles earning less than $50,000, would have saved $200 billion of the House measure’s $422 billion cost without harming economic recovery. The reported deal between Mr. Biden and the Senate would probably save a mere $10 billion to $15 billion, according to a preliminary estimate provided to us by economist Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

    We understand that Mr. Biden and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) are trying to placate not only centrist senators who wanted to tighten eligibility for the payments, but also the party’s left wing, which — in strange agreement with former president Donald Trump — favored $2,000 direct payments, with little or no means-testing. Democrats arguably have their narrow majority because their candidates for two decisive Georgia Senate seats ran on the promise of $2,000 “checks.”

    In addition to thinking sincerely that the scope of the covid crisis warrants keeping that promise, progressives often assume that the way to build a constituency for longer-term income-support for the poor is to distribute some to the middle class as well. In our view, economic policy should be based on economic requirements, not political ones. Even in a cheap-interest world, government resources are not limitless and tradeoffs are still real. Funds Congress spends padding the bank accounts of people who aren’t poor, or even close to poor, are funds that won’t be available for other purposes, whether it’s programs to promote equity — or defense, scientific research and infrastructure. Real progressives accept that reality and set policy priorities accordingly.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-targeted-stimulus-payments-will-still-shower-money-on-those-who-dont-need-it/2021/03/03/3c43582c-7c4c-11eb-b3d1-9e5aa3d5220c_story.html
    Regarding that bolded line, I've donated the bulk of my stimulus checks to food banks and other organizations I support that the federal government generally does not, including programs to promote equity, which has rarely been prioritized as federal policy beyond tokenism (incredibly disingenuous of WaPo's editorial board to include it among the usual items, and first at that).

    Anyway, I don't think that I'm the only one doing this.

    Edit: I agree with the overall argument, but the rhetoric they use to make their case is manipulative and bogus.
    Post edited by dankind on
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 18,594
    biden called pelosi "Nance".



    oh the humanity....
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 33,841
    biden called pelosi "Nance".



    oh the humanity....

    That what my wife calls her business partner- "Nance".  I think I'll suggest she run for president in 2024! 
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 4,467
    dankind said:
    tbergs said:
    This is pretty much how I feel about the current stimulus checks as well. I will just be adding our check to savings and redistributing some to college funds for our kids. Eventually some will bleed in to the economy, but not much.

    Opinion by Editorial Board
    March 3, 2021 at 4:02 p.m. CST
    Add to list

    AS PRESIDENT BIDEN and the Democratic-majority Senate move toward final passage of a covid relief package, a key question has been how far they would be willing to go to make sure that cash payments go only to the neediest people. The answer began to emerge Wednesday, and unfortunately, it appears to be “not very far.” The White House and Senate Democrats have converged on a plan that would trim a House-approved plan somewhat but still enable stimulus payments to reach millions of upper-middle-class individuals and households. In addition to being unjustifiable as a response to the covid crisis, showering public money on those who don’t need it would further commit the governing party to a mistaken concept of progressive policy.

    The revised plan would provide $1,400 to individuals earning up to $75,000 per year and at least some money to those making up to $80,000. For couples, the corresponding figures are $150,000 and $160,000. This is indeed an improvement, in terms of careful “targeting,” over the House’s plan, which phased out payments to individuals earning between $75,000 and $100,000, and couples making between $150,000 and $200,000 per year. Yet this still means that government cash will flow to all but roughly the top quarter of the U.S. income scale — despite January’s 10 percent rise in personal income, already boosted by a $600 direct payment in December, and despite data showing that individuals or households making more than $78,000 tend to save direct payments rather than spend them.

    Economists at the nonprofit Opportunity Insights estimated that restricting payments to couples earning less than $78,000, and singles earning less than $50,000, would have saved $200 billion of the House measure’s $422 billion cost without harming economic recovery. The reported deal between Mr. Biden and the Senate would probably save a mere $10 billion to $15 billion, according to a preliminary estimate provided to us by economist Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

    We understand that Mr. Biden and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) are trying to placate not only centrist senators who wanted to tighten eligibility for the payments, but also the party’s left wing, which — in strange agreement with former president Donald Trump — favored $2,000 direct payments, with little or no means-testing. Democrats arguably have their narrow majority because their candidates for two decisive Georgia Senate seats ran on the promise of $2,000 “checks.”

    In addition to thinking sincerely that the scope of the covid crisis warrants keeping that promise, progressives often assume that the way to build a constituency for longer-term income-support for the poor is to distribute some to the middle class as well. In our view, economic policy should be based on economic requirements, not political ones. Even in a cheap-interest world, government resources are not limitless and tradeoffs are still real. Funds Congress spends padding the bank accounts of people who aren’t poor, or even close to poor, are funds that won’t be available for other purposes, whether it’s programs to promote equity — or defense, scientific research and infrastructure. Real progressives accept that reality and set policy priorities accordingly.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-targeted-stimulus-payments-will-still-shower-money-on-those-who-dont-need-it/2021/03/03/3c43582c-7c4c-11eb-b3d1-9e5aa3d5220c_story.html
    Regarding that bolded line, I've donated the bulk of my stimulus checks to food banks and other organizations I support that the federal government generally does not, including programs to promote equity, which has rarely been prioritized as federal policy beyond tokenism (incredibly disingenuous of WaPo's editorial board to include it among the usual items, and first at that).

    Anyway, I don't think that I'm the only one doing this.

    Edit: I agree with the overall argument, but the rhetoric they use to make their case is manipulative and bogus.

    You're not the only one doing it. There are a lot of people hurting out there and a food bank is a fantastic place to start. The funds we send to the food banks go right into the economy too.
    Falling down,...not staying down
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 20,608
    fucking war monger. right @static111

    Biden signals support to replace war power authority
    By AAMER MADHANI
    Today

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday signaled support to replace decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, a little more than a week after he relied on the authorizations to carry out a retaliatory airstrike against Iranian-backed militia in eastern Syria.

    The Biden administration announced its position after a bipartisan bill was introduced earlier this week that would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the wars in Iraq that presidents from both parties have relied on for legal justification to carry out strikes in the region.

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden was committed to working with Congress to “ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.”

    Biden spurred bipartisan backlash last week after he ordered the strikes against facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes were in response to a rocket attack earlier in February targeting U.S. troops and civilian personnel in northern Iraq without first seeking congressional approval. The U.S. has blamed the militia for numerous attacks targeting U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq in the past.

    Sen. Tim Kaine, a lead sponsor of the bill, said the reliance on the decades old authorizations for use of military force “serve no operational purpose, keep us on permanent war footing, and undermine the sovereignty of Iraq.”

    “Last week’s airstrikes in Syria show that the Executive Branch, regardless of party, will continue to stretch its war powers,” said Kaine, a Virginia Democrat.

    Administration officials defended the airstrikes as legal and appropriate, saying they took out facilities that housed valuable “capabilities” used by Iranian-backed militia groups to attack American and allied forces in Iraq.

    But several leading members of Congress, including members in Biden’s own party, denounced the strikes — the first military action he has authorized. Kaine and others argued offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances.

    The White House signaled support to replace the authorizations even as it warned the U.S. may consider military action following a rocket attack earlier this week that hit an air base in western Iraq where American and coalition troops are housed. A U.S. contractor died after at least 10 rockets slammed into the base early Wednesday.

    “If we assess further response is warranted, we will take action again in a manner and time of our choosing,” Psaki said.


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,413
    mickeyrat said:
    fucking war monger. right @static111

    Biden signals support to replace war power authority
    By AAMER MADHANI
    Today

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday signaled support to replace decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, a little more than a week after he relied on the authorizations to carry out a retaliatory airstrike against Iranian-backed militia in eastern Syria.

    The Biden administration announced its position after a bipartisan bill was introduced earlier this week that would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the wars in Iraq that presidents from both parties have relied on for legal justification to carry out strikes in the region.

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden was committed to working with Congress to “ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.”

    Biden spurred bipartisan backlash last week after he ordered the strikes against facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes were in response to a rocket attack earlier in February targeting U.S. troops and civilian personnel in northern Iraq without first seeking congressional approval. The U.S. has blamed the militia for numerous attacks targeting U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq in the past.

    Sen. Tim Kaine, a lead sponsor of the bill, said the reliance on the decades old authorizations for use of military force “serve no operational purpose, keep us on permanent war footing, and undermine the sovereignty of Iraq.”

    “Last week’s airstrikes in Syria show that the Executive Branch, regardless of party, will continue to stretch its war powers,” said Kaine, a Virginia Democrat.

    Administration officials defended the airstrikes as legal and appropriate, saying they took out facilities that housed valuable “capabilities” used by Iranian-backed militia groups to attack American and allied forces in Iraq.

    But several leading members of Congress, including members in Biden’s own party, denounced the strikes — the first military action he has authorized. Kaine and others argued offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances.

    The White House signaled support to replace the authorizations even as it warned the U.S. may consider military action following a rocket attack earlier this week that hit an air base in western Iraq where American and coalition troops are housed. A U.S. contractor died after at least 10 rockets slammed into the base early Wednesday.

    “If we assess further response is warranted, we will take action again in a manner and time of our choosing,” Psaki said.


    I will believe it when it happens and he makes a concerted effort to whip the votes.  Until then it is just a good PR move and good propaganda.  If he actually gets the traction to make this happen and perhaps doesn’t use these existing authorizations as justification for more bombs well then this is great. Until action happens it’s just more words..
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 39,499

    The Rise of the Biden Republicans

    The pollster who identified “Reagan Democrats” in the 1980s sees the emergence of a mirror image voting bloc. And it spells trouble for a GOP dominated by Trump.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/04/reagan-democrats-biden-republicans-politics-stan-greenberg-473330

    chinese-happy.jpg
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,814
    static111 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    fucking war monger. right @static111

    Biden signals support to replace war power authority
    By AAMER MADHANI
    Today

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday signaled support to replace decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, a little more than a week after he relied on the authorizations to carry out a retaliatory airstrike against Iranian-backed militia in eastern Syria.

    The Biden administration announced its position after a bipartisan bill was introduced earlier this week that would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the wars in Iraq that presidents from both parties have relied on for legal justification to carry out strikes in the region.

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden was committed to working with Congress to “ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.”

    Biden spurred bipartisan backlash last week after he ordered the strikes against facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes were in response to a rocket attack earlier in February targeting U.S. troops and civilian personnel in northern Iraq without first seeking congressional approval. The U.S. has blamed the militia for numerous attacks targeting U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq in the past.

    Sen. Tim Kaine, a lead sponsor of the bill, said the reliance on the decades old authorizations for use of military force “serve no operational purpose, keep us on permanent war footing, and undermine the sovereignty of Iraq.”

    “Last week’s airstrikes in Syria show that the Executive Branch, regardless of party, will continue to stretch its war powers,” said Kaine, a Virginia Democrat.

    Administration officials defended the airstrikes as legal and appropriate, saying they took out facilities that housed valuable “capabilities” used by Iranian-backed militia groups to attack American and allied forces in Iraq.

    But several leading members of Congress, including members in Biden’s own party, denounced the strikes — the first military action he has authorized. Kaine and others argued offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances.

    The White House signaled support to replace the authorizations even as it warned the U.S. may consider military action following a rocket attack earlier this week that hit an air base in western Iraq where American and coalition troops are housed. A U.S. contractor died after at least 10 rockets slammed into the base early Wednesday.

    “If we assess further response is warranted, we will take action again in a manner and time of our choosing,” Psaki said.


    I will believe it when it happens and he makes a concerted effort to whip the votes.  Until then it is just a good PR move and good propaganda.  If he actually gets the traction to make this happen and perhaps doesn’t use these existing authorizations as justification for more bombs well then this is great. Until action happens it’s just more words..
    That's probably right.  I would be surprised at any president trying to limit their power so early in their term.  If he does it,  I will be super impressed. 
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,413
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    fucking war monger. right @static111

    Biden signals support to replace war power authority
    By AAMER MADHANI
    Today

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday signaled support to replace decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, a little more than a week after he relied on the authorizations to carry out a retaliatory airstrike against Iranian-backed militia in eastern Syria.

    The Biden administration announced its position after a bipartisan bill was introduced earlier this week that would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the wars in Iraq that presidents from both parties have relied on for legal justification to carry out strikes in the region.

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden was committed to working with Congress to “ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.”

    Biden spurred bipartisan backlash last week after he ordered the strikes against facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes were in response to a rocket attack earlier in February targeting U.S. troops and civilian personnel in northern Iraq without first seeking congressional approval. The U.S. has blamed the militia for numerous attacks targeting U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq in the past.

    Sen. Tim Kaine, a lead sponsor of the bill, said the reliance on the decades old authorizations for use of military force “serve no operational purpose, keep us on permanent war footing, and undermine the sovereignty of Iraq.”

    “Last week’s airstrikes in Syria show that the Executive Branch, regardless of party, will continue to stretch its war powers,” said Kaine, a Virginia Democrat.

    Administration officials defended the airstrikes as legal and appropriate, saying they took out facilities that housed valuable “capabilities” used by Iranian-backed militia groups to attack American and allied forces in Iraq.

    But several leading members of Congress, including members in Biden’s own party, denounced the strikes — the first military action he has authorized. Kaine and others argued offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances.

    The White House signaled support to replace the authorizations even as it warned the U.S. may consider military action following a rocket attack earlier this week that hit an air base in western Iraq where American and coalition troops are housed. A U.S. contractor died after at least 10 rockets slammed into the base early Wednesday.

    “If we assess further response is warranted, we will take action again in a manner and time of our choosing,” Psaki said.


    I will believe it when it happens and he makes a concerted effort to whip the votes.  Until then it is just a good PR move and good propaganda.  If he actually gets the traction to make this happen and perhaps doesn’t use these existing authorizations as justification for more bombs well then this is great. Until action happens it’s just more words..
    That's probably right.  I would be surprised at any president trying to limit their power so early in their term.  If he does it,  I will be super impressed. 
    I will make a statement on the board and tell you all that I was wrong and Biden was much more progressive than I gave him credit for.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,814
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    fucking war monger. right @static111

    Biden signals support to replace war power authority
    By AAMER MADHANI
    Today

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday signaled support to replace decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, a little more than a week after he relied on the authorizations to carry out a retaliatory airstrike against Iranian-backed militia in eastern Syria.

    The Biden administration announced its position after a bipartisan bill was introduced earlier this week that would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the wars in Iraq that presidents from both parties have relied on for legal justification to carry out strikes in the region.

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden was committed to working with Congress to “ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.”

    Biden spurred bipartisan backlash last week after he ordered the strikes against facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes were in response to a rocket attack earlier in February targeting U.S. troops and civilian personnel in northern Iraq without first seeking congressional approval. The U.S. has blamed the militia for numerous attacks targeting U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq in the past.

    Sen. Tim Kaine, a lead sponsor of the bill, said the reliance on the decades old authorizations for use of military force “serve no operational purpose, keep us on permanent war footing, and undermine the sovereignty of Iraq.”

    “Last week’s airstrikes in Syria show that the Executive Branch, regardless of party, will continue to stretch its war powers,” said Kaine, a Virginia Democrat.

    Administration officials defended the airstrikes as legal and appropriate, saying they took out facilities that housed valuable “capabilities” used by Iranian-backed militia groups to attack American and allied forces in Iraq.

    But several leading members of Congress, including members in Biden’s own party, denounced the strikes — the first military action he has authorized. Kaine and others argued offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances.

    The White House signaled support to replace the authorizations even as it warned the U.S. may consider military action following a rocket attack earlier this week that hit an air base in western Iraq where American and coalition troops are housed. A U.S. contractor died after at least 10 rockets slammed into the base early Wednesday.

    “If we assess further response is warranted, we will take action again in a manner and time of our choosing,” Psaki said.


    I will believe it when it happens and he makes a concerted effort to whip the votes.  Until then it is just a good PR move and good propaganda.  If he actually gets the traction to make this happen and perhaps doesn’t use these existing authorizations as justification for more bombs well then this is great. Until action happens it’s just more words..
    That's probably right.  I would be surprised at any president trying to limit their power so early in their term.  If he does it,  I will be super impressed. 
    I will make a statement on the board and tell you all that I was wrong and Biden was much more progressive than I gave him credit for.
    I don't know that it makes him progressive.  That is giving powers back from the executive branch to Congress.  That is Constitutional and in opposition to the long accumulation of executive power since for the last 20+ years.
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,413
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    fucking war monger. right @static111

    Biden signals support to replace war power authority
    By AAMER MADHANI
    Today

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday signaled support to replace decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, a little more than a week after he relied on the authorizations to carry out a retaliatory airstrike against Iranian-backed militia in eastern Syria.

    The Biden administration announced its position after a bipartisan bill was introduced earlier this week that would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the wars in Iraq that presidents from both parties have relied on for legal justification to carry out strikes in the region.

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden was committed to working with Congress to “ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.”

    Biden spurred bipartisan backlash last week after he ordered the strikes against facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes were in response to a rocket attack earlier in February targeting U.S. troops and civilian personnel in northern Iraq without first seeking congressional approval. The U.S. has blamed the militia for numerous attacks targeting U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq in the past.

    Sen. Tim Kaine, a lead sponsor of the bill, said the reliance on the decades old authorizations for use of military force “serve no operational purpose, keep us on permanent war footing, and undermine the sovereignty of Iraq.”

    “Last week’s airstrikes in Syria show that the Executive Branch, regardless of party, will continue to stretch its war powers,” said Kaine, a Virginia Democrat.

    Administration officials defended the airstrikes as legal and appropriate, saying they took out facilities that housed valuable “capabilities” used by Iranian-backed militia groups to attack American and allied forces in Iraq.

    But several leading members of Congress, including members in Biden’s own party, denounced the strikes — the first military action he has authorized. Kaine and others argued offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances.

    The White House signaled support to replace the authorizations even as it warned the U.S. may consider military action following a rocket attack earlier this week that hit an air base in western Iraq where American and coalition troops are housed. A U.S. contractor died after at least 10 rockets slammed into the base early Wednesday.

    “If we assess further response is warranted, we will take action again in a manner and time of our choosing,” Psaki said.


    I will believe it when it happens and he makes a concerted effort to whip the votes.  Until then it is just a good PR move and good propaganda.  If he actually gets the traction to make this happen and perhaps doesn’t use these existing authorizations as justification for more bombs well then this is great. Until action happens it’s just more words..
    That's probably right.  I would be surprised at any president trying to limit their power so early in their term.  If he does it,  I will be super impressed. 
    I will make a statement on the board and tell you all that I was wrong and Biden was much more progressive than I gave him credit for.
    I don't know that it makes him progressive.  That is giving powers back from the executive branch to Congress.  That is Constitutional and in opposition to the long accumulation of executive power since for the last 20+ years.
    Giving war powers back and thus hamstringing himself and all future presidents would definitely be a progressive move in today’s Overton window
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,814
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    fucking war monger. right @static111

    Biden signals support to replace war power authority
    By AAMER MADHANI
    Today

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday signaled support to replace decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, a little more than a week after he relied on the authorizations to carry out a retaliatory airstrike against Iranian-backed militia in eastern Syria.

    The Biden administration announced its position after a bipartisan bill was introduced earlier this week that would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the wars in Iraq that presidents from both parties have relied on for legal justification to carry out strikes in the region.

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden was committed to working with Congress to “ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.”

    Biden spurred bipartisan backlash last week after he ordered the strikes against facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes were in response to a rocket attack earlier in February targeting U.S. troops and civilian personnel in northern Iraq without first seeking congressional approval. The U.S. has blamed the militia for numerous attacks targeting U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq in the past.

    Sen. Tim Kaine, a lead sponsor of the bill, said the reliance on the decades old authorizations for use of military force “serve no operational purpose, keep us on permanent war footing, and undermine the sovereignty of Iraq.”

    “Last week’s airstrikes in Syria show that the Executive Branch, regardless of party, will continue to stretch its war powers,” said Kaine, a Virginia Democrat.

    Administration officials defended the airstrikes as legal and appropriate, saying they took out facilities that housed valuable “capabilities” used by Iranian-backed militia groups to attack American and allied forces in Iraq.

    But several leading members of Congress, including members in Biden’s own party, denounced the strikes — the first military action he has authorized. Kaine and others argued offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances.

    The White House signaled support to replace the authorizations even as it warned the U.S. may consider military action following a rocket attack earlier this week that hit an air base in western Iraq where American and coalition troops are housed. A U.S. contractor died after at least 10 rockets slammed into the base early Wednesday.

    “If we assess further response is warranted, we will take action again in a manner and time of our choosing,” Psaki said.


    I will believe it when it happens and he makes a concerted effort to whip the votes.  Until then it is just a good PR move and good propaganda.  If he actually gets the traction to make this happen and perhaps doesn’t use these existing authorizations as justification for more bombs well then this is great. Until action happens it’s just more words..
    That's probably right.  I would be surprised at any president trying to limit their power so early in their term.  If he does it,  I will be super impressed. 
    I will make a statement on the board and tell you all that I was wrong and Biden was much more progressive than I gave him credit for.
    I don't know that it makes him progressive.  That is giving powers back from the executive branch to Congress.  That is Constitutional and in opposition to the long accumulation of executive power since for the last 20+ years.
    Giving war powers back and thus hamstringing himself and all future presidents would definitely be a progressive move in today’s Overton window
    Fair enough.  It would certainly re-balance power.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,814
    Nice that stimulus deal is finally cut.  Let's get this passed. 
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 5,731
    This stimulus bill is straight up trash.  

    We freaked out when banks were bailed out and that was like 500B.  This is 1.9 trillion and only 9% or 171M is even going to the people.  We’re getting scammed, the dollar is getting devalued, and the money printer keeps going brrrrrrrrr. 

     “Need more? Just print it!”  - the US gov’t
    I'm like an opening band for your mom.
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 39,499
    This stimulus bill is straight up trash.  
    We freaked out when banks were bailed out and that was like 500B.  This is 1.9 trillion and only 9% or 171M is even going to the people.  We’re getting scammed, the dollar is getting devalued, and the money printer keeps going brrrrrrrrr. 

     “Need more? Just print it!”  - the US gov’t
    HA!

    How many times did this guy complain about the record deficits the Trump administration racked up year after year after year? I'm betting zero. Now, all of sudden, he wants to pretend to be a conservative again? Nope. Not allowed. 








    chinese-happy.jpg
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 20,608
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,814
    This stimulus bill is straight up trash.  

    We freaked out when banks were bailed out and that was like 500B.  This is 1.9 trillion and only 9% or 171M is even going to the people.  We’re getting scammed, the dollar is getting devalued, and the money printer keeps going brrrrrrrrr. 

     “Need more? Just print it!”  - the US gov’t
    Trying to find your complaining about the fed printing billions in quantitative easing throughout 19 and 20. Were you good with that balance sheet printing,  or just rediscovering deficits now?
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,814
    This stimulus bill is straight up trash.  

    We freaked out when banks were bailed out and that was like 500B.  This is 1.9 trillion and only 9% or 171M is even going to the people.  We’re getting scammed, the dollar is getting devalued, and the money printer keeps going brrrrrrrrr. 

     “Need more? Just print it!”  - the US gov’t
    By the way.. how do you define "going to the people"?  Does the unemployment insurance not "go to the people"?  What about child tax credits, does that not go to the people?  What about the billions that are going to rural and underserved health providers to distribute the vaccines.  This is a Covid relief bill and we have to get the vaccine distributed.  Does that feel like pork to you?

    For your benefit, see below.

    Major buckets

    • Unemployment benefits:
      • The package extends the existing $300 weekly unemployment benefit through Sept. 6, as well as provide a tax break on $10,000 in unemployment benefits.
      • On Friday night, Senate Democratic leaders reached an agreement over unemployment benefits with moderate Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). The nine-hour standoff had threatened to derail Senate action on the bill.
      • The House legislation would have increased the weekly benefit from $300 to $400 per week through Aug. 29.
      • The $900 billion stimulus package passed in December provided the unemployed an extra $300 per week in benefits. That program expires in mid-March.
    • Stimulus checks:
      • The Senate bill would send $1,400 stimulus checks on top of the $600 payments issued through the stimulus bill passed in December. Roughly $400 billion of the package would go toward another round of checks.
      • Earlier this week, Biden agreed to narrow eligibility for a new round of $1,400 payments to appease more moderate Democrats. Under the new structure, the checks would phase out faster for those at higher income levels compared with the formula in Biden’s initial proposal and the House bill.
      • In the Senate version, individuals earning $75,000 per year and couples earning $150,000 would still receive the full $1,400-per-person benefit. However, the benefit would disappear for individuals earning more than $80,000 annually and couples earning more than $160,000.
      • For example, that means singles making between $80,000 and $100,000 and couples earning between $160,000 and $200,000 would be newly excluded from seeing any benefit under the revised structure.
    • Minimum wage:
      • An amendment offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to increase the minimum wage to $15 did not win over enough Democratic support.
      • In a statement Friday, Sanders said: “If any Senator believes this is the last time they will cast a vote on whether or not to give a raise to 32 million Americans, they are sorely mistaken. We’re going to keep bringing it up, and we’re going to get it done because it is what the American people demand and need.”
      • Last month, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the minimum wage hike was not permissible within the rules of budget reconciliation, the procedure Democrats are using to pass the relief bill with a simple majority instead of the 60 votes normally required.
      • The House bill included the minimum raise increase from $7.25 to $15.
    • Child tax credit:
      • Under the Senate plan, most Americans would receive $3,000 a year for each child ages 6 to 17, and $3,600 for each child under age 6.
      • The provision in the bill would last one year and be sent via direct deposit on a “periodic” basis. It is also a major expansion of the existing child tax credit, which currently provides $2,000 a year for children from birth through age 16.
      • More regular payments are intended to help offset costs families face day to day, instead of sending families one annual payment.
    • Aid to state and local governments:
      • The Senate package designates $350 billion for states, cities, tribal governments and U.S. territories.
      • Local government funding emerged as one of the top flash points in stimulus negotiations. Moderate Senate Democrats have pushed to redirect some of those funds to invest in infrastructure and to expand the broadband network. Others on the left have grown concerned that some states would use federal aid to cut local taxes instead of spending money on covid relief.
      • Facing deep budget shortfalls, state and local governments have shed 1.3 million jobs since the pandemic began last year — a loss of more than 1 in 20 government jobs, according to a Washington Post analysis of government data. While tax revenue grew in some states last year, the majority — at least 26 states — were hit with declines.
    • Pandemic response
      • Tens of billions of dollars will fund coronavirus testing and contact tracing; increasing the size of the public health workforce and funding vaccine distribution and supply chains.
      • This week, Biden said there will be enough coronavirus vaccine doses for “every adult in America” by the end of May — a two-month acceleration of his previous projection of July
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 39,499
    edited March 8
    @RoleModelsinBlood31
    So predictable. 4 years ago this guy claimed that his pizza place magically started doing better right after Trump was inaugurated. 
    Then he was silent as our national debt jumped 36% in four years. Record levels.
    Now, he is pissed that we are spending too much to help folks out of one of the worst economic disasters in the last hundred years.

    Fraud Conservatives. 

    https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans-to-reduce-national-debt-4114401

    President Trump's Impact on the National Debt

    The national debt has increased by almost 36% since Trump took office

    President Trump Holds First Campaign Rally Since Coronavirus Diagnosis
    •••
    REVIEWED BY  
    Updated February 05, 2021

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump promised he would eliminate the nation’s debt in eight years.1 Instead, his budget estimates showed that he would actually add at least $8.3 trillion, increasing the U.S. debt to $28.5 trillion by 2025.2 However, the national debt may reach that figure much sooner. When President Trump took office in January 2017, the national debt stood at $19.9 trillion. In October 2020, the national debt reached a new high of $27 trillion. 

    That's an increase of almost 36% in less than four years.3

    The total amount that President Trump contributes to the national debt will probably be higher once the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is realized.

    Key Takeaways

    • During his campaign in 2016, President Trump promised to eliminate the national debt in eight years.
    • Instead, it is projected that he will add at least $8.3 trillion.
    • As of October 2020, the national debt reached a new high of $27 trillion, an increase of almost 36% since President Trump took office in 2017.
    • The national debt and the amount President Trump contributes to it may be higher once the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is realized.

    How Has the National Debt Increased Since Trump Took Office?

    At first, it seemed Trump was lowering the debt. It fell $102 billion in the first six months after Trump took office. On January 20, the day Trump was inaugurated, the debt was $19.9 trillion. On July 30, it was $19.8 trillion. But it was not because of anything he did. Instead, it was because of the federal debt ceiling.

    On Sept. 8, 2017, Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling.4 Later that day, the debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in U.S. history. On Feb. 9, 2018, Trump signed a bill suspending the debt ceiling until March 1, 2019.5 By February 2019, the total national debt was at $22 trillion. In July 2019, Trump suspended the debt ceiling until after the 2020 presidential election.6 On Oct. 1, 2020, the debt hit a new record of $27 trillion.3

    Trump has overseen the fastest increase in the debt of any president—almost 36% from 2017 to 2020. Trump has not fulfilled his campaign promise to cut the debt. Instead, he's done the opposite.

    Will President Trump Reduce the National Debt?

    Trump promised two strategies to reduce U.S. debt before taking office:

    1. Increase growth by 4% to 6%
    2. Eliminate wasteful federal spending

    Increase Growth

    While on the campaign trail, Trump promised to grow the economy by 4% to 6% annually to increase tax revenues.78

    Once in office, Trump lowered his growth estimates to between 2% and 3%.9 These more realistic projections are within the 2% to 3% healthy growth rate.10 When growth is more than that, it creates inflation. Too much money chases too few good business projects. Irrational exuberance grips investors and they could create a boom-bust cycle that ends in a recession. 

    President Trump had also promised to achieve between 2% and 4% growth with tax cuts. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% beginning in 2018.11 The top individual income tax rate dropped to 37%. It doubled the standard deduction and eliminated personal exemptions. The corporate cuts are permanent, while the individual changes expire at the end of 2025.12

    Trump's tax cuts won't stimulate the economy enough to make up for lost tax revenue. According to the Laffer curve, tax cuts only do that when the rates were above 50%. It worked during the Reagan administration because the highest tax rate was 70%.13

    Eliminate Wasteful Federal Spending

    Trump’s second strategy was to eliminate waste and redundancy in federal spending.14 He demonstrated this cost-consciousness during his campaign, such as when he used his Twitter account and rallies instead of expensive television ads.

    Trump was right that there is waste in federal spending. The problem isn't finding it—both Presidents Bush and Obama did that. The problem is in cutting it.15 Each program has a constituency that lobbies Congress. Eliminating these benefits may lose voters and contributors. Congressional representatives may agree to cut spending in someone else’s district, but resist doing so in their own.

    Any president must cut into the biggest programs to make a real impact on the national debt.

    More than two-thirds of government spending goes to mandatory obligations made by previous Acts of Congress. For FY 2021, Social Security benefits cost $1.2 trillion, Medicare cost $722 billion, and Medicaid cost $448 billion. The interest on the debt is $378 billion.

    To lower the debt, military spending must also be cut because it's such a large portion of the budget. Instead, Trump increased military spending in FY 2021 to $933 billion. That includes three components:

    1. $636 billion base budget for the Department of Defense
    2. $69 billion in overseas contingency operations for DoD to fight the Islamic State group 
    3. $229 billion to fund the other agencies that protect our nation, including the Department of Veterans Affairs ($105 billion), Homeland Security ($50 billion), the State Department ($44 billion), the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy ($20 billion), and the FBI and Cybersecurity the Department of Justice ($10 billion)16

    What's left of the $4.8 trillion budgeted for FY 2021 after mandatory and military spending? Only $595 billion to pay for everything else. That includes agencies that process Social Security and other benefits. It also includes the necessary functions performed by the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service. You'd have to eliminate it all to make a dent in the $966 billion deficit.17

    You can't reduce the deficit or debt without major cuts to defense and mandated benefits programs. Cutting waste isn't enough.

    Does Trump’s Business Debt Affect His Approach to U.S. Debt?

    During the 2016 campaign, Trump said in an interview with CNBC that he would "borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”18 However, sovereign debt is different from personal debt. They can't be handled the same way.

    A 2016 Fortune magazine analysis revealed Trump's business was $1.11 billion in debt.19 That includes $846 million owed on five properties. These include Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, and 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York. It also includes the Trump Hotel in Washington D.C. and 555 California Street in San Francisco. But the income generated by these properties easily pays their annual interest payment. In the business world, Trump's debt is reasonable.

    The current U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 136%. That's the $26.5 trillion U.S. debt as of June 2020, divided by the $19.5 trillion nominal GDP at the end of the second quarter this year.203

    The World Bank compares countries based on their total debt-to-gross domestic product ratio. It considers a country to be in trouble if that ratio is greater than 77%.21

    So far, the high U.S. debt-to-ratio hasn't discouraged investors. America is one of the safest economies in the world and its currency is the world's reserve currency. Even during a U.S. economic crisis, investors purchase U.S. Treasurys in a flight to safety. That's one reason why interest rates plunged to historical lows in March 2020 after the coronavirus outbreak.22 Those falling interest rates meant America's debt could increase, but interest payments remain stable. 

    The U.S. also has a massive fixed pension expense and health insurance costs. A business can renege on these benefits, ask for bankruptcy, and weather the resulting lawsuits. A president and Congress can't cut back those costs without losing their jobs at the next election. As such, Trump's experience in handling business debt does not transfer to managing the U.S. debt. 

    How the National Debt Affects You

    The national debt doesn't affect you directly until it reaches the tipping point. Once the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 77% for an extended period of time, it slows economic growth. Every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 0.017 percentage points in economic growth, according to a World Bank analysis.21

    The first sign of trouble is when interest rates start to rise significantly. Investors need a higher return to offset the greater perceived risk. They start to doubt that the debt can be paid off.

    The second sign is that the U.S. dollar loses value. You will notice that as inflation rises, imported goods will cost more. Gas and grocery prices will rise. Travel to other countries will also become much more expensive. 

    As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work. 

    chinese-happy.jpg
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 27,354
    None of this matters. President Biden is going to be indicted any day now. Going to prison for spying on a campaign, Burisma and stealing an election via voter fraud and corrupt voting machines. You’ll see.

    I do wonder what pizza sales will be in the last six months of the year versus the first six months?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,331
    This stimulus bill is straight up trash.  

    We freaked out when banks were bailed out and that was like 500B.  This is 1.9 trillion and only 9% or 171M is even going to the people.  We’re getting scammed, the dollar is getting devalued, and the money printer keeps going brrrrrrrrr. 

     “Need more? Just print it!”  - the US gov’t
    Straight-up trash defines whatever social cesspool you found that 9% number on. 

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/02/fact-check-breaking-down-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/25/dissecting-house-gop-spin-against-bidens-19-trillion-covid-relief-bill/


    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,413
    I don’t know why anyone is even trying.  If the deficit increased under Trump it’s obviously someone else’s fault just like everything else. Probably Hunter Biden and China and the Globalist socialist Dems 
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,461
    Just trying to get the thought here since it's a more liberal bent (to put it mildly) - is anyone concerned with Joe Biden's mental acuity and clear decline?   Or is that just a fictional creation from the right?
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 18,594
    Just trying to get the thought here since it's a more liberal bent (to put it mildly) - is anyone concerned with Joe Biden's mental acuity and clear decline?   Or is that just a fictional creation from the right?
    fictional creation from the right. we are not replacing biden with trump again, so full stop there.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,331
    Just trying to get the thought here since it's a more liberal bent (to put it mildly) - is anyone concerned with Joe Biden's mental acuity and clear decline?   Or is that just a fictional creation from the right?
    "Clear decline"? In what way is there a decline, and in what way is that clear? 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,413
    edited March 9
    Just trying to get the thought here since it's a more liberal bent (to put it mildly) - is anyone concerned with Joe Biden's mental acuity and clear decline?   Or is that just a fictional creation from the right?
    Fiction of the right. But anyways at least he has mental acuity that could be in decline unlike the last guy that was clearly working with burnt toast from the get go.
    Post edited by static111 on
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 20,608
    huh. starting with the premise as true then asking if false. instead of just asking IF true to begin with. you know, with an open mind....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,814
    static111 said:
    Just trying to get the thought here since it's a more liberal bent (to put it mildly) - is anyone concerned with Joe Biden's mental acuity and clear decline?   Or is that just a fictional creation from the right?
    Fiction of the right. But anyways at least he has mental acuity that could be in decline unlike the last guy that was clearly working with burnt toast from the get fo.
    Ha!  Seriously, Trump has a brain that doesn't work correctly.  It's completely overtaken by conspiracy nonsense.  But it's really just a byproduct of his narcissism.  He can't possibly imagine that not everyone loves him or thinks like him.  Therefore when confronted with these facts, he reverts to conspiracy and nonsense so that it makes sense to him. 
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 5,367
    Just trying to get the thought here since it's a more liberal bent (to put it mildly) - is anyone concerned with Joe Biden's mental acuity and clear decline?   Or is that just a fictional creation from the right?

    lol 

Sign In or Register to comment.