Biden Presidency

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,367
Reaction score
5,716
Should we house biological males who identify as women in men's or women's prisons?

No idea, I don't know how that's solved.

This is entirely different than the genesis of the conversation was that Drayer finds it too much work to use someone's preferred pronouns. The prison conversations distracts from the main point that some find it too much work to even think of using someone's preferred pronouns.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
No idea, I don't know how that's solved.

This is entirely different than the genesis of the conversation was that Drayer finds it too much work to use someone's preferred pronouns. The prison conversations distracts from the main point that some find it too much work to even think of using someone's preferred pronouns.

Again. Just simply ADDING to the conversation on a public forum that in some instances it can be hard to use a different pronoun. In some cases the "outrage" might be valid.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,367
Reaction score
5,716
Again. Just simply ADDING to the conversation on a public forum that in some instances it can be hard to use a different pronoun. In some cases the "outrage" might be valid.

Cool, so I'm glad that you agree 99.99% of the time it's not a big deal to use someone's preferred pronouns.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
Cool, so I'm glad that you agree 99.99% of the time it's not a big deal to use someone's preferred pronouns.

Those are your words. I was just simply giving a real life first person example. You can take that how you want, and apparently making your own stats and saying they are my stats is "how you want."
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,367
Reaction score
5,716
Those are your words. I was just simply giving a real life first person example. You can take that how you want, and apparently making your own stats and saying they are my stats is "how you want."

Ya 99.99% is likely a tad low, something like 99.9999% is likely closer to the truth.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
Ya 99.99% is likely a tad low, something like 99.9999% is likely closer to the truth.

Lets bump it to 99.9999999% just so you can feel better about it. I would hate to cause you any more distress by disagreeing with you.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,625
Reaction score
2,731
Late to this party but I'll just add - "they" is stupid AF unless your have a multiple personality disorder. If you dress like a dude, you don't get to be upset when someone calls your sir. If you dress like a chick, you don't get to be upset if someone calls you ma'am. Gendered bathrooms are kind of dumb IMO - stay in your stall and mind your own business. Some gay dude looking at me using a urinal is a lot more disturbing than some girl deucing in a stall next to me peeing. Public restrooms are gross anyway - take care of that stuff at home when at all possible.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,408
Reaction score
5,824

Janet Yellen is good at finance. She's probably forgotten more than I'll ever know on the topic. Maybe more than I could learn on Reddit.

My reference was to the following delightful comments and reflex to identity politics:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/27/jen-psaki-responds-to-stock-market-fears-inquiry-w/

White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question about volatile stock market trading and fears of a bubble by reminding reporters: “We have the first female Treasury secretary.”

The gender-inspired non-sequitur came after she was asked about a massive spike in trading for GameStop (GME, +121.31%), AMC Entertainment Holdings (AMC, +236.27%) and others.

“Is the White House concerned about the stock market activity we’re seeing around GameStop and now some other stocks as well?” a reporter asked. “Have there been any conversations with the SEC about how to proceed?”

“Well, I’m also happy to repeat that we have the first female Treasury secretary and a team that’s surrounding her and often questions about markets,” Ms. Psaki replied. “We’ll send [you] to them. But our team is, of course, our economic team, including Secretary [Janet] Yellen and others, are monitoring the situation.”
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,008
I really would like to see a President do the following.

1. Get elected.
2. Have a skeleton crew for a white house press staff or whatever they are called.
3. Make very few public appearances. Make fewer statements. And let the press burn themselves out.

I'm sure the press would be pissed off, and the networks would talk a lot of shit, but the story would be about them rather than the President and I think their viewership/readership would probably tune out eventually.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
I really would like to see a President do the following.

1. Get elected.
2. Have a skeleton crew for a white house press staff or whatever they are called.
3. Make very few public appearances. Make fewer statements. And let the press burn themselves out.

I'm sure the press would be pissed off, and the networks would talk a lot of shit, but the story would be about them rather than the President and I think their viewership/readership would probably tune out eventually.

Why stop at President? I find it annoying when I see Senators or any elected official being interviewed by any MSM outlet.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The bigger issue is that you are not good about using facts in general, yet you are so cocksure you are right that you come off as ridiculous. And that is at the heart of my reactions to most of your posts.

People can disagree with opinions all day every day. I'm not the smartest guy in every room (that's Buster/ Bilbo/ whatever his identity is today), but I'm smart enough to form opinions based on facts and I don't make stuff up.

Would love to know which facts you think I got wrong here.

Under Trump pre covid we saw:

record breaking unemployment
record breaking unemployment for women and minorities
highest wage increases in ten years
manufacturing made a comeback
record breaking stock market numbers
more jobs open than people able to fill them
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The reality is you've retreated and are now resorting to picking one year of a President's term as the proof of some sort of economic genius by Trump and then requesting that one not add complex or overthink it. Lolol are you a producer for Mark Levin or some crap?

Not retreating at all, and happy to compare Obama's eight years versus Trump's years anytime. I compared Obama's first economic policy actions versus Trump's because they were polar opposite and we saw drastically different results lol
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,408
Reaction score
5,824
Biden admin didn’t take long to have a legit ethics issue.
She must have seen how the previous Dem VP family lived it up.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/transition-playbook/2021/01/29/the-meena-problem-491577

She has her own clothing line, Phenomenal, that celebrities such as JANE FONDA and SOFÍA VERGARA have helped her promote. After the November election, she co-founded her own production company. She’s a paid speaker represented by Creative Artists Agency. She’s a Stanford and Harvard Law graduate.

But some on the Biden campaign and now the Biden White House think Meena is, well, too ambitious — at least when it comes to leveraging her relationship with her aunt, Vice President KAMALA HARRIS.

After President JOE BIDEN’s relatives appeared to profit off of his status as senator and vice president, the Biden White House is trying to avoid any repeats by establishing firm ethical standards for family members.

"It's the White House's policy that the president's name should not be used in connection with any commercial activities to suggest or in any way, in any way they could reasonably be understood to imply his endorsement or support," Press Secretary JEN PSAKI said Friday.

These standards apply to the vice president, too.

“The Vice President and her family will uphold the highest ethical standards and it’s the White House’s policy that the Vice President's name should not be used in connection with any commercial activities that could reasonably be understood to imply an endorsement or support,” SABRINA SINGH, a spokesperson for the vice president, said in a statement.

But the policy has been trickier to enforce with Meena than some other family members, given how much Kamala’s image is intertwined with her business projects.

After Biden was officially declared the winner last November, transition ethics lawyers informed Meena that she could sell the rest of her Kamala-themed apparel but could not restock the items. Phenomenal’s “Kamala Harris Swimsuit,” “phenomenal Kamala Tank,” and “Kamala T-shirt,” that appeared on the site last fall are no longer sold.

“Kamala and Maya’s Big Idea,” which was published in June 2020 before Biden picked Kamala as vice president, poses further ethical knots. White House officials say that Meena would be prohibited from publishing that book now because it uses Kamala’s name in the title and her likeness on the cover, which is a drawing of a younger Kamala with MAYA HARRIS, Meena’s mother.

The book doesn’t violate the White House’s policies because she published it before Kamala became vice president, they say. It’s not clear if Meena continuing to accept royalties on the book is permitted, however. Asked if she is still accepting royalties, Meena did not comment.

In a statement, she said that “throughout the primary campaign, general election, and thus far in the administration, I have gone above and beyond to uphold legal and ethical standards.”

As Meena tries to follow the letter of the law, some Biden officials have long been worried about her following the spirit of the rules.

Last August, after Biden picked Kamala, Meena pushed the Biden team to sell a shirt in the campaign store that she designed with fellow influencer CLEO WADE. The shirt was emblazoned, “THE FIRST BUT NOT THE LAST,” alongside a picture of a young Kamala.

The Biden campaign acquiesced, but not for long. By Sept. 6, his team had scrubbed Meena’s name off of the campaign shirt, according to Internet Archive screenshots.

“For appearance sake, Meena’s name was removed because we didn’t want to make it seem or appear that she would be benefiting or profiting from the campaign,” a White House official told Transition Playbook. They said neither Meena nor Wade made any money from the shirt.

Since the election, Meena has continued to stoke anxiety in Bidenworld. When she traveled to the inauguration, she flew on a private plane and posted about the trip on her Instagram stories, the hawk-eyed TYLER PAGER noticed.

The White House acknowledged that Meena flew on a plane owned by a donor to Biden’s inaugural committee. The Biden team declined to say who the plane belonged to.

Meena’s latest venture — Phenomenal Productions — is raising more questions.

Meena announced she was starting the production company with BRAD JENKINS, a former Obama White House staffer, weeks after the election. One of her first projects was a two-minute video featuring clips of her aunt, which debuted the day before Inauguration Day.

“We celebrate Kamala Harris, the first woman and first Black American and Asian American to serve as vice president of the United States of America,” the video’s narrator says.

Meena’s company produced the video with the Supermajority Education Fund, a nonprofit devoted to women’s leadership. (An allied super PAC, Supermajority, spent more than $1 million running ads backing Biden and opposing President DONALD TRUMP last year; most of its funding came from a super PAC started by GEORGE SOROS). On YouTube, the ad lists Meena as a producer.

The White House said it did not know if Meena was paid for the ad, or whether her company volunteered its time. If the former, it might violate White House policy. Asked if she was paid by Supermajority, Meena didn’t respond.
 

BilboBaggins

Well-known member
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,320
People can disagree with opinions all day every day. I'm not the smartest guy in every room (that's Buster/ Bilbo/ whatever his identity is today), but I'm smart enough to form opinions based on facts and I don't make stuff up.

Would love to know which facts you think I got wrong here.

Under Trump pre covid we saw:

record breaking unemployment
record breaking unemployment for women and minorities
highest wage increases in ten years
manufacturing made a comeback
record breaking stock market numbers
more jobs open than people able to fill them

Here's a fact: economists of every stripe do not think Presidents have huge impacts on the economy, and certainly not in the short term.

"record breaking unemployment
record breaking unemployment for women and minorities
highest wage increases in ten years"

Here's a fact: Under the Obama administration we had the largest drop in unemployment of any president since FDR. DO YOU THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT? LOLOL

"highest wage increases in ten years"

...which happens when you get to the end of the economic cycle durrrrrrrrrr

(And yet, under Obama the US saw better real wage growth than Bush, Bush, or Reagan.)

"record breaking stock market numbers"

So did Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter..................

"more jobs open than people able to fill them"

.....which has been true every year we're not in a recession.

And I'm not even taking the position that Obama is an economic savior. But Trump isn't either. Maybe you should stick to just comparing 2010 and 2017 and repeating talking points like a broken record.
 

BilboBaggins

Well-known member
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,320
Not retreating at all, and happy to compare Obama's eight years versus Trump's years anytime. I compared Obama's first economic policy actions versus Trump's because they were polar opposite and we saw drastically different results lol

Is this serious man?

Both Trump and Obama cut taxes massively. Both Trump and Obama had government stimulus...the difference there is that Obama had a standalone stimulus bill whereas the Trump budget just exploded the size of federal government and put it all on deficit spending. It's. the. same. thing.

And the economy went up each time. As it does every time. Under every president. Under. Every. President.

The obvious polar opposite is the hypocrisy of so-called conservatives like yourself who seemed to forget that they once complained about budget deficits, trade deficits, labor force participation rates, etc etc etc etc...but from 2017-2020 those things vanished.

See if I had my fiscal conservative hat on I'd be wondering why a group of people who were wealthier than they'd ever been, and we're getting ever wealthier at the fastest rate in recorded history...needed a trillion-dollar tax break. And why are we doing that without a cent in budget reduction to offset the deficit?

Oh the answer is "doesn't matter economy go brrrrrrrrr"?
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Here's a fact: economists of every stripe do not think Presidents have huge impacts on the economy, and certainly not in the short term.

"record breaking unemployment
record breaking unemployment for women and minorities
highest wage increases in ten years"

Here's a fact: Under the Obama administration we had the largest drop in unemployment of any president since FDR. DO YOU THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT? LOLOL

"highest wage increases in ten years"

...which happens when you get to the end of the economic cycle durrrrrrrrrr

(And yet, under Obama the US saw better real wage growth than Bush, Bush, or Reagan.)

"record breaking stock market numbers"

So did Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter..................

"more jobs open than people able to fill them"

.....which has been true every year we're not in a recession.

And I'm not even taking the position that Obama is an economic savior. But Trump isn't either. Maybe you should stick to just comparing 2010 and 2017 and repeating talking points like a broken record.

When Obama took office, unemployment was at 9% so you would hope to God it went down drastically after that.

You've been the broken record for 3 days dude. All we've gotten from you is that all of this would've happened regardless of who was president and what policies were put in place.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Is this serious man?

Both Trump and Obama cut taxes massively. Both Trump and Obama had government stimulus...the difference there is that Obama had a standalone stimulus bill whereas the Trump budget just exploded the size of federal government and put it all on deficit spending. It's. the. same. thing.

And the economy went up each time. As it does every time. Under every president. Under. Every. President.

The obvious polar opposite is the hypocrisy of so-called conservatives like yourself who seemed to forget that they once complained about budget deficits, trade deficits, labor force participation rates, etc etc etc etc...but from 2017-2020 those things vanished.

See if I had my fiscal conservative hat on I'd be wondering why a group of people who were wealthier than they'd ever been, and we're getting ever wealthier at the fastest rate in recorded history...needed a trillion-dollar tax break. And why are we doing that without a cent in budget reduction to offset the deficit?

Oh the answer is "doesn't matter economy go brrrrrrrrr"?

Obama got to DC and passed the $787 billion stimulus that did jack $hit other than drive us further into debt. Trump lowered taxes and removed some regulations, and not happy about what he did to the debt/ deficit either.

See what I did there? I can give the guy credit for some things and point out his shortcomings in the same post.

Or we could just end the discussion, wave our hands, and say, "our economy is basically the same under every president brrrrrrr."
 

tommyIRISH23

Well-known member
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
156
Is this serious man?

Both Trump and Obama cut taxes massively. Both Trump and Obama had government stimulus...the difference there is that Obama had a standalone stimulus bill whereas the Trump budget just exploded the size of federal government and put it all on deficit spending. It's. the. same. thing.

And the economy went up each time. As it does every time. Under every president. Under. Every. President.

The obvious polar opposite is the hypocrisy of so-called conservatives like yourself who seemed to forget that they once complained about budget deficits, trade deficits, labor force participation rates, etc etc etc etc...but from 2017-2020 those things vanished.

See if I had my fiscal conservative hat on I'd be wondering why a group of people who were wealthier than they'd ever been, and we're getting ever wealthier at the fastest rate in recorded history...needed a trillion-dollar tax break. And why are we doing that without a cent in budget reduction to offset the deficit?

Oh the answer is "doesn't matter economy go brrrrrrrrr"?

Economic policies by president’s absolutely influence economics. Terrible lending that led to the economic crash in 08 under the GW administration is a great example. Both Dems and Reps got reckless, ignored warning signs, and leveled the economy. Trade agreements like NAFTA that send manufacturing jobs to Mexico and Indonesia decades ago were disastrous for middle America. Both party’s borrowing and borrowing their way to sell empty promises are going to be hugely problematic at some point in the next 50 years.


If Biden went full left and adopted AOCs Green New Deal...that would smash the economy. Historically both Dems and Republican presidents played within the same parameters of cuts//spending, so yeah the effects were null and slow developing but the last 20 years or so, both party’s have borrowed like trust fund baby’s with blank checks. Spending needs to be reigned in, federal budget needs to be trimmed, and, what’s scares me the most, is not the Biden’s of the world, but the progressive wing of the government expanding and maturing in the next 10 years to the point they’re taking over and directing policy. They seem to embrace the MMT monetary theory that not 6/7 years ago was fringe/crazy.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
Speaking of economy and getting "greener". I get in NM we are not TX when it comes to oil but the oil industry makes up 10% of our overall employment. A lot that revenue is also directed straight to fund our 50th ranked educational system. One executive order will essentially create ghost towns here in NM.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Speaking of economy and getting "greener". I get in NM we are not TX when it comes to oil but the oil industry makes up 10% of our overall employment. A lot that revenue is also directed straight to fund our 50th ranked educational system. One executive order will essentially create ghost towns here in NM.

New Mexico Passes 100% Clean Energy Bill March 13, 2019

New Mexico's legislature passed the Energy Transition Act this week and because it is supported by the state's Governor, it’s expected to become law. This law will put the state on course to lead the nation in renewable energy.

The bill will double renewable energy use in the state by 2025, require 50% renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent carbon free electricity generation by 2045. This means New Mexico can quickly transition from dependence on fossil fuels for electricity to joining other states to lead a new clean energy economy. Our recent analysis also shows that it would spur immediate economic benefits and job growth as well as pollution reduction and health benefits. (cont)

The leading utility in NM is PNM, which committed to alternative energy goals of 44% in 2019, though it looks like they have fallen short. PNM is now getting 32% of its energy from renewable sources.
PNM's goal is 86% in 2032 and 100% in 2040.

At $52 a barrel, there probably is not a lot of production now in NM and companies have pulled out due to the economics? I imagine the state will have to contend with less revenue though like most oil-producing states.
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,008
Speaking of economy and getting "greener". I get in NM we are not TX when it comes to oil but the oil industry makes up 10% of our overall employment. A lot that revenue is also directed straight to fund our 50th ranked educational system. One executive order will essentially create ghost towns here in NM.

Oil makes up a large chunk of our work up here. Some percentage of the taxes collected from oil industry goes straight into some sort of state endowment fund.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
Oil makes up a large chunk of our work up here. Some percentage of the taxes collected from oil industry goes straight into some sort of state endowment fund.

One of the reasons we have held onto the land we own up there is oil.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,008
One of the reasons we have held onto the land we own up there is oil.

You guys got mineral rights still?

Lot of folks sold them off during ag crisis in the 80's and even earlier as well. Not sure the oil goes that far east either but you never know what they'll find.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
New Mexico Passes 100% Clean Energy Bill March 13, 2019



The leading utility in NM is PNM, which committed to alternative energy goals of 44% in 2019, though it looks like they have fallen short. PNM is now getting 32% of its energy from renewable sources.
PNM's goal is 86% in 2032 and 100% in 2040.

At $52 a barrel, there probably is not a lot of production now in NM and companies have pulled out due to the economics? I imagine the state will have to contend with less revenue though like most oil-producing states.

2020 was the 2nd highest oil revenue number ever. As one of the poorest state in the nation its not something it can absorb like what a Texas or even a North Dakota can. I am all for clean energy but its going to be a big hit to the economy. In the mean time there is still a dependence on oil PNM cannot just takeover.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,008
For our last budget (19-21), the state projected getting about $5 billion from oil if the price averaged $48/barrel.

Those companies are pretty smart i think about knowing when to drill, not drill, etc. Some of my engineer friends working for them have said they've gotten the breakeven price way down as well.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Just pointing out that the switch to alternative energy sources was due to an Act from 2019, which assisted PNM to supplement their commitment to alternative energy. They also seem to be ending their coal powered plants, though I imagine that is a small part of NM's energy sources that alternative energy would replace.

It appears NM has restored solar power tax credits to homeowners and businesses. The legislature has bills to expand infrastructure for renewable energy by making transmission line projects eligible for Industrial Revenue Bonds available through cities and municipalities. PNM benefits from the support to modernizing the electrical grid.

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/20...-updating-green-infrastructure-in-new-mexico/

To me it makes sense for homeowners and businesses to benefit from power with alternative energy as well as the jobs that will result. They can sell excess power to PNM. Lots of sunny days in NM. You do see a lot of wind farms in western Texas that benefit the farmers and ranchers there.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
You guys got mineral rights still?

Lot of folks sold them off during ag crisis in the 80's and even earlier as well. Not sure the oil goes that far east either but you never know what they'll find.

The biggest reason we still have the land is that the rent is good and we also get a decent tax deduction for land the government gives us for not touching. My wife keeps mentioning oil when talking about the land so maybe, I am not sure.
 

BilboBaggins

Well-known member
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,320
New Mexico Passes 100% Clean Energy Bill March 13, 2019



The leading utility in NM is PNM, which committed to alternative energy goals of 44% in 2019, though it looks like they have fallen short. PNM is now getting 32% of its energy from renewable sources.
PNM's goal is 86% in 2032 and 100% in 2040.

At $52 a barrel, there probably is not a lot of production now in NM and companies have pulled out due to the economics? I imagine the state will have to contend with less revenue though like most oil-producing states.

New Mexico would be crazy not to roll out the red carpet for solar:

solar-sun-hours-map-usa.jpg
 
Top