American Politics

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2744570]Donnie the Dumbass did cause the COVID recession. He did absolutely nothing right except for Operation Dork Speed and any idiot could have done that. Donnie the Dumbass actually made things worse in many respects. The US would have been better off during COVID if he had just stayed at the Mar-a-Lago Putt-Putt and McDonalds Emporium and played golf or buried his head in the sand.

But, yes, it was a COVID recession and every moron who says that Biden caused it is way off base.[/QUOTE]Agreed again. Saying Biden caused the COVID recession is even more bizarre than saying Trump caused it. I also agree that if Trump had just worked on Operation Warp Speed and pushing the vaccines through the FDA, and left the public relations aspects of the pandemic up to people like Fauci and Brix, we would have been better off.

Please explain why USA GDP performance in 2020 was 2.4 to 7 percentage points better than the other top 5 developed countries -- see post #10168.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2744571]The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was effective in August 1993:

[URL]https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/2264[/URL]

When Clinton and the Dems began work on that 1993 legislation the unemployment rate was still above 7%. That was when Repubs were squawking about it being the exact wrong time to raise taxes because, you know, millions of jobs would be wiped out.

Didn't happen. Instead, the exact opposite of what the Repubs were squawking about happened.

When Biden and the Dems began work on their great American Rescue Plan legislation the unemployment rate was still above 6%.

Same squawking from Repubs. Same exact opposite result.

See the BLS Unemployment Rate Table here:

[URL]https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000[/URL][/QUOTE]When a country comes out of a recession the unemployment rate decreases. Ascribing all the credit to the political party in power doesn't make sense. And ascribing credit to increasing tax rates really doesn't make sense, based what little I know about macroeconomics.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2744753]When a country comes out of a recession the unemployment rate decreases. Ascribing all the credit to the political party in power doesn't make sense. And ascribing credit to increasing tax rates really doesn't make sense, based what little I know about macroeconomics.[/QUOTE]I agree. Glad I didn't do that. Who did BTW?

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2744670][B]Oil, Gas Industry Stockpiled Drilling Leases Before Biden Pause.
January 29, 2021[/B]

[URL]https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/oil-gas-industry-stockpiled-drilling-leases-before-biden-pause[/URL]

The lengths some Repubs go to slavishly cater to one of the biggest corporate welfare recipients of all time is pathetic.[/QUOTE]You realize that drilling on private lands, not owned by the federal government, is what has driven US production growth. Federal leases account for about 24% of oil production and 11% of gas production. Also advances in hydraulic fracturing, as well as horizontal drilling, have been an essential part of the production growth since 2011. Hydraulically fracked wells in the unconventional plays that have become the mainstay of US oil and gas production decline quickly. Production for example may start at 1,000 barrels a day in the first month, and decline to 400 BOPD after 12 months. If you ban hydraulic fracturing, total US production will decline rapidly, as maintaining the rate depends on constantly drilling and fracking new wells.

Well, Bernie Sanders, who came within a c**t hair of becoming president of the United States, would have banned hydraulic fracturing through executive orders the minute he was elected. He would have done this on private lands, as well as federal leases. Elizabeth Warren and some other Democratic candidates for president campaigned on similar platforms in 2020. Sanders wanted to eliminate fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation by 2030. Biden wants to go to "0" net carbon emissions by 2050. Both basically would eliminate the oil and gas refining and production businesses in the USA, except perhaps for exports. The only question is the timing.

So given those types of threats, does it make sense for a company like Shell or Exxon to invest billions developing an offshore oil field in the Gulf of Mexico that won't go on stream for 10 years? Or does it make sense to put a refinery that was mothballed during COVID back into service?

Back to the leases. You need to understand a bit about petroleum geology to understand what's going on. Basically, conventional oil and gas accumulations, and many unconventional accumulations, occur in traps like anticlines. A company may acquire a large lease block, say 50,000 or 100,000 acres, and then acquire seismic data over the block, to try to identify potential traps. Then it drills wells, both to try to prove up traps and provide additional data that will help ongoing exploration. This is a multi year process. And at the end of it, you may be lucky to have identified traps that occupy 1000 acres out of the initial 50,000 or 100,000 acres. Or you may just drill dry holes and not find anything, so the leases expire without production.

As to the drilling permits, Biden campaigned on doing away with new drilling permits on federal leases, not banning drilling. And he did suspend the issuance of new permits, but backed off in part because of court challenges. So yes, oil and gas companies have stockpiled drilling permits, to have an inventory in case no additional permits are issued. They're hoping, if that happens, that sanity will some day return to the executive branch and they'll be allowed to get more permits and drill again.

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2744691]I'm guessing more fake news to help the DNC I mean Wall St.

Who I am I kidding lets just call it what it is, the Wall Street owned DNC.[/QUOTE]You and a few others here used to love to post poll numbers just a few months ago. You know, "How low can he go? Jajaja" and all that.

Don't worry. The Repub Party is stationing all the election-denying QAnon loons they can scrape off the underside of rocks wherever necessary at the state and local level to make sure the election-denying Repub candidates on the ballots "win" no matter what the polls show or what the legitimate vote count is. As they wish they had done in 2020.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2744579]BTW, do you have a link for any of the figures you cited in your posts about this? You know, something like the reports, charts and data links I usually provide along with the pertinent entry for it.[/QUOTE]The data is from Bloomberg. It requires a subscription to access but you can get the info by Googling from other sources if you're willing to spend the time. The St. Louis Fed is often a good source for USA Data.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2744706]See, here's the problem.

One one hand you have the anti-everything Moron Brigade claiming that everything about the relocation was above-board. They hear that, of course, from the two idiot governors (Abbot and his partner Costello aka DeSatan) as well as rightwingnut media. They complain about government spending but are completely OK with DeSatan using taxpayer money to do this. They complain about "government overreach" but are completely OK with the government overreaching in this case. They complain about the government lying but are completely OK with the government lying here (but, to be fair, they were completely OK with Donnie the Dumbass lying his ass off for 6 years) so who knows what they stand for.

On the other hand you have the immigrants themselves who say they were lied to and mislead. There are dozens on first-hand reports about this. Here are some: [URL]https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1123109768/migrants-sent-to-marthas-vineyard[/URL] and [URL]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/09/17/desantis-migrants-marthas-vineyard-cape-cod/10410896002/[/URL] and [URL]https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-governor-florida-flies-migrants-marthas-vineyard-political-stunt-2022-09-15/[/URL] and [URL]https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/16/migrants-marthas-vineyard-cape-cod-00057247[/URL] The Moron Brigade will, predictably, say that this is "fake news" and that the only source of "real news" is Donnie the Dumbass and his merry band of rightwingnut minions.

What I find absolutely comical is that the wingers say that transporting the migrants from MV to Cape Cod means that MV didn't want them when in reality, they were able to get access to more and better services at the AFB in CC. [URL]https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/16/migrants-marthas-vineyard-cape-cod-00057247[/URL].

But keep on drinking that KoolAid. What flavor is it? Orange? Red? Or just ignorant?[/QUOTE]I don't know enough about this issue to argue about it, or even to have an informed opinion, except that those billionaires in Martha's Vineyard are hypocrites. I have some sympathy for the Cubans and Venezuelans who have escaped totalitarian regimes and who were living in destitute poverty. And I love the influx of Cuban strippers who have showed up in my area. I mentioned this earlier, but in the county where I live, Trump won in 2020 by 60 percentage points. This is even though a plurality of the population is Hispanic and the majority are people of color. (You would have had a tough time getting me to vote for Trump short of holding a gun to my head, but that's neither here nor there.) A lot of Hispanics vote for Republicans. A majority of Cuban Americans vote Republican. I suspect the same may end up being true of the Venezuelans. As to the Cubans, whether this is because the Republican Party was more anti-Castro than the Democrats or whether it's because Cubans were fleeing socialism, and the Republicans are more anti-Socialist, I don't know. Anyway I don't see Bernie Sanders getting a lot of Cuban or Venezuelan votes.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2744762]You realize that drilling on private lands, not owned by the federal government, is what has driven US production growth. Federal leases account for about 24% of oil production and 11% of gas production. Also advances in hydraulic fracturing, as well as horizontal drilling, have been an essential part of the production growth since 2011. Hydraulically fracked wells in the unconventional plays that have become the mainstay of US oil and gas production decline quickly. Production for example may start at 1,000 barrels a day in the first month, and decline to 400 BOPD after 12 months. If you ban hydraulic fracturing, total US production will decline rapidly, as maintaining the rate depends on constantly drilling and fracking new wells.

Well, Bernie Sanders, who came within a c**t hair of becoming president of the United States, would have banned hydraulic fracturing through executive orders the minute he was elected. He would have done this on private lands, as well as federal leases. Elizabeth Warren and some other Democratic candidates for president campaigned on similar platforms in 2020. Sanders wanted to eliminate fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation by 2030. Biden wants to go to "0" net carbon emissions by 2050. Both basically would eliminate the oil and gas refining and production businesses in the USA, except perhaps for exports. The only question is the timing.

So given those types of threats, does it make sense for a company like Shell or Exxon to invest billions developing an offshore oil field in the Gulf of Mexico that won't go on stream for 10 years? Or does it make sense to put a refinery that was mothballed during COVID back into service?

Back to the leases. You need to understand a bit about petroleum geology to understand what's going on. Basically, conventional oil and gas accumulations, and many unconventional accumulations, occur in traps like anticlines. A company may acquire a large lease block, say 50,000 or 100,000 acres, and then acquire seismic data over the block, to try to identify potential traps. Then it drills wells, both to try to prove up traps and provide additional data that will help ongoing exploration. This is a multi year process. And at the end of it, you may be lucky to have identified traps that occupy 1000 acres out of the initial 50,000 or 100,000 acres. Or you may just drill dry holes and not find anything, so the leases expire without production.

As to the drilling permits, Biden campaigned on doing away with new drilling permits on federal leases, not banning drilling. And he did suspend the issuance of new permits, but backed off in part because of court challenges. So yes, oil and gas companies have stockpiled drilling permits, to have an inventory in case no additional permits are issued. They're hoping, if that happens, that sanity will some day return to the executive branch and they'll be allowed to drill again.[/QUOTE]I assume you were referring to the 2016 Democratic Primary election and not some secret or imaginary Presidential election involving Bernie Sanders, right?[/QUOTE][B]Was The Democratic Primary A Close Call Or A Landslide?[/B][URL]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/[/URL].

[QUOTE]Hillary Clinton will officially become the Democratic nominee for president this week, at which point well finally close the chapter on the 2016 primaries. But when we look back on the 2016 race, how should we think of it, as a close call or as a blowout? Could a few small changes have made Sanders the nominee and could a higher-profile candidate such as Elizabeth Warren have beaten Clinton, when Sanders didnt?

[b]My view is that the race wasnt really all that close and that Sanders never really had that much of a chance at winning. From a purely horse-race standpoint, in fact, the media probably exaggerated the competitiveness of the race. [/b]But thats not to diminish Sanderss accomplishments in terms of what they mean for the Democratic Party after 2016. Its significant that Sanders in particular and not Warren or Joe Biden or Martin OMalley finished in second place.[/QUOTE]Really, it's fun to make a point and claim for which you can actually provide links to reports, charts, data, etc that substantiate your claim. Then it doesn't look like you're just making up stuff on the fly.

I encourage you to try it sometime.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2744766]The data is from Bloomberg. It requires a subscription to access but you can get the info by Googling from other sources if you're willing to spend the time. The St. Louis Fed is often a good source for USA Data.[/QUOTE]I have provided links to both of those sources many times. I don't have a subscription to either and am not aware of anyone being blocked from accessing my links for lack of a subscription.

Also, what you assert ought to be easy to find from various sources as well as quoting the pertinent passages. Same as I do. Same as I did recently from, yes, Bloomberg.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2744753]Ascribing all the credit to the political party in power doesn't make sense. And ascribing credit to increasing tax rates really doesn't make sense, based what little I know about macroeconomics.[/QUOTE]I admire your patience and I read your comments with interest. But you're really wasting your time on these two. They are like Born Again Christians. They have drunk the KoolAid long and deep. Another good. Must be "Dem Party did it". Anything bad: "Chump". No other scenario is possible.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2743753] I asked you a question. You can refuse to answer it if you like, but this is sposed to be an opinion board. You shared your opinion, and I asked you a question on it. [b]Why share your opinion if you are not going [u]to support it?[/u] [/b] ... [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JustTK;2743816] ... Go back to [b]your neo-lib corner[/b] and thinki it over. [/QUOTE]

Okay, so I have questions now, after contemplating in my "neolib corner".

Well since we live in a neoliberal world (as the argument is often made), do you think we are witnessing the collapse of neoliberalism? Provide support your opinion/argument.

And what does "bothsidesism" have to say about neoliberalism, in America or Worldwide? Provide support your opinion/argument.

Now your turn, to go back to your "bothsidesism" neoliberal corner and think on my questions and report back.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2744769]I don't know enough about this issue to argue about it, or even to have an informed opinion, except that those billionaires in Martha's Vineyard are hypocrites. I have some sympathy for the Cubans and Venezuelans who have escaped totalitarian regimes and who were living in destitute poverty. And I love the influx of Cuban strippers who have showed up in my area. I mentioned this earlier, but in the county where I live, Trump won in 2020 by 60 percentage points. This is even though a plurality of the population is Hispanic and the majority are people of color. (You would have had a tough time getting me to vote for Trump short of holding a gun to my head, but that's neither here nor there.) A lot of Hispanics vote for Republicans. A majority of Cuban Americans vote Republican. I suspect the same may end up being true of the Venezuelans. As to the Cubans, whether this is because the Republican Party was more anti-Castro than the Democrats or whether it's because Cubans were fleeing socialism, and the Republicans are more anti-Socialist, I don't know. Anyway I don't see Bernie Sanders getting a lot of Cuban or Venezuelan votes.[/QUOTE]Billionaires? Really? As of 2011, there were 31 millionaires. About 50 in 2016. Maybe more now, but exactly how are they "hypocrites"? Are they more hypocritical than Donnie the Dumbass who loves idiot supporters but won't socialize with them?

One needs to remember that Latinos are a very conservative demographic, regardless of what Donnie the Dumbass and rightwingnut media spout. That they vote "conservative" doesn't surprise me.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2744577]I'd a hell of a lot rather live in Martha's Vineyard than South Texas, where the largest number of Latin American asylum seekers start out. South Texas is perhaps the most impoverished part of the USA. I saw a couple of the immigrants interviewed who were in Martha's Vineyard. They were damn glad to be there. But the locals, who likely are mostly greenies, won't even stand for construction of windmills offshore of Massachusetts. So you know they're going to throw up a stink at this. No windmills or poor Venezuelan asylum seekers in their backyards. Hypocrites.[/QUOTE]Exactly Martha Vineyard residents and VP Harris are going ballistic about the 50 illegals dumped on their doorstep. They are calling for emergency measures to stop this. The border is secure according to Harris but her neighborhood is no longer secure with 50 illegals. She will need to spend another $500,000 to build another wall around her property like Biden just did in Delaware. Remember walls don't work unless they are protecting the elite like Harris, Pelosi and Biden. Democrats definitely defund the police but get millions of dollars of private security. Remember you are not the elite. You do not need security or police to make your life safe. Just the elite politicians need security. You are just a citizen. It does not matter if you are robbed or assaulted as long as the elite are safe. And yes. Very dumb people still vote the elite in.

And on windmills you are correct. No windmills can be built were the elite live. They need to be built where the poor suckers who voted for them live. You the voter can't drive your gas car to work burning 2 gallons of gas because of emissions but the elite can jet everywhere burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel a day. Yes you willing be driving an EV in California in a few years but CA politicians will still be flying their jets.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2744540]Do you have [B]any clue whatsoever[/B] of the requirements of applying for asylum? No, you don't.

Otherwise, you would realize that asylum seekers [B]must[/B] enter the US at a normal POE and once they have applied for asylum, they are [B]automatically[/B] given protected status. That something that FUX Snooze and rightwingnut media never mention [B]and[/B] Repubs never bother to investigate. I would post a link but even though it is a government website, you would just idiotically call it "fake news". But go ahead and do an internet search. You won't, of course, but that's your problem.

Add to the above that virtually all of the families that were transported were [B]lied to[/B] and were told that they would have jobs and housing provided. Of course, you believe (I won't use the word think because that'd be an impossible task) that lying is perfectly OK. After all, you believed every single one of Donnie the Dumbass' lies for 6+ years.

Add to the above that many of the folks who were transported had "court dates" as early as Monday and as far away as Texas. So, according to you, it was just fine that 50 folks were shipped to Martha's Vineyard without the funds to get them back to where they needed to be for their court dates..[/QUOTE]Yes I have a clue but obviously you don't. If you want to claim asylum you must go to a legal border crossings not illegally cross the border. All these people came illegally not legally trying to get asylum. It does not matter where these illegals end up because 97% of them will never attempt to go to their hearing. None of the people coming into USA are ever told by border agents that they will be getting jobs because it is illegal for them to work if they are not legal residents. In most states it is illegal to hire these people and companies can be fined.

I can assure you the way the asylum courts are backed up that if you illegally cross into USA on the weekend that your court date will not be the next Monday. Why do you post these lies.

It is not a publicity stunt because Texas, Florida and Arizona are overwhelmed by millions of illegals. These liberals are crying about 50. Wait until several thousand are dropped off in Martha's Vineyard and VP Harris back yard. There will be a border crises declared by democrats once thousands are in Martha's Vineyard.

[QUOTE=Travv;2744452]Washington DC The situation of migrants being transported throughout the United States escalated even further today as Vice President Kamala Harris spoke to the media and officially declared a crisis at the border surrounding her residence in Washington, the. See.

There is now a serious border crisis. Not at our southern border, which is completely secure. I'm referring to the border around my own property, Vice President Harris said in her statement. My home is now under siege, surrounded by foreign nationals attempting to circumvent our laws and invade my estate. This is simply unacceptable and must be addressed.

The Vice President has already ensured the high-security fence around her home is in good condition and has instructed her Secret Service detail to perform routine, armed patrols of the property's perimeter to maintain strict border security from the busloads of migrants being dropped off outside.

When asked about allegations of hypocrisy regarding declaring a border crisis at her home while saying the nation's southern border is secure, the Vice President had this to say: "We understand that time and space are things that cannot be understood. To move forward, we look to the past and hold onto the hope for tomorrow. We have knowledge that isn't knowable, and we know that. Now get these people away from my house. ".
[/QUOTE]Yes total hypocrisy. I love it. Wait until thousands are dropped off in Martha's Vineyard. And thousands more on Harris front yard.