I saw one of these in my little backwater town ...............

[L4Dawg]

It's already long past an easy conquest.

Besides, big difference between a UN member with full veto power and everyone else. So really, this is about China and Taiwan, right?

Yes, and no. You need to look at Russian history a bit. This isn't that bad by their standards yet.

 

[MrKotter]

As we all know, climate change is one of the biggest challenges that our planet is facing, and transportation is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. By driving electric vehicles, government officials can lead by example and encourage the adoption of sustainable transportation practices.

It's funny, you call people conspiracy theorists while believing in climate change. You're a damn fool.

 

[Walkthedawg]

Do you believe Christianity is not to be followed unless every individual believer commits no hypocrisy or failings? Do you watch Fox News? Have you paid attention to the Dominion lawsuit reveals?

Ell oh freakin ell. I don’t buy in to the hysteria due to excused hypocrisy so I’m a “radical right winger”

Being a gigantic climate hypocrite isn’t a “failing”, It’s a lifestyle.

And you just called out what you thought was a “radical right winger”. But you still not only excuse wealthy polluters… you are defending them.

Welcome to the realization. You are defending what you detest.

 

[Curby]

Why no pushback from Obama or Billion$ in support when Putin took Crimea in 2014?

 

[Cantdoitsal]

Here are some facts:

1. The Earth's average surface temperature has risen about 1.2°C (2.2°F) since the late 19th century, according to NASA. This warming trend has been linked to increased greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels.
2. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is "extremely likely" (95-100% probability) that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have been the dominant cause of climate change observed since the mid-20th century.
3. Sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate, which is a direct result of climate change. Global sea levels have risen about 8 inches (21 cm) since 1880, and the rate of sea level rise is expected to accelerate in the coming decades.
4. Climate change is already causing significant impacts on ecosystems and human societies around the world, including more frequent and severe heatwaves, droughts, floods, and storms.
5. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activities. According to a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is primarily caused by human activities.

These facts are well-established and supported by extensive scientific research. It's important to acknowledge and address your denial of the reality of climate change, but ultimately the facts speak for themselves.

This BS diatribe is almost as long as the phallus it creates that penetrates the rectal cavity unnecessarily of every human on the planet. We'll be fine the next 25 years while the Green Tech figgers how to do it as cheap as fossil fuels.

 

[Walkthedawg]

This is classic cutting off your nose to spite your face. You refuse to try to improve the place where you and your loved ones live, because in your view an incredibly small number of people in the world arent changing their ways enough. 17ing wild.

I get the frustration, you are angry at them for what you view as a 'do as I say, not as I do' policy.
At the same time, you have no idea how much they have changed compared to before. You also have no idea how much their impact has made in a net manner- if they burn 1000 pounds of carbon while pushing for change that results in 1500 fewer pounds of burned carbon, is that justified or not? <--very basic hypothetical.
Im just saying that ranting about 'them' without knowing details isnt a good look.

Even still, I get the frustration. Its natural to look at someone who is telling you to do something and criticize if you feel they arent doing the same thing.

In the end though, you can choose to act locally or not. You can choose to try to burn less fuel, you can choose to litter less, and you can choose to manage waterways better.

woah woah woah. I have vastly improved the area where my family lives. I have personally planted more trees than the combination of many of these elitists.

I’ve personally help plant 100 acres of pine to replace our stand that was ravaged by storms and beetles so we had to cut it. Will do the same on our 40 acre tract and 73 acre tract when their time for harvest comes.

I’ve planted hundreds of white oak, maple, walnut, persimmon, pear, apple, peach,pecan, ash, etc around our home’s property for wildlife and landscaping. So we can lay off WTD in his “efforts”.

And the rest is still one long excuse to defend the detestable. If they didn’t burn that 1000 pounds of carbon… they saved 2500. If they just used Zoom or Teams.

And don’t bother throwing any media at me for examples. I watch, and trust, absolutely zero national media except for an hour of business news in the morning. They are all biased and peddle opinion. Don’t want opinion. I want the facts.

 

[Boom Boom]

Ell oh freakin ell. I don’t buy in to the hysteria due to excused hypocrisy so I’m a “radical right winger”

Being a gigantic climate hypocrite isn’t a “failing”, It’s a lifestyle.

And you just called out what you thought was a “radical right winger”. But you still not only excuse wealthy polluters… you are defending them.

Welcome to the realization. You are defending what you detest.

I didn't say you were. I asked. But that's the level of reading comprehension I expect from a climate denier.

 

[Boom Boom]

Yes, and no. You need to look at Russian history a bit. This isn't that bad by their standards yet.

Fair point, but there's also the Russian history of what happened to leaders who failed like that. And besides, this isn't about Russias expectations, it's about other totalitarian countries, I thought you said.

 

[paindonthurt]

If you allow a totalitarian state easy conquests then you invite them to do more along that line. I shouldn't have to point this out. Other totalitarian states are also watching. I shouldn't have to point this out either.

I tend to agree with you. But sending countless dollars isn’t the way to go.

we already fund the **** out of nato and it’s way out of balance.

send them our used **** that is obsolete to us but still way ahead of what they have and what Russia has.

but stop just pouring countless dollars there.

 

[paindonthurt]

I didn't say you were. I asked. But that's the level of reading comprehension I expect from a climate denier.

You think the laptop is fake. You don’t get to talk about other people’s intelligence.

 

[mstateglfr]

woah woah woah. I have vastly improved the area where my family lives. I have personally planted more trees than the combination of many of these elitists.

I’ve personally help plant 100 acres of pine to replace our stand that was ravaged by storms and beetles so we had to cut it. Will do the same on our 40 acre tract and 73 acre tract when their time for harvest comes.

I’ve planted hundreds of white oak, maple, walnut, persimmon, pear, apple, peach,pecan, ash, etc around our home’s property for wildlife and landscaping. So we can lay off WTD in his “efforts”.

And the rest is still one long excuse to defend the detestable. If they didn’t burn that 1000 pounds of carbon… they saved 2500. If they just used Zoom or Teams.

Genuinely, this is all great to see. Super that you plant trees.

It looks like I wasnt the only one to say 'cut off your nose to spite your face' though. Perhaps since multiple people viewed your comments in that exact manner, there is some truth to it.
That small handful of people can be detestable and we all can still do things that they suggest. It really is OK for that to happen. If it makes you feel better to loudly declare 'I am doing this in spite of what DiCaprio says!' then have at it. Whatever it takes for people to actually do something is good by me- curse those hypocrites and prove to them that you are better by doing what they want AND doing it better than them by creating less emissions.

This is just such an odd issue for me to really even see the other side on. Industry clearly wont regulate itself- that has been shown to be a failure time and again- like dozens of disasterous examples ever year for decades upon decades. So since industry clearly wont lead itself into a cleaner future, consumers and government have to. Nobody wants to live in a place with smog and polluted waterways, yet here we are with both. Those in rural areas can point to their air and declare its clean and clear, but lets not look at the waterways that pass thru farmland.
If someone doesnt believe in climate change and thinks everyone is in the pocket of everyone else, even they have to want clean air and water...right?
Thats the part that makes no sense to me- there is ranting and tantrum throwing, even though everyone local just doing some things would help improve where they live.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Yes, and no. You need to look at Russian history a bit. This isn't that bad by their standards yet.

Apropos of this: Man, I miss Dr. Radvanyi.

Two of the best classes I had at State were taught by him.

Fair point, but there's also the Russian history of what happened to leaders who failed like that. And besides, this isn't about Russias expectations, it's about other totalitarian countries, I thought you said.

Eh... The thing about Russia is that it isn't so much about totalitarianism as it is recreating its old Empire (semantics I know-- but think of it instead as Empire Rebuilding).

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Genuinely, this is all great to see. Super that you plant trees.

It looks like I wasnt the only one to say 'cut off your nose to spite your face' though. Perhaps since multiple people viewed your comments in that exact manner, there is some truth to it.
That small handful of people can be detestable and we all can still do things that they suggest. It really is OK for that to happen. If it makes you feel better to loudly declare 'I am doing this in spite of what DiCaprio says!' then have at it. Whatever it takes for people to actually do something is good by me- curse those hypocrites and prove to them that you are better by doing what they want AND doing it better than them by creating less emissions.

This is just such an odd issue for me to really even see the other side on. Industry clearly wont regulate itself- that has been shown to be a failure time and again- like dozens of disasterous examples ever year for decades upon decades. So since industry clearly wont lead itself into a cleaner future, consumers and government have to. Nobody wants to live in a place with smog and polluted waterways, yet here we are with both. Those in rural areas can point to their air and declare its clean and clear, but lets not look at the waterways that pass thru farmland.
If someone doesnt believe in climate change and thinks everyone is in the pocket of everyone else, even they have to want clean air and water...right?
Thats the part that makes no sense to me- there is ranting and tantrum throwing, even though everyone local just doing some things would help improve where they live.

I, and ChatGPT, agree...

 

[Boom Boom]

Apropos of this: Man, I miss Dr. Radvanyi.

Two of the best classes I had at State were taught by him.



Eh... The thing about Russia is that it isn't so much about totalitarianism as it is recreating its old Empire (semantics I know-- but think of it instead as Empire Rebuilding).

I agree, I alluded to that earlier. Defeating Russia here should break them of dreams of empire. But them winning just maintains status quo, right? It's not like it's some huge domino that will usher in the terribleness.

 

[L4Dawg]

Fair point, but there's also the Russian history of what happened to leaders who failed like that. And besides, this isn't about Russias expectations, it's about other totalitarian countries, I thought you said.

I also said it was about Russia. Putin hasn't failed yet.

 

[L4Dawg]

I agree, I alluded to that earlier. Defeating Russia here should break them of dreams of empire. But them winning just maintains status quo, right? It's not like it's some huge domino that will usher in the terribleness.

Them winning does NOT maintain the status quo. You are just trolling.

 

[GloryDawg]

I also said it was about Russia. Putin hasn't failed yet.

Putin just has to keep it going long enough so Majority of Americans get tired of spending the money. Now China is helping him financially. No matter how many sanctions Biden puts on him China is just going to help him more. Biden hasn't helped either by slow walking the Aid. At times it seems he is being pulled. Just give them everything they need to push Russia out and get it over with. If Giving Poland F-16 and Poland giving Ukraine, their Mig's then go ahead and do it. Get it over with. He just needs to stop finger ******* the whole situation. Just win the damn thing.,

 

[dudehead]

I tend to agree with you. But sending countless dollars isn’t the way to go.

we already fund the **** out of nato and it’s way out of balance.

send them our used **** that is obsolete to us but still way ahead of what they have and what Russia has.

but stop just pouring countless dollars there.

We can't send our old stuff because then the military industrial complex doesn't get paid. Don't forget who calls the shots - and it aint the politicians.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

I've always found that the best way to see what real leaders in this country think about issues like climate change are to watch what Fortune 500 companies are doing. When you see the board and CEOs of major companies preparing to do business in a world impacted by climate change, you can infer that this inherently conservative segment believes it to be a real issue. They do by and large, so I tend to take it seriously as well.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

ETA - The amount of virtue in this thread is suffocating.

 

[Boom Boom]

Them winning does NOT maintain the status quo. You are just trolling.

Not trolling. I mostly agree with you here, but you seem to be overstating your case. If Putin gains mostly full control of Ukraine (with assumed minor internal resistance), what does that really entail in long term global power consequences? It's a slightly better position for Russia given the food generation, oil/gas concerns, sea access, but Russia is still a failing state that pales in comparison to the US or China, with no real future avenues for expansion. Their irrelevance as a global power will continue, right?

What am I missing?

 

[horshack.sixpack]

And now Zelensky wants our young soldiers over there to die for his corrupt country. I say 17 him.

We probably should just let european strong man types invade sovereign countries with impunity. I mean that's all the way over in Europe and it's not like we are in a global economy with any interconnections or shared interests with countries being free and stuff. Thoses who don't learn from history...

"An outgrowth of the American isolationist movement, the America First Committee first convened on September 4, 1940, with a primary goal of keeping America out of World War II being fought at the time mainly in Europe and Asia. With a peak paid membership of 800,000 people, the America First Committee (AFC) became one of the largest organized anti-war groups in American history. The AFC disbanded on December 10, 1941, three days after the Japanese attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, thrust America into the war."

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Not trolling. I mostly agree with you here, but you seem to be overstating your case. If Putin gains mostly full control of Ukraine (with assumed minor internal resistance), what does that really entail in long term global power consequences? It's a slightly better position for Russia given the food generation, oil/gas concerns, sea access, but Russia is still a failing state that pales in comparison to the US or China, with no real future avenues for expansion. Their irrelevance as a global power will continue, right?

What am I missing?

Why was I thinking this when I read the above...

Not trolling. I mostly agree with you here but you seem to be overstating your case.

If the ACC gains mostly full control of Notre Dame (with nominal independence), what does that really entail in long term football consequences?

It's a slightly better position for the ACC given the access of eyeballs and grant rights hold, but the ACC is still a failing conference that pales in comparison to the SEC or the B1G, with no real future avenues for expansion.

Their irrelevance as a football power will continue, right?

What am I missing?

 

[L4Dawg]

Not trolling. I mostly agree with you here, but you seem to be overstating your case. If Putin gains mostly full control of Ukraine (with assumed minor internal resistance), what does that really entail in long term global power consequences? It's a slightly better position for Russia given the food generation, oil/gas concerns, sea access, but Russia is still a failing state that pales in comparison to the US or China, with no real future avenues for expansion. Their irrelevance as a global power will continue, right?

What am I missing?

So you can see no bad consequences from a dictator, in Europe, take over a neighbor by naked force? You are making the assumption that Russia is and will remain a failed state. It's not and it won't if it does fail.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

So you can see no bad consequences from a dictator, in Europe, take over a neighbor by naked force? You are making the assumption that Russia is and will remain a failed state. It's not and it won't if it does fail.

Are you implying that Putin trying to rebuild the USSR by force is bad?***

 

[johnson86-1]

It's been interesting to see the 180 from what seems like nearly all those who are vocal on the right against the US providing aid and support to a country trying to save itself from being taken over by another country.
Apparently support is only acceptable if we do the actual invasion?

I think a lot of people on the right previously thought that the military, intelligence, and law enforcement had avoided the worst of the rot that other government entities suffered from. More libertarian people on the right used to routinely mock other people on the right for totally losing their skepticism of government when it came to the military, intelligence, and law enforcement branches.

I think the new found skepticism of foreign involvement is just a reflection of people on the right realizing they were wrong. Some of it is just that different people have influence now. There was always an isolationist streak on the right, they just had zero influence up through Iraq. Some of it may also just be that another nuclear power is involved and they wouldn't be so hesitant to get involved in disputes involving non-nuclear powers.

 

[MrKotter]

I've always found that the best way to see what real leaders in this country think about issues like climate change are to watch what Fortune 500 companies are doing. When you see the board and CEOs of major companies preparing to do business in a world impacted by climate change, you can infer that this inherently conservative segment believes it to be a real issue. They do by and large, so I tend to take it seriously as well.

Your premise is that the "real leaders" in the country give a **** about this country and its people. They don't. Once you realize most politicians and corporate heads are sociopaths you will have a different view.

If all these great leaders in the country gave a damn about "climate change " then why was East Palestine so grossly mishandled? Climate change is nothing more than another money making scheme for the 1 percenters. They use your tax dollars to further grow their wealth while foolish imbeciles cheer them on.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I think the new found skepticism of foreign involvement is just a reflection of people on the right realizing they were wrong. Some of it is just that different people have influence now. There was always an isolationist streak on the right, they just had zero influence up through Iraq. Some of it may also just be that another nuclear power is involved and they wouldn't be so hesitant to get involved in disputes involving non-nuclear powers.

The US has long had a huge isolationist streak and it varies in strength throughout the years.

If all these great leaders in the country gave a damn about "climate change " then why was East Palestine so grossly mishandled? Climate change is nothing more than another money making scheme for the 1 percenters. They use your tax dollars to further grow their wealth while foolish imbeciles cheer them on.

I wouldn't be quite so blunt as you but I can certainly see climate change also being an economic play-- but that brings up the question: Is it a 1 percenter scheme or just them following where the consumer trend is going?

I'm thinking the latter.

 

[johnson86-1]

Here are some facts:

1. The Earth's average surface temperature has risen about 1.2°C (2.2°F) since the late 19th century, according to NASA. This warming trend has been linked to increased greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels.
2. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is "extremely likely" (95-100% probability) that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have been the dominant cause of climate change observed since the mid-20th century.
3. Sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate, which is a direct result of climate change. Global sea levels have risen about 8 inches (21 cm) since 1880, and the rate of sea level rise is expected to accelerate in the coming decades.
4. Climate change is already causing significant impacts on ecosystems and human societies around the world, including more frequent and severe heatwaves, droughts, floods, and storms.
5. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activities. According to a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is primarily caused by human activities.

These facts are well-established and supported by extensive scientific research. It's important to acknowledge and address your denial of the reality of climate change, but ultimately the facts speak for themselves.

You are citing facts on other people's opinions when the actual facts about physical reality is important.

People's opinions may end up being correct or they may not. But you should also know that a lot of reporting on climate "science" is reporting on what models say will happen. And popular reporting does a terrible job identifying when they are reporting on empirical findings versus when they are reporting on a paper that discusses an interesting output of particular models.

 

[mstateglfr]

Why was I thinking this when I read the above...

Not trolling. I mostly agree with you here but you seem to be overstating your case.

If the ACC gains mostly full control of Notre Dame (with nominal independence), what does that really entail in long term football consequences?

It's a slightly better position for the ACC given the access of eyeballs and grant rights hold, but the ACC is still a failing conference that pales in comparison to the SEC or the B1G, with no real future avenues for expansion.

Their irrelevance as a football power will continue, right?

What am I missing?

You heard it here first folks! Notre Dame is the Ukraine of college football!
...though I think I like the idea of the ACC being the Russia of college football more.

 

[mstateglfr]

I think a lot of people on the right previously thought that the military, intelligence, and law enforcement had avoided the worst of the rot that other government entities suffered from. More libertarian people on the right used to routinely mock other people on the right for totally losing their skepticism of government when it came to the military, intelligence, and law enforcement branches.

I think the new found skepticism of foreign involvement is just a reflection of people on the right realizing they were wrong. Some of it is just that different people have influence now. There was always an isolationist streak on the right, they just had zero influence up through Iraq. Some of it may also just be that another nuclear power is involved and they wouldn't be so hesitant to get involved in disputes involving non-nuclear powers.

If a lot on the right have changed how they view things, they sure havent actually said as much. From what I have seen, they largely have just glossed over their recent history of views/comments/support and went straight to taking an opposition stance to who is currently POTUS.

Now I am jumping to a conclusion here, but I assume many have taken this position simply because its the opposite of Biden.
Dick Cheney and Colin Powell are still viewed in high regard. That should really be all that is needed to show the total inconsistency and motivation behind the current popular view of 'the right'.

I have enjoyed the comments of 'Biden is over there trying to secure their border while ours is wide open!'. Yeah, illegal immigration is a problem. The last president's crazyass ideas werent good, the prior Republican president's ideas werent good, and the crazyass soundbites that the vocal Congress crazies release on a seemingly daily bases arent good.
None of what I have read during this century, from anyone with legislative or executive power, has been a comprehensive and realistic plan to address illegal immigration.
But that sure doesnt stop the pot stirrers from dipping their ladle in.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

You are citing facts on other people's opinions when the actual facts about physical reality is important.

People's opinions may end up being correct or they may not. But you should also know that a lot of reporting on climate "science" is reporting on what models say will happen. And popular reporting does a terrible job identifying when they are reporting on empirical findings versus when they are reporting on a paper that discusses an interesting output of particular models.

Johnson, johnson, johnson...it was just part of my ChatCPT schtick, but if I have to explain the joke...

 

[MrKotter]

The US has long had a huge isolationist streak and it varies in strength throughout the years.



I wouldn't be quite so blunt as you but I can certainly see climate change also being an economic play-- but that brings up the question: Is it a 1 percenter scheme or just them following where the consumer trend is going?

I'm thinking the latter.

The trend is being forced. The same people telling you the shoreline is shrinking, gas stoves are terrible for you, electric cars are great are the same people buying coastal homes with gas appliances, flying private everywhere (on your dime) and not driving electric cars. Again, they don't 17ing care one bit. Anything that creates a greater separation of wealth is all they want.

 

[Boom Boom]

So you can see no bad consequences from a dictator, in Europe, take over a neighbor by naked force? You are making the assumption that Russia is and will remain a failed state. It's not and it won't if it does fail.

I don't. It took Russia a long time to pull this off, and it has no comparable neighbors to repeat it on? Belarus, Latvia maybe, but how much global impact does that have? Are they in NATO? I'm assuming China would prevent an invasion of Khazakstan.

I get there's some importance there, but when uou start talking a trillion dollars, my pocket book starts to matter more. You've made that argument yourself a few thousand times, Liver.

 

[mstateglfr]

gas stoves are terrible for you,

Why is this still a thing? How is it that people are still ignorantly referencing this?

Biden isnt coming after your gas stove, the White House clearly stated it isnt even on their radar, and the CSPC isnt even coming after your gas stove.
It was referenced that gas stoves, and products in general that cant be made safe, can be banned. The CSPC also said it would rather ensure the products be made safe.
And all the while, in some situations, gas stoves can be dangerous due to the fuel.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707

Outrage outrage outrage! Stir up the base with misrepresentations! Mobilize- to the Twitter!

 

[johnson86-1]

Why is this still a thing? How is it that people are still ignorantly referencing this?

Biden isnt coming after your gas stove, the White House clearly stated it isnt even on their radar, and the CSPC isnt even coming after your gas stove.
It was referenced that gas stoves, and products in general that cant be made safe, can be banned. The CSPC also said it would rather ensure the products be made safe.
And all the while, in some situations, gas stoves can be dangerous due to the fuel.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707

Outrage outrage outrage! Stir up the base with misrepresentations! Mobilize- to the Twitter!

Sure, Biden isn't. Just an executive agency under his administration that is issuing a proposal that would ban somewhere between 50% to 95% of existing gas stoves/cooktops. People are just crazy to think that these government entities are serious when they say things or propose things.

Gas Stoves Are Back Under Scrutiny With New US Limits Proposed

(Bloomberg) -- Gas stoves are coming under fresh scrutiny as a second federal agency has now stepped into the political firestorm with a proposal for new regulations for the appliances. Most Read from BloombergWhat You Need to Know About the Suspected Chinese Spy Balloon Floating Over the...

www.yahoo.com

 

[johnson86-1]

If a lot on the right have changed how they view things, they sure havent actually said as much. From what I have seen, they largely have just glossed over their recent history of views/comments/support and went straight to taking an opposition stance to who is currently POTUS.

Now I am jumping to a conclusion here, but I assume many have taken this position simply because its the opposite of Biden.
Dick Cheney and Colin Powell are still viewed in high regard. That should really be all that is needed to show the total inconsistency and motivation behind the current popular view of 'the right'.

I think you don't come across many people from the right. Many people on the right have been vocal about their dismay at their naivety regarding those institutions. That has been a sea change on the right and the cause of a lot of despair to think that at least our officer ranks of the armed forces are lost. And I think Bush, Cheney, and Powell all held in lower regard, if not low regard.

Certainly there's plenty of reflexive being against whatever the other side is for, but there has been a real change in attitude. If Obama had left Afghanistan, I think you would have seen a lot of people on the right criticize him for leaving Afghanistan. There's been some criticism of Biden from the Bush/Cheney type leftovers, but Biden has mostly just been blasted for how incompetent the withdrawal was, not actually withdrawing.

I have enjoyed the comments of 'Biden is over there trying to secure their border while ours is wide open!'. Yeah, illegal immigration is a problem. The last president's crazyass ideas werent good, the prior Republican president's ideas werent good, and the crazyass soundbites that the vocal Congress crazies release on a seemingly daily bases arent good.
None of what I have read during this century, from anyone with legislative or executive power, has been a comprehensive and realistic plan to address illegal immigration.
But that sure doesnt stop the pot stirrers from dipping their ladle in.

Nobody can get a political coalition to actually control immigration, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between Trump and Biden's policies.

 

[dudehead]

I've always found that the best way to see what real leaders in this country think about issues like climate change are to watch what Fortune 500 companies are doing. When you see the board and CEOs of major companies preparing to do business in a world impacted by climate change, you can infer that this inherently conservative segment believes it to be a real issue. They do by and large, so I tend to take it seriously as well.

Your post reminded me of an old law school M&A/Securities Reg. prof telling us on the first day of class that the most important thing to learn in his class was to "follow the money because there you will find the truth of the deal." Sounds familiar, huh.

 

[paindonthurt]

We can't send our old stuff because then the military industrial complex doesn't get paid. Don't forget who calls the shots - and it aint the politicians.

Of course but politicians let it happen.
And I realize it’s both sides.

 

[paindonthurt]

If a lot on the right have changed how they view things, they sure havent actually said as much. From what I have seen, they largely have just glossed over their recent history of views/comments/support and went straight to taking an opposition stance to who is currently POTUS.

Now I am jumping to a conclusion here, but I assume many have taken this position simply because its the opposite of Biden.
Dick Cheney and Colin Powell are still viewed in high regard. That should really be all that is needed to show the total inconsistency and motivation behind the current popular view of 'the right'.

I have enjoyed the comments of 'Biden is over there trying to secure their border while ours is wide open!'. Yeah, illegal immigration is a problem. The last president's crazyass ideas werent good, the prior Republican president's ideas werent good, and the crazyass soundbites that the vocal Congress crazies release on a seemingly daily bases arent good.
None of what I have read during this century, from anyone with legislative or executive power, has been a comprehensive and realistic plan to address illegal immigration.
But that sure doesnt stop the pot stirrers from dipping their ladle in.

You mean building a wall isn’t a good idea for border control?

why did Obama, Hilary and joe all support it before trump?