America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,677 comments
  • 1,789,967 views
I agree. While Biden is significantly better than Trump, I don't think he's been a good president so far. This could change over the next four years since anything can happen, but I'm not confident of that. I'd love to be wrong though because I want the president to do well and lead the nation.
So far Biden has said he wants a united nation, and continues to makes gestures in that direction. But it seems large numbers of actual citizens do not want to compromise, reunite or live in peace and harmony. They may not be wrong. Many seem to prefer conflict as the necessary path to do the good and the right things. If we had a poll, which choice would predominate, conflict or compromise?
 
large numbers of actual citizens do not want to compromise
Because they don't want to or because they recognize that it's futile? I can point to people right now and tell you who doesn't want to and who won't because they can't. It's different.

@Joey D I was barely fluent at my survey job after six months. This dude Biden has literally been forced to personally hire hundreds of people and has plenty more to go, just to get a group of people to help him do his job. I can't imagine how much staffing is necessary to research all the nonsense that goes into rule reversals, new rules, this and that, in large enough quantity to "push an agenda". It's been a whopping six months, most of that time has been spent addressing Covid stuff, the opposing party is steadfast, and there are thousands of problems worth tackling. How do you even gameplan for that? It's a miracle that anything has been accomplished at all.
 
Last edited:
@Joey D I was barely fluent at my survey job after six months. This dude Biden has literally been forced to personally hire hundreds of people and has plenty more to go, just to get a group of people to help him do his job. I can't imagine how much staffing is necessary to research all the nonsense that goes into rule reversals, new rules, this and that, in large enough quantity to "push an agenda". It's been a whopping six months, most of that time has been spent addressing Covid stuff, the opposing party is steadfast, and there are thousands of problems worth tackling. How do you even gameplan for that? It's a miracle that anything has been accomplished at all.
The thing is he's been in federal politics for 48 years and being VP for 8 of those years he should have a pretty good handle of how to do things. However, I'm judging him solely on what he's done so far. His statement on "funding the police" was ridiculous since he's not calling for oversight with it. He's being really soft on Russia, especially with their cyberattacks. The border is a mess and those being detained are being put into horrible conditions. And finally, he's pushing grossly inflated bills without coming up with a way to pay for it.

Taxing the rich isn't a solution because all the rich are going to do is pass the increased costs down the line to the consumer, or they're just going to move their money offshore. There are ways to fund things and it would involve cutting spending in other areas like our insanely overfunded military. If that's not possible, then the bills he's pushing need to be trimmed down to be more targeted. I agree infrastructure is important, but there's some serious fat in that bill that could be cut out.

I do agree, his response to COVID was good even if he wasted and misallocated resources, but given how Trump more or less just ignored COVID anything was better than what had been going on. I also like that he's finally removing troops from Afghanistan, although I hope that means they're really pulling out. I also think shutting down the pipeline was the right move too.

As I said, he's better than Trump, but that's not exactly a lofty bar.
 
The thing is he's been in federal politics for 48 years and being VP for 8 of those years he should have a pretty good handle of how to do things. However, I'm judging him solely on what he's done so far. His statement on "funding the police" was ridiculous since he's not calling for oversight with it. He's being really soft on Russia, especially with their cyberattacks. The border is a mess and those being detained are being put into horrible conditions. And finally, he's pushing grossly inflated bills without coming up with a way to pay for it.

Taxing the rich isn't a solution because all the rich are going to do is pass the increased costs down the line to the consumer, or they're just going to move their money offshore. There are ways to fund things and it would involve cutting spending in other areas like our insanely overfunded military. If that's not possible, then the bills he's pushing need to be trimmed down to be more targeted. I agree infrastructure is important, but there's some serious fat in that bill that could be cut out.

I do agree, his response to COVID was good even if he wasted and misallocated resources, but given how Trump more or less just ignored COVID anything was better than what had been going on. I also like that he's finally removing troops from Afghanistan, although I hope that means they're really pulling out. I also think shutting down the pipeline was the right move too.

As I said, he's better than Trump, but that's not exactly a lofty bar.
Yea it's a mixed bag with Biden, I agree largely with your take, though you're a little harder on the infrastructure bill than I would be. The COVID response was excellent, and I think desperately needed. But ultimately what I will probably judge the Biden presidency on is how it handles the insurrection that is still happening in the US. The jury is still out on that.
 
DenseIdealBumblebee-size_restricted.gif
 
Dude, Florida sucks. That place is lawless. Absolute anarchy. I wouldn't blame all the cruise companies if they left and operated out of elsewhere.
 
So will Florida "arrest" any of NCL's workers if they step foot in their state again?
As ****ing insane as this current timeline is, I'm pegging that as a solid maybe. "Maybe" probably doesn't seem very solid, but the thought wouldn't have entered my mind two years ago.
 
This feels like it's to Trump what "Hunter's laptop" was to Biden. Which is exactly nothing.


Grain of salt. Many, many grains of salt. There's a warning in the headline and several more in the body of the article, but it probably won't make much difference.
 
This feels like it's to Trump what "Hunter's laptop" was to Biden. Which is exactly nothing.


Grain of salt. Many, many grains of salt. There's a warning in the headline and several more in the body of the article, but it probably won't make much difference.
It's nice to see non-politically-affiliated healthy skepticism. Always appreciated wherever I see it.
 
It's nice to see non-politically-affiliated healthy skepticism. Always appreciated wherever I see it.
Scientists were also skeptical that Covid originated from a Chinese lab. Skepticism is great as long as it doesn't simply dismiss the obvious, likely scenario which ultimately becomes supported by mounting evidence. I agree that skepticism has its place but for some reason a whole lot of really smart, really important people have been just plain wrong lately and I'm not exactly sure why. That makes me skeptical. Matter of fact, I'm more skeptical of that than I am of a "document" that confirms everything we've already known about Russia for decades.
 
Last edited:
The mounting evidence being pretty important there.
And the fact that they dismissed one with little evidence but fully supported another with little evidence? Have you forgotten that the bat thing was the defacto explanation for a year with zero evidence to support the idea? Even South Park made an episode about how moronic it was.

I'm not buying it. The scientific community, particularly the investigative portions, were an absolute embarrassment to "skepticism" through most of the pandemic and everybody thought they were politically neutral and thus trustworthy, but they weren't. Nothing is politically neutral anymore. Everything has to be taken seriously.

There are different types of skepticism so maybe we should clarify what we're talking about here. Are we "skeptical" that Covid came from a lab and that this leaked document is legit in that we believe that these theories should be "investigated thoroughly", or are we "skeptical" in that we "doubt" that they're credible theories? Because those are two very different attitudes, two very different definitions of the same term. The term is primarily dismissive so I'm skeptical that "healthy skepticism" even exists as a concept.

I'm not even remotely skeptical of the lab leak or of this document being legit, in that I do not doubt these theories at all. I am skeptical in that I think these things should be fully investigated.
 
Last edited:
And the fact that they dismissed one with little evidence but fully supported another with little evidence? Have you forgotten that the bat thing was the defacto explanation for a year with zero evidence to support the idea? Even South Park made an episode about how moronic it was.

I'm not buying it. The scientific community, particularly the investigative portions, were an absolute embarrassment to "skepticism" through most of the pandemic and everybody thought they were politically neutral and thus trustworthy, but they weren't. Nothing is politically neutral anymore. Everything has to be taken seriously.

There are different types of skepticism so maybe we should clarify what we're talking about here. Are we "skeptical" that Covid came from a lab and that this leaked document is legit in that we believe that these theories should be "investigated thoroughly", or are we "skeptical" in that we "doubt" that they're credible theories? Because those are two very different attitudes, two very different definitions of the same term.
I'm not up-to-date on my coronavirus origins evidence. Can you post what you're getting at? We have tons of evidence supporting new diseases originating from animals.
 
I'm not up-to-date on my coronavirus origins evidence. Can you post what you're getting at? We have tons of evidence supporting new diseases originating from animals.
I edited my comment with more points. But to answer your question, you're right that we do have tons of evidence supporting animal gestation and transmission but absolutely none of it has ever made sense in the context of Covid, not even from the beginning when a very small number of intimately familiar scientists said things like, "That doesn't make sense". Everybody's favorite librul journalist Johnny Harris does an entertaining job of summarizing. Off topic but relevant in the broad spectrum of American media and politics:

 
Last edited:
I don't think anything should be accepted uncritically. That's what skepticism means to me. Any other kind of skepticism is likely to be more akin to tribalism.

In the absence of a clear picture of events, explanations for the origins of COVID were always going to be conjecture. Those explanations were also frequently tendered as part of a broader narrative, particularly one of blame-shifting, and were frequently laced with rhetoric in appeals to the conspiracy-minded or even simple bigotry.

At the same time, one shouldn't disregard completely an explanation on the basis that it was offered as part of such a narrative and with such rhetoric, especially to the point that an explanation is still regarded as more information points to it.

Johnny Harris
Who?
 
If you were a Republican you'd know his name because he used to work for Vox and they're a bunch of commies. He's probably got a stupid nickname but I'm not sure what.

Speaking of things you'll hear more of in the future, I'll bet $3.50 that the best-case scenario between the US and China in the next 10 years is a new cold war. Somewhat likely, actual war. The fallout of Covid and Taiwan will be at the center of it.

Edit: And it ain't gon be no fuuuun
 
Last edited:
Speaking of things you'll hear more of in the future, I'll be $3.50 that the best-case scenario between the US and China in the next 10 years is a new cold war. Somewhat likely, actual war. The fallout of Covid and Taiwan will be at the center of it.
There's no doubt China is bent, perhaps even destined, on becoming the world's #1 superpower, and that the US is divided, distracted, and bogged down in environmental, economic and social problems. We are dependent on the Chinese for all kinds of strategic essentials, from pharma to rare earth minerals, even basic manufacturing. The Chinese would be blithering idiots if they didn't take advantage of the situation and pounce on what they want and need most. If I were them, I'd snatch Taiwan, the South China Sea , and the Himalayans, and do it sooner rather than later.
 
I edited my comment with more points. But to answer your question, you're right that we do have tons of evidence supporting animal gestation and transmission but absolutely none of it has ever made sense in the context of Covid, not even from the beginning when a very small number of intimately familiar scientists said things like, "That doesn't make sense". Everybody's favorite librul journalist Johnny Harris does an entertaining job of summarizing. Off topic but relevant in the broad spectrum of American media and politics:


That video was much more even-handed than I was prepared for. He does basically echo what I said though, mounting evidence being the important thing, and cautions a lot to not jump to the conclusion that COVID-19 came from a lab.
 
Are you actually free if the only life you're able to live is a miserable one? Or must you sacrifice some "freedom" in order to actually live your life?

 
I was definitely vacillating between posting it here or there or the 2020 election thread.



This story might be a little more relevant to the America thread.

That's a gift to democrats for sure. He was doing a fine job of making them look bad without taking money from republicans. Now he looks like a plant.
 
That's an... interesting WH dinner party guest list.
Just the one source? I can't seem to find any information elsewhere, even anything that cites the Murdoch rag.

Nevermind. Found it elsewhere, but it wasn't a lede, much less a headline.
 
Last edited:
Just the one source? I can't seem to find any information elsewhere, even anything that cites the Murdoch rag.

Nevermind. Found it elsewhere, but it wasn't a lede, much less a headline.
I found multiple sources when I looked up the story but this was the only one which mentioned the party guests up top so I could quote it in the unfurl box.


I gave the Post a quick scan in the Media Bias site before posting and all they said was "leans right" and that their political news avoided hyperbole so I figured it'd be okay. Also, other people have posted stories quoting the London Times before without being questioned.
Since when was it required to post multiple sources for a story, anyway?
 
Last edited:
Back