Politics

[Ray B]

Not after November if we keep our focus on the prize.

Which presents some questions:
Knowing that Bidet won't be the 2024 candidate & possibly won't complete the 0220 term; & that Kampala Kamala couldn't win an election for garbage collector; & knowing that it is likely the DemonRats will lose the ability to decide on a replacement president after January 2023; WHAT will they do between now and then about selecting a replacement President & Vice?
Just how much do the DemonRats fear the consequences of losing control of the investigative process of Congress?

 

[Dragan N.]

No you didn't. Others do regularly. I apologize for including you in that generalization by responding to your post directly.

I get it. Everything you say about the willful neglect within our nation, whether economics, crime, priorities etc. etc. is absolutely correct. However, ignoring the burgeoning threat posed by a resurgent Russia does absolutely nothing to solve those other issues. Indeed, it can only add to them in the coming decades. We have the means to deal with all of these problems. Not dealing with one set does not make it wrong to deal with another.

My advanced apology for presuming anything about you, but perhaps you are well-off enough to endure the economic pain, and isolated enough to be shielded from the crime, violence, and moral decay in our society. I am not, so maybe that's a big reason we seem to disagree on this country's priorities at the moment.

Do you really mean this paragraph?

I am retired. That means my income is fixed. Raging inflation and a shrinking investments affect people like me more than anyone. Perhaps because I have seen this before we have been very cautious with "investments." For instance, we own this place free and clear. Up until about a month ago, many would say that was a waste of deployable assets. It looks pretty smart right now. And this can and likely will get worse - possibly a whole lot worse. I bought my first house as a struggling captain in 1981. With excellent credit, my 30-year fixed mortgage was 18.1%. And yes, we currently live in a rural environment. But we are also part of the larger Austin metroplex. So, please no lectures on crime. Besides, I absolutely agree with you.

My only point is that none of this has anything to do with the threat posed by a resurgent Russia. The situation is frustrating, it is even infuriating, but to not address one because our government won't address others is also the height of neglect.

Illegal immigrants make up maybe 10% or more of the population in California and Texas. Those 2 states also have the biggest GDPs of all US states. Hispanic are the single largest ethnic group in California. In Texas non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics are pretty much at parity. Most illegals are Hispanics. Do you seriously think that this is an issue that could be easily solved, i.e.blocking the Rio Grande?? Especially when California has declared itself to be a sanctuary state. Trying to address this monstrosity of a problem would lead to a lot of backlash especially in the border states which have huge Hispanic populations. I think of the 4 states that border Mexico, Arizona is the only one where non-Hispanic whites are still the biggest ethnic group. The problem with illegal immigration will likely only get worse with time due to America's changing demographics (growth of its Hispanic population). And the rise of more sanctuary cities or states.

Russia is a country with a GDP of $1.5 trillion USD. The US has a GDP of 22 trillion. Russia's GDP is not even 1/10th of America's.The primary determinant of a country's military might is its economic might. The US spends about 800 billion on defense. The NATO alliance as a whole spends around 1.2 trillion on defense. Russia's defense budget is about 60-70 billion. In order for Russia to become a resurgent force in Eastern Europe it would need to drastically up its defense budget and start to rival that of NATO. That means Russia would have to spend what 70% of its GDP on defense? That's pure fantasy. To put things into perspective the Soviet economy in its heyday was the world's second largest. In PPP terms it's economy was maybe 50% of the American and in GDP it was maybe 35% or so. The Soviet Union was spending 25% or so of its GDP on its military to keep up with America and even that amount/% proved unsustainable. Do you really think modern day Russia could afford to spend 70% of its GDP on military to try and match the US or NATO ? Russia's military threat is very low on my list of concerns....

Now there is a country that could and likely will threaten the US and NATO in the future and that is China. In terms of GDP the Chinese economy is about 75-80% of the American and in P.P.P. terms it has surpassed America as the world's largest economy. It is projected to overtake America in GDP as well in about 10 years or so. By 2050 it will likely outstrip America by a decent margin. Now autocracies, because they lack audience costs, can spend more of their GDP on defense than democracies can. The US spends what 3-4% or so of its GDP on defense? Lets say China, which presently spends about 2% on its defense, in the future decades decides to raise its defense spending to 5%, (which isn't a particularly crazy amount like the 25% the USSR was spending..) It will then rival or even exceed American spending. That's a country that can pose a rather significant threat in the near future. It can also significantly increase its nuclear arsenal in the coming decades as well. As nuclear weapons are not particularly expensive or difficult for a country like China to produce.

 

[marksman]

l have to agree about China and they are not hiding how they are building their fleet
like their new aircraft carrier the "Fujian"
and l do not think that China will go in as soft as Russia has on the Ukraine
they are bad dudes even though they are not called Corn Pop LOL

but then you have a government that wants to purge the military because of their political view?

Breaking down Biden's plan to purge military of conservatives

Guests: Julio Rosas, Raymond Arroyo, Rob O'Neill, Jeremy Hunt, Kash Patel, Brandon Judd, Alan Dershowitz

www.foxnews.com

 

[Red Leg]

Illegal immigrants make up maybe 10% or more of the population in California and Texas. Those 2 states also have the biggest GDPs of all US states. Hispanic are the single largest ethnic group in California. In Texas non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics are pretty much at parity. Most illegals are Hispanics. Do you seriously think that this is an issue that could be easily solved, i.e.blocking the Rio Grande?? Especially when California has declared itself to be a sanctuary state. Trying to address this monstrosity of a problem would lead to a lot of backlash especially in the border states which have huge Hispanic populations. I think of the 4 states that border Mexico, Arizona is the only one where non-Hispanic whites are still the biggest ethnic group. The problem with illegal immigration will likely only get worse with time due to America's changing demographics (growth of its Hispanic population). And the rise of more sanctuary cities or states.

Russia is a country with a GDP of $1.5 trillion USD. The US has a GDP of 22 trillion. Russia's GDP is not even 1/10th of America's.The primary determinant of a country's military might is its economic might. The US spends about 800 billion on defense. The NATO alliance as a whole spends around 1.2 trillion on defense. Russia's defense budget is about 60-70 billion. In order for Russia to become a resurgent force in Eastern Europe it would need to drastically up its defense budget and start to rival that of NATO. That means Russia would have to spend what 70% of its GDP on defense? That's pure fantasy. To put things into perspective the Soviet economy in its heyday was the world's second largest. In PPP terms it's economy was maybe 50% of the American and in GDP it was maybe 35% or so. The Soviet Union was spending 25% or so of its GDP on its military to keep up with America and even that amount/% proved unsustainable. Do you really think modern day Russia could afford to spend 70% of its GDP on military to try and match the US or NATO ? Russia's military threat is very low on my list of concerns....

Now there is a country that could and likely will threaten the US and NATO in the future and that is China. In terms of GDP the Chinese economy is about 75-80% of the American and in P.P.P. terms it has surpassed America as the world's largest economy. It is projected to overtake America in GDP as well in about 10 years or so. By 2050 it will likely outstrip America by a decent margin. Now autocracies, because they lack audience costs, can spend more of their GDP on defense than democracies can. The US spends what 3-4% or so of its GDP on defense? Lets say China, which presently spends about 2% on its defense, in the future decades decides to raise its defense spending to 5%, (which isn't a particularly crazy amount like the 25% the USSR was spending..) It will then rival or even exceed American spending. That's a country that can pose a rather significant threat in the near future. It can also significantly increase its nuclear arsenal in the coming decades as well. As nuclear weapons are not particularly expensive or difficult for a country like China to produce.

I always try to articulate what I "seriously think" so you do not need to ask me again.

Let me try to separate what I believe are two very different issues which you seem to conflate.

The rising percentage of the Hispanic population in this country is not the same thing the as the crisis at the border. Hispanic birth rates (and falling Caucasian ones) have a much greater bearing on percentage of ethnic population growth than does illegal immigration. Secondly, fully 2/3's of "Hispanics" in the US population identify as white. Third, and I think most importantly, as the recent election of Mayra Flores (married to a border patrol officer no less) in Texas would indicate, both democrat and brown menace hysteric assumptions about a monolithic Hispanic voting block are likely very wrong. Hispanic US citizens are far less sympathetic to uncontrolled emigration than many assume. The results in Texas 34 mirror my own observations in this state. An unintended consequence of the so called replacement theory may be a lot of new conservatives rather than servants of the elite. So let me in all seriousness set that issue aside.

The chaos at the border is another issue entirely and simply has to be brought under control. I think the Trump administration had us well on the path to accomplishing that goal. It is solvable. It also has absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia's European aspirations.

With respect to Russia, you are correct. I have noted elsewhere in this interminable discussion the exact GDP figures you quote. My only point is that such a country does not have the right to take over and absorb the largest state in Europe (Russia is in both Europe and Asia) because it demands the right. More importantly, a victory there would increase Russia's population by more than 25% and put some of the most productive industrial, agricultural, and energy resources in the northern hemisphere back under its control. That changes that GDP calculus meaningfully, but more importantly, it would make Russia the strategic partner China thought it was getting prior to the Olympic Games.

I again believe, most seriously, that the situation is not unlike Czechoslovakia in 1938. We can deal with a relatively week but aspirational Putin now, or a far stronger one later.

Which brings us to China. I fully agree that the PRC is our most serious strategic threat. I simply, and most seriously, believe that it is an even more dangerous threat when allied with a hostile, rejuvenated, and expanding Russian empire.

 

[wesheltonj]

Illegal immigrants make up maybe 10% or more of the population in California and Texas. Those 2 states also have the biggest GDPs of all US states. Hispanic are the single largest ethnic group in California. In Texas non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics are pretty much at parity. Most illegals are Hispanics. Do you seriously think that this is an issue that could be easily solved, i.e.blocking the Rio Grande?? Especially when California has declared itself to be a sanctuary state. Trying to address this monstrosity of a problem would lead to a lot of backlash especially in the border states which have huge Hispanic populations. I think of the 4 states that border Mexico, Arizona is the only one where non-Hispanic whites are still the biggest ethnic group. The problem with illegal immigration will likely only get worse with time due to America's changing demographics (growth of its Hispanic population). And the rise of more sanctuary cities or states. . .

Now there is a country that could and likely will threaten the US and NATO in the future and that is China. In terms of GDP the Chinese economy is about 75-80% of the American and in P.P.P. terms it has surpassed America as the world's largest economy. It is projected to overtake America in GDP as well in about 10 years or so. By 2050 it will likely outstrip America by a decent margin. Now autocracies, because they lack audience costs, can spend more of their GDP on defense than democracies can. The US spends what 3-4% or so of its GDP on defense? Lets say China, which presently spends about 2% on its defense, in the future decades decides to raise its defense spending to 5%, (which isn't a particularly crazy amount like the 25% the USSR was spending..) It will then rival or even exceed American spending. That's a country that can pose a rather significant threat in the near future. It can also significantly increase its nuclear arsenal in the coming decades as well. As nuclear weapons are not particularly expensive or difficult for a country like China to produce.

There is a difference between the Hispanics living in the large cities of Texas and the Border. The Hispanics along the border do not want the illegal immigration and want it stopped and the wall built. They are increasingly voting R because of the border. Whereas, the Hispanics in the large cities are against the border wall and continue to vote D and demonize R's as being racist for being against illegal immigration.

I would agree with you regarding China. They are the biggest threat to the USA. I also suspect that the arming of Ukraine by the USA is a message to China about Taiwan and the Pacific Rim.

 

[jpr9954]

 

[Wheels]

Amazing how quick some meme creators are.

 

[Aaron N]

Amazing how quick some meme creators are.

View attachment 472069

Apparently being President IS just like riding a bike.....

 

[Ray B]

Apparently being President IS just like riding a bike.....

The camera angle that I viewed was blocked by a bunch of people . When the view finally got to Bidet the crash had already occurred - but it appeared that he was supposed to make a left turn but went straight into the crowd and knocked down a woman.

Is that what happened?

 

[Aaron N]

The camera angle that I viewed was blocked by a bunch of people . When the view finally got to Bidet the crash had already occurred - but it appeared that he was supposed to make a left turn but went straight into the crowd and knocked down a woman.

Is that what happened?

It looked like he couldn’t unclip his one shoe from the pedal. I only watched a quick clip

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

 

[sestoppelman]

What an ultra maroon! Just sad..

I have other thoughts on the what if question. What if he got the hook?
OK, I agree some of the alternatives may be worse. On the other hand if Joe was gone and Harris took over, then what?
She will have to choose a Veep. Its possible her veep choice could be someone with a brain between their ears, unlike Harris, or Joey.
No way in Hell it gets to Nancy Pelosi, not in a million years.
So I tend to look at it this way. If Harris took over with a half smart Veep, they could help keep her out of too much trouble and Joey is if nothing else very angry, stubborn and inflexible. Almost anyone would be less so.
Harris would likely be more easily managed than Joey is.
And the larger point in my view, is that Biden does not deserve to be president, nor belong in the WH and if any of these newish allegations of sexual child abuse are true, he should not only be frog marched out of the WH, he should be prosecuted.
The country deserves a better man than Joe the Perv to run this country, which he obviously is not equipped to do mentally or physically.
He is a disaster! Could it really get much worse with someone else at the helm?
I dont think so.

 

[JOHN GRENZ]

 

[WAB]

What an ultra maroon! Just sad..

I have other thoughts on the what if question. What if he got the hook?
OK, I agree some of the alternatives may be worse. On the other hand if Joe was gone and Harris took over, then what?
She will have to choose a Veep. Its possible her veep choice could be someone with a brain between their ears, unlike Harris, or Joey.
No way in Hell it gets to Nancy Pelosi, not in a million years.
So I tend to look at it this way. If Harris took over with a half smart Veep, they could help keep her out of too much trouble and Joey is if nothing else very angry, stubborn and inflexible. Almost anyone would be less so.
Harris would likely be more easily managed than Joey is.
And the larger point in my view, is that Biden does not deserve to be president, nor belong in the WH and if any of these newish allegations of sexual child abuse are true, he should not only be frog marched out of the WH, he should be prosecuted.
The country deserves a better man than Joe the Perv to run this country, which he obviously is not equipped to do mentally or physically.
He is a disaster! Could it really get much worse with someone else at the helm?
I dont think so.

Harris is too arrogant to be managed. IMO she would be a complete disaster, even beyond the current disaster.

 

[Sabattiboy]

There is a generation in for a rude awakening View attachment 471937

The sub-prime loans being pushed set the stage for the balloon bust 2007-2010.
In the mid 1980's the mortgage interest rate went to 18% or higher. That can be refinanced when the rates drop.
It is unclear where the current housing values will go but probably not take a drastic value drop unless the economy crashes badly. No matter how one looks at it the outcome will probably not be good.

 

[Sabattiboy]

CERTAINLY!! If you consider that the administrations goal is to bankrupt the "American Way of Life", kill off millions of people via starvation, death camps and wars, the current administration is doing thing very well. They just have a different end goal than most of the worlds population.

The gap between the haves and have nots has changed drastically in the two years. If the economy takes even a short term dump how many more people will lose their housing? Will another round of $1400 stimulus checks bail 1/2 of america out? Not likely. But hey, it's all in good fun if you are currently running the country.
A week or less Fox news gave info saying obama was building off the grid. The word Bunker was used but not clear if that is factual. What is he preparing for?

 

[Ray B]

What an ultra maroon!

the Bidet is a MORON Not a Maroon.

A Moron is someone with the intellectual ability of an 8 year old.

A Maroon is a graduate/letterman of the University of Chicago, A school to which Bidet would not be allowed to attend, although they did hire a bozo community organizer as a lecturer (not a professor as claimed) several years back.

 

[shootist~]

scariest thing I've read today:

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

in our ever more centralized, inter-connected, digital world, the possibility of using unrelated disagreement with government policy to restrict accesses to your finances for example would turn the entire population into mere slaves.

And is exactly why we must protect Amendment 2.

The sons of b**ches in DC right now would do it or similar in a heartbeat if they could. Remember during the housing crisis mess, the Democrats talked about going after 401k savings to fund their agenda.

 

[Doug3006]

I always try to articulate what I "seriously think" so you do not need to ask me again.

Let me try to separate what I believe are two very different issues which you seem to conflate.

The rising percentage of the Hispanic population in this country is not the same thing the as the crisis at the border. Hispanic birth rates (and falling Caucasian ones) have a much greater bearing on percentage of ethnic population growth than does illegal immigration. Secondly, fully 2/3's of "Hispanics" in the US population identify as white. Third, and I think most importantly, as the recent election of Mayra Flores (married to a border patrol officer no less) in Texas would indicate, both democrat and brown menace hysteric assumptions about a monolithic Hispanic voting block are likely very wrong. Hispanic US citizens are far less sympathetic to uncontrolled emigration than many assume. The results in Texas 34 mirror my own observations in this state. An unintended consequence of the so called replacement theory may be a lot of new conservatives rather than servants of the elite. So let me in all seriousness set that issue aside.

The chaos at the border is another issue entirely and simply has to be brought under control. I think the Trump administration had us well on the path to accomplishing that goal. It is solvable. It also has absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia's European aspirations.

With respect to Russia, you are correct. I have noted elsewhere in this interminable discussion the exact GDP figures you quote. My only point is that such a country does not have the right to take over and absorb the largest state in Europe (Russia is in both Europe and Asia) because it demands the right. More importantly, a victory there would increase Russia's population by more than 25% and put some of the most productive industrial, agricultural, and energy resources in the northern hemisphere back under its control. That changes that GDP calculus meaningfully, but more importantly, it would make Russia the strategic partner China thought it was getting prior to the Olympic Games.

I again believe, most seriously, that the situation is not unlike Czechoslovakia in 1938. We can deal with a relatively week but aspirational Putin now, or a far stronger one later.

Which brings us to China. I fully agree that the PRC is our most serious strategic threat. I simply, and most seriously, believe that it is an even more dangerous threat when allied with a hostile, rejuvenated, and expanding Russian empire.

Regarding the fear of a monolithic brown voting block that supports unrestricted immigration, consider the life and career of Cesar Chavez. Born in AZ to Mexican American parents, Chavez was an activist for better treatment of mostly Hispanic farm workers in the Southwest. He formed the United Farm Workers. So far, sounds like he was a Progressive. However, he campaigned for border control, even forming groups of farm workers to patrol the border to spot illegals. He knew that if his people were to prosper, we had to control the influx of new workers who would work for little and keep his people in poverty. Funny how getting some chips in the game changes people’s outlook. Irish immigrants voted Democrat reliably for 50 years, then as more and more of them moved up the scale, they were no longer a Democrat voting block. We must control the border, but history shows we can relax a little on the demographic anxiety.

 

[Sabattiboy]

Regarding the fear of a monolithic brown voting block that supports unrestricted immigration, consider the life and career of Cesar Chavez. Born in AZ to Mexican American parents, Chavez was an activist for better treatment of mostly Hispanic farm workers in the Southwest. He formed the United Farm Workers. So far, sounds like he was a Progressive. However, he campaigned for border control, even forming groups of farm workers to patrol the border to spot illegals. He knew that if his people were to prosper, we had to control the influx of new workers who would work for little and keep his people in poverty. Funny how getting some chips in the game changes people’s outlook. Irish immigrants voted Democrat reliably for 50 years, then as more and more of them moved up the scale, they were no longer a Democrat voting block. We must control the border, but history shows we can relax a little on the demographic anxiety.

Decades ago it was said any single demographic voting as a block would win. None ever could manage that, even if that election actually went that way. People get ideas in their head and run with it whether founded or not. In spite of facts and science we still have flat earth believers.
It is also true that not everything turns out the way it looks like it is going. Many probably hope that is true for current affairs. My personal hope for that is a single line in a pie chart.