US Politics Thread 2021-24

[ET2SN]

I'm just sayin'.

[u crank]

President Biden Just Made His Biggest Blunder

https://dnyuz.com/2024/05/09/preside...ggest-blunder/

This is the New York Times a reliable left wing publication. Why does Bret Stephens say this?

The munitions cutoff helps Hamas.

It doesn’t end the war. It prolongs it.

It diminishes Israel’s deterrent power and is a recipe for a wider war.

There will be unintended foreign-policy consequences.

It’s a political gift to Donald Trump.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by u crank

President Biden Just Made His Biggest Blunder

https://dnyuz.com/2024/05/09/preside...ggest-blunder/

This is the New York Times a reliable left wing publication. Why does Bret Stephens say this?

Last time someone just thinking about holding up a shipment he was impeached.

[Rockstar]

Biden’s Incoherent Energy-Policy Response to the War in Ukraine

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/...ar-in-ukraine/

It has harmed U.S. interests while aiding major industrial competitors in China and India.

In mid April, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin joined Secretary of State Antony Blinken in urging Ukraine to desist from attacking Russian oil refineries. Such attacks have disabled up to 15 percent of refinery capacity in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, denting both its ability to earn export income and to wage war against Ukraine. In an election year, the Biden administration’s policy clearly values domestic fuel-price stability over helping Ukraine in its war for survival. The stated purpose of the U.S.-led price cap and ban on Russian exports to the West is to maintain Russia’s supplies while reducing the income from its exports without causing a price spike by taking Russian oil off the world market.

Biden’s policy has harmed U.S. interests while aiding major industrial competitors in China and India. These huge economies are exploiting cheap Russian oil imports to build new refining capacity. Additionally, shifting oil refining to these countries has had negative environmental effects and weakened U.S. industrial competitiveness.

There are better policies to maintain global price stability, starting with reversing the regulatory squeeze on U.S. oil and gas production. Earlier in its tenure, the administration reduced the holdings of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 43 percent, which limited Washington’s ability to use these stocks to offset severe price spikes. The Biden team has also closed off the possibility of cooperation with longtime ally Saudi Arabia to keep prices stable by increasing the weight of human-rights considerations in the relationship. U.S. policy keeps Iranian oil on the market, leads to additional discounted sales to China, and helps finance the Iranian war machine.

The feeble attempt to slow Russia’s oil production by limiting its ability to export crude oil at world prices has been a failure. While Russian exports to Europe have cratered, the breach was quickly filled by huge increases in sales to China and India after the war was unleashed. China’s imports of Russian crude have ballooned from .63 million barrels per day (mbd) before the war to an average of 1.3 mbd in recent months. India’s imports were negligible prior to the onset of the war, but now average more than 1.75 mbd. The typical price discount available to Chinese and Indian importers relative to Brent crude has ranged from $37 per barrel to around $12 or $13 per barrel in recent months.

These emerging economic giants have benefited from access to a large and steady supply of discounted Russian crude to build new refining capacity and become significant exporters of refined products such as diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline. In effect, Indian and, to a lesser extent, Chinese refiners transform blacklisted Russian crude into higher-value products to supply third markets. And the profits from this arbitrage are significant: The Indian Oil Corporation has more than doubled its profits since starting this trade, and its share price has increased by 178 percent. Indian refined-product exports to the European Union (EU) alone now average over 360,000 barrels per day (bd). India can compete on price with U.S. exporters due to lower input costs, including transportation. In early 2024, U.S. refined-product exports to Europe fell by almost half, partly due to this competition.

It is also worth noting that America’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally Turkey has contributed to keeping Russia’s war economy from collapsing by increasing its imports of crude oil and refined products that were previously sold to Europe. It has in turn become a major exporter of refined products to the EU.

Below-market supplies of crude to China put wind in the sails of Beijing’s manufacturing-export goliath, which has become the most important engine of growth in the Middle Kingdom. In sectors such as metals, cement, and chemicals, energy costs are a significant competitive factor. The cutoff of Russian oil and gas to European markets has redistributed exports to China, which has picked up the pace of purchases since the war began. In addition to crude imports, China is the beneficiary of stranded liquefied-natural-gas (LNG) sales, which previously had gone to Europe or other Western allies. Because the Biden administration has employed a freeze on permits for new U.S. LNG export facilities and increased regulatory burdens on pipelines to get gas to existing facilities, Russian gas may partially displace U.S. LNG supply to China in the medium term. In the short term, Qatar is the main beneficiary of the Biden freeze on new LNG facilities. Europe especially has eagerly signed contracts with Doha, which now plans to nearly double its LNG capacity in the next five to seven years. Some North African suppliers have also reached deals with European nations.

A final factor worth noting is that freezing or reducing U.S. oil and gas production while tolerating Russian production, as well as increased Indian and Chinese refining and manufacturing capacity, significantly harms the global environment. Russia is one of the world’s largest offenders in the emission of methane, a greenhouse gas ten or more times as potent in exacerbating climate change as CO2. Only Iran and Venezuela top Russia in methane emissions relative to economic output. In terms of total methane emissions, China is by far the world’s largest offender, while India is rapidly catching up with its neighbor. But the U.S. and EU have far better methane- and CO2-emissions records, relative to economic output, than China and India.

The U.S. and EU price caps and embargoes on imports of Russian oil and gas have reduced the hard-dollar income from this major sector of the Russian economy — which normally accounts for 30 percent to 50 percent of Moscow’s federal budget revenues — by $30 to $50 million per day. But overall production has not yet materially affected the Putin regime. Russia has accumulated more yuan and rupees to buy manufactured goods and war materiel from China. Having access to less Russian crude and fewer Russian refined products would reduce the current advantages for the Chinese and Indian manufacturing and refining sectors, which increasingly compete with U.S. producers on the world market.

Promoting increased U.S. production would go a long way to stabilizing prices and eliminating any cost advantages to competitors now afforded by the availability of discounted Russian products. An additional benefit would be strengthening the U.S. economy and creating the jobs that the campaign strategists in the Biden administration seem to have at the top of their agenda. And even environment czars John Kerry and John Podesta should applaud the climate benefits of reducing production from the champion polluters in Russia, China, and India by substituting cleaner U.S. supplies.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

Evidence of 2020 election fraud in Fulton County Georgia?



https://ballotassure.com/Reports/Georgia/2020/Fulton

Jeez, ya know, the facts just seem to keep getting in the way of the MAGA BS...


Missing 2020 poll tallies in Georgia don’t prove 20,713 votes never existed. Other records are available --

https://apnews.com/article/fact-chec...s-504105499507


It seems there were several avenues to confirm the ballots in place in 2020 and nothing, thus far, points to a massive breach in the voting process; even with the so-called 'doubled scanned' ballots in play, Trump still wouldn't have enough votes to overturn GA's final election results; as far as BallotAssure.com is concerned, the owner of the site is a MAGA/Trump diehard who claims expertise in fingerprint analysis and who appears to be one of the many "experts" who popped up after the 2020 Election to spout off their now debunked theories and claims; the owner, Phillip Davis, has no real statistical training or background that lends to him claiming data expertise in the field of election analysis; again, if there were any sound validity to these sort of claims, why don't the claimants just file suit in court and justify their 'facts' in open court, under oath, and under penalty of perjury? If they are so confident of their truth, why do they hide out behind sniper attacks on the web instead of facing those they accuse in the cold eye of the courts and the public...?...



<O>

[mapuc]

Said it before-Voters on both side tried to cheat in the 2020 Presidential election.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Said it before-Voters on both side tried to cheat in the 2020 Presidential election.

Markus

I’m not so sure both parties willingly try to cheat. Sure there may be some voters out there that will either by mistake or willingly mishandling ballots, but I got faith in the system and I like to think our system is secure enough that such things can’t sway a national election.

But one thing you can always seem count on these days when it comes to cheating is the losing party candidate and their Lunatic Fringe fanboy’s will claim the winning party does. Hillary and Pelosi are still butt hurt over 2016, so is manbearpig Algore when he lost 2000 and now Trump. Maybe Trump really is a Democrat at heart?

What does worry me is the weaponization of the justice system going after opposition political candidates. That’s some pretty third world, banana republic, fascist, Hitler lovin’ kinda sheet.

The Lunatic Fringe motto: Long Live the Party! Those clowns are the real threat to democracy, the anti-Democratic lunatic fringe who spend their days being lead around by the nose arguing over hair color, porn stars, campaign slogans on a hat, Manchurian candidate & collusion conspiracy theories, ‘chilling headlines’, fake dossiers, legal fees, listening to late night comedy shows, pee tapes, goof balls broadcasting from their basement on YouTube and other mindless Build Back Better B.S. The stuff only fascist brains can digest believing they are the ones fighting to preserve democracy. Some going so far to declare the elected leader of the free world an enemy of the state. Those party fanboys will stop at nothing and are the real threat to our democracy.


Pelosi rebuked to her face during Oxford debate after condemning Americans clouded by 'guns, gays, God'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-re...182359130.html

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was rebuked as an "elite" during a recent Oxford Union debate, where she argued that populism in the United States is a threat to democracy.

Pelosi — a self-described "devout" Catholic — said during the April 25 debate that certain Americans, whom she considered to be "poor souls who are looking for some answers," refuse to accept the answers Democrats give them on particular topics due to their beliefs about "guns, gays, [and] God."

Challenging Pelosi's position in the debate about populism, Winston Marshall, a musician who was once a part of Mumford and Sons and now hosts the "Marshall Matters" podcast for The Spectator, spoke in opposition to the Oxford Union motion that "This House Believes Populism is a Threat to Democracy."

The Oxford Union at the UK's famed university holds itself as a defender of free speech, and has hosted events with numerous U.S. politicians in the past, including former Republican House Speakers Newt Gingrich and Kevin McCarthy.

Marshall argued at the April 25 debate that the meaning of the word "populist" has been changed by "elites [who] have failed" to align with their own narrative.

"'Populism' has become a word used synonymously with ‘racist.’ We've heard ‘ethno-nationalist,’ we have ‘bigot,’ we have ‘hillbilly,’ ‘redneck,’ we have ‘deplorable,’" Marshall said. Pelosi had argued in her remarks that contemporary American populism currently had an ethno-nationalist character.

"Elites use it to show their contempt for ordinary people," Marshall said.

Marshall argued that the change in meaning of the word "populist" is "a recent change," and pointed to a 2016 speech delivered by then-President Barack Obama, who he said "took umbrage with the notion that Trump be called a populist."

"If anything, Obama argued that he was the populist. If anything, Obama argued that Bernie was the populist," he said. "Something curious happens. If you watch Obama's speeches after that point, more and more recently, he uses the word ‘populist’ interchangeably with ‘strong man,’ ‘authoritarian.' The word changes meaning. It becomes a negative, a pejorative, a slur."

Highlighting the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, which he believed to be "a dark day for America, indeed," Marshall said: "I'm sure Congresswoman Pelosi will agree that the entire month of June 2020, when the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, was under siege and under insurrection by radical progressives, those, too, were dark days for America."

At that point, Pelosi raised her hand and said: "There is no equivalence there. . . . It is not like what happened on January 6th, which was an insurrection incited by the President of the United States."

"My point, though, is that all political movements are susceptible to violence and, indeed, insurrection," Marshall said. "Populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy. And why else have universal suffrage if not to keep elites in check?"

Marshall said he was "rather surprised" that Pelosi was arguing in favor of the motion as he thought "the left was supposed to be anti-elite" and that the "left was supposed to be anti-establishment."

"Today, particularly in America, the globalist left have become the establishment," he continued. "I suppose for Mrs. Pelosi to have taken this side of the argument, she'd be arguing herself out of a job.

Marshall went on to claim that "populism is the voice of the voiceless" and that the "real threat to democracy is from the elites."

"Now, don't get me wrong, we need elites. If President Biden has shown us anything, we need someone to run the countries," he said. "When the president has severe dementia, it's not just America that crumbles, the whole world burns."

Marshal shifted his focus to examining the elites, saying he believes that Trump should have accepted the results of the 2020 presidential election.

"So should Hillary in 2016, so should Brussels and Westminster in 2016, and so, too, should Congresswoman Pelosi instead of saying the 2016 election was, quote, ‘hijacked.’"

"It was," Pelosi interjected, drawing laughter from those in attendance.

"That doesn't mean we don't accept the results of it," she added..

During his speech in opposition of the motion, Marshall also took aim at the social media companies that suspended Trump from their platforms following the January 6 Capitol protests and the mainstream media.

"Mainstream media elites are part of a class who don't just disdain populism, they disdain the people. If Democrats had put half their energy in delivering for the people, Trump wouldn't even have a chance in 2024 … you've had power for four years. From the fabricated Steele Dossier, to trying to take him off the ballot in both Maine and Colorado, the Democrats are the anti-Democrat party," he said.

"Populism is not a threat to democracy. But I'll tell you what is: It's elites ordering social media to censor political opponents," Marshall said. ". . . It's Brussels, D.C., Westiminster, mainstream media, big tech, big Pharma, corporate collusion and the Davos cronies."

Delivering remarks prior to Marshall, Pelosi said, "Democracy is the rule of law, democracy is free and fair elections, democracy is about independent judiciary, it's about freedom of the press to have transparency and to have accountability of elected officials to the people."

"It's about all of that, and that is everything that the populist regime in Washington, D.C., is against," she added. "Ethno-nationalistic populism, as is the threat to democracy, is about threatening what they call elites, a free press," she said. "It's about fighting issues that relate to free and fair elections, where we have voter suppression to the nth degree under this regime and its resistance to passing the Voting Rights Act, the John Lewis Act, all of that."

At one point, while speaking about those who may consider themselves a part of the populist movement and/or are "poor souls who are looking for some answers," Pelosi said, "We've given them to them, but they're blocked by some of their views on guns – they have the three Gs, guns, gays, God, that would be a woman's right to choose — and the cultural issues cloud some of their reception of an argument that really is in their interest."

The motion debated by Marshall and Pelosi ultimately received a passing vote from those attending the Oxford Union event, 177 to 68.



Original article source: Pelosi rebuked to her face during Oxford debate after condemning Americans clouded by 'guns, gays, God'