Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

but i will say, he needs to be more clear with his words.

No he doesn't, not even a little bit. It makes perfect sense what he is saying in context.

What actually has to happen is people need to stop taking things out of context to try and make a "gotcha!" moment. God forbid someone asks Biden "are the vaccines going out to 18-35 year olds yet?" and he responds "no the vaccines aren't going out yet" and you or someone similar posts "did you hear that Biden said that vaccines haven't even gone out yet?! he's completely lost it!" The man is allowed to talk casually.

And I can tell from your example above that you did not listen to the town hall Q&A but have only read this article about it. Perhaps have a listen of it rather just reading what was said and see, based on the flow of the discussion, if you still think he needs to be more careful. (Hint: he doesn't.)

y0ssar1an22

Deleted User wrote: »

No he doesn't, not even a little bit. It makes perfect sense what he is saying in context.

What actually has to happen is people need to stop taking things out of context to try and make a "gotcha!" moment. God forbid someone asks Biden "are the vaccines going out to 18-35 year olds yet?" and he responds "no the vaccines aren't going out yet" and you or someone similar posts "did you hear that Biden said that vaccines haven't even gone out yet?! he's completely lost it!" The man is allowed to talk casually.

And I can tell from your example above that you did not listen to the town hall Q&A but have only read this article about it. Perhaps have a listen of it rather just reading what was said and see, based on the flow of the discussion, if you still think he needs to be more careful. (Hint: he doesn't.)

lay out the context as we may be addressing each other. cos in context it still makes no sense.

transcribe in layman's terms if you want. his quote stands on its own merits.

the link was the official transcript, no?

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

lay out the context as we may be addressing each other. cos in context it still makes no sense.

transcribe in layman's terms if you want. his quote stands on its own merits.

the link was the official transcript, no?

The context is someone asked Biden about the current rollout and reserves of the "clap" as you say. The clap was then the topic of discussion for a good while. The clap is the only thing in America of which they are administering 10 million doses per day which needs to be refrigerated. Therefore when Biden stated that there was nothing in the refrigerator, i.e. no backlog, of something when he came into office, he is referring to the clap. He then went on to say there was no clap when he came into office, repeating what he said less than a minute ago. He did not change topic all of a sudden to start talking about a burrito.

I cannot believe I had to type that out.

y0ssar1an22

Deleted User wrote: »

The context is someone asked Biden about the current rollout and reserves of the "clap" as you say. The clap was then the topic of discussion for a good while. The clap is the only thing in America of which they are administering 10 million doses per day which needs to be refrigerated. Therefore when Biden stated that there was nothing in the refrigerator, i.e.no backlog, of something when he came into office, he is referring to the clap. He then went on to say there was no clap when he came into office, repeating what he said less than a minute ago. He did not change topic all of a sudden to start talking about a burrito.

I cannot believe I had to type that out.

replace clap with vaccine. so he did say there was no vaccine when he came into office?
just criticise him for the lie. it will liberate you, like sleeping with no jocks.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

replace clap with vaccine. so he did say there was no vaccine when he came into office?
just criticise him for the lie. it will liberate you, like sleeping with no jocks.

There wasn't a lie... Although substantial comprehension issues with certain users.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

replace clap with vaccine. so he did say there was no vaccine when he came into office?
just criticise him for the lie. it will liberate you, like sleeping with no jocks.

No. He said there was no vaccine reserve remaining when he came into office based on the context of the discussion.

If you don't believe that, perhaps send an email to Politico and let them know they're wrong and that Biden decided to disagree with himself within the space of a minute or two for no apparent reason and that no one at the Q&A session asked him to clarify what he meant because clearly no one was paying attention.

Or you could perhaps watch the Q&A session before you try to make assertions about it.

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1362533066359640065?s=19

Meanwhile, in actual news related to the thread title:

"The Biden administration has reversed the Trump administration's moves to reimpose sanctions against Iran and has eased strict travel restrictions on Iranian diplomats at the United Nations."

Melanchthon

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1362533066359640065?s=19

Meanwhile, in actual news related to the thread title:

"The Biden administration has reversed the Trump administration's moves to reimpose sanctions against Iran and has eased strict travel restrictions on Iranian diplomats at the United Nations."

Iran's not a biggest concern for me but something I don't get is what's the logical reason for Iran being focused on needing to have a substantial civilian nuclear program (basically one that's not for producing medical isotopes).

There's substantially richer countries without large civilian nuclear programs and Iran seems one of the least likely places to need it, it's perfect for solar power and sits on top of vast fossil reserves?
What legitimate reason is there for it to persue it? Not looking for the "America has no right to stop them" or "Israel has nukes" or "Trump's an idiot he did X Y and Z" , what's the point in them expending the effort if not for military use?

joseywhales

Melanchthon wrote: »

Iran's not a biggest concern for me but something I don't get is what's the logical reason for Iran being focused on needing to have a substantial civilian nuclear program (basically one that's not for producing medical isotopes).

There's substantially richer countries without large civilian nuclear programs and Iran seems one of the least likely places to need it, it's perfect for solar power and sits on top of vast fossil reserves?
What legitimate reason is there for it to persue it? Not looking for the "America has no right to stop them" or "Israel has nukes" or "Trump's an idiot he did X Y and Z" , what's the point in them expending the effort if not for military use?

Because it's their sovereign right to do so, the same as any current nuclear nation

Timberrrrrrrr

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Mod

Bring the comedy to the Stand Up forum.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=994

And today after almost 15 years membership, I learned there was a stand up comedy forum on boards!

Thank you sir, subscribed

ohnonotgmail

nice to see a president actually do a bit of work

duploelabs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nice to see a president actually do a bit of work

What?????? No executive time for 'sleepy joe'????

Melanchthon

joseywhales wrote: »

Because it's their sovereign right to do so, the same as any current nuclear nation

But why would they is the question apart from as a prep for military use though?
There's a reason I included this bit in my post

Not looking for the "America has no right to stop them" or "Israel has nukes"

duploelabs

Melanchthon wrote: »

But why would they is the question apart from as a prep for military use though?
There's a reason I included this bit in my post

Enriching uranium up to about 20% (I think) is need for power stations and medical usage

Cody montana

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nice to see a president actually do a bit of work

He’s doing too much!

joseywhales

Melanchthon wrote: »

But why would they is the question apart from as a prep for military use though?
There's a reason I included this bit in my post

I guess I'm saying they may be prepping military grade nuclear warheads, I don't have any more information. I am also saying it is all moot because they have the right to nuclear warheads same as the us does. And america isn't going to stop it, if it takes 10, 20 or 100 years, short of invading and occupying the country, killing thousands of civilians because iran wants the autonomy that any western country enjoys.

I honestly hope they develop the capability, so we can move on from trying to prevent them from doing so.

Igotadose

joseywhales wrote: »

I guess I'm saying they may be prepping military grade nuclear warheads, I don't have any more information. I am also saying it is all moot because they have the right to nuclear warheads same as the us does. And america isn't going to stop it, if it takes 10, 20 or 100 years, short of invading and occupying the country, killing thousands of civilians because iran wants the autonomy that any western country enjoys.

I honestly hope they develop the capability, so we can move on from trying to prevent them from doing so.

You want the Iranians with nuclear weapons capability? Why? Do you think the world will be better off if they have such?

Timberrrrrrrr

Igotadose wrote: »

You want the Iranians with nuclear weapons capability? Why? Do you think the world will be better off if they have such?

It doesn't matter wether we believe it, the Iranians believe they will be better off, they know that sooner or later America, Israel, maybe both are going to pick a fight with them, they will be less inclined to do so if they are a nuclear power.

India and China are always having skirmishes, both are nuclear powers.

India and Pakistan again have skirmishes and are both nuclear powers.

Iran will eventually become a nuclear power unless a massive invasion takes place tearing the whole ME apart and into an even bigger mess than it already is.

joseywhales

Igotadose wrote: »

You want the Iranians with nuclear weapons capability? Why? Do you think the world will be better off if they have such?

I think the world would be better off if no country had nuclear weapons. I think that iran as a sovereign nation has the right to develop nuclear weapons as they choose. I do not believe that iranian nuclear capability is more dangerous than north korean or pakistani or american. Bear in mind the us are still the only nation to use a fission device against civilians.

US makes official return to Paris climate pact

"The US is back in the Paris climate accord, just 107 days after it left."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/19/us-official-return-paris-climate-pact

Melanchthon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It doesn't matter wether we believe it, the Iranians believe they will be better off, they know that sooner or later America, Israel, maybe both are going to pick a fight with them, they will be less inclined to do so if they are a nuclear power.

India and China are always having skirmishes, both are nuclear powers.

India and Pakistan again have skirmishes and are both nuclear powers.

Iran will eventually become a nuclear power unless a massive invasion takes place tearing the whole ME apart and into an even bigger mess than it already is.

South Africa is an example of a country that could have developed nuclear weapons but didn't.

Anyway nobody seems to be picking up on why this matters.
Nobody is giving a reason why Iran would be so focussed on developing a large scale civilian nuclear power apart from as a pathway to develop nuclear weapons.

The deal allows for a civilian program.

Why go back to the deal considering it allows the Iranians to develop competencies in this area.

Basically everyone seems to be posting good reasons not to go back to the deal, and obviously have a completely off perception of the topic considering a really major policy goal on both sides in the US is to stop Iran developing nukes.

duploelabs

Melanchthon wrote: »

South Africa is an example of a country that could have developed nuclear weapons but didn't.

Anyway nobody seems to be picking up on why this matters.
Nobody is giving a reason why Iran would be so focussed on developing a large scale civilian nuclear power apart from as a pathway to develop nuclear weapons.

The deal allows for a civilian program.

Why go back to the deal considering it allows the Iranians to develop competencies in this area.

Basically everyone seems to be posting good reasons not to go back to the deal, and obviously have a completely off perception of the topic considering a really major policy goal on both sides in the US is to stop Iran developing nukes.

Enriching uranium is perfectly plausible for civilian power generation and medical uses up to a certain percentage. That is why you have monitors to make sure they don't and those monitors are part of the deal. It's that simple

Yeah_Right

Melanchthon wrote: »

South Africa is an example of a country that could have developed nuclear weapons but didn't.

I'm pretty sure South Africa did develop nukes (with help from Israel) but then dismantled them in the late 80s or early 90s.

I don't like the idea of a nuclear iran because their leaders have repeatedly stated that they desire the complete destruction of Israel.

Water John

It's all about the US favouring the Saudis and the history of the US propping up the Shah. Relations need to be reset.

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

US makes official return to Paris climate pact

"The US is back in the Paris climate accord, just 107 days after it left."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/19/us-official-return-paris-climate-pact

All while he has to supply big ole Dirty diesel generators to texas in the same week.


As regards to rejoining the the Paris climate accord??

In the words of Roy Keane

Do me a favour will ya.

An article from national geographic from 2019.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/2019/11/nations-miss-paris-targets-climate-driven-weather-events-cost-billions

The majority of the carbon emission reduction pledges for 2030 that 184 countries made under the Paris Agreement aren’t nearly enough to keep global warming well below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). Some countries won’t achieve their pledges, and some of the world's largest carbon emitters will continue to increase their emissions, according to a panel of world-class climate scientists.


A science mag article in 2020
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/paris-climate-pact-5-years-old-it-working

If a grade is awarded to the Paris pact “based on whether we have any prospect of meeting a 2°C target, from that point of view, it’s probably a D or an F,” says Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy expert at Princeton University.[

UN environment Programme report Dec 2020

https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2020

The report finds that, despite a brief dip in carbon dioxide emissions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is still heading for a temperature rise in excess of 3°C this century – far beyond the Paris Agreement goals of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing 1.5°C.

An article from politico

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/02/19/paris-agreement-joe-biden-fossil-fuels-470167

Fossil fuel production actually accelerated during the time Biden was Vice president apart from their grave concern for the environment.



The U.S. has shaped itself into the world’s top fossil fuel producer — a shift that began under George W. Bush and accelerated during the Obama era.

How did that happen Joe and Barack?
Well emissions only count in country fossil fuel is burned in so they get to export all the fossil fuels they want and it won't effect their Paris emmision figures.


Even amid its climate vows, the United States aims to ship its petroleum and liquefied natural gas all over the world on the grounds of promoting economic activity, energy security for allies and providing lower-carbon sources for energy-poor nations considering coal.

The Paris Agreement also contains a significant loophole: Nations only count the emissions from where fuels are burned, not when they’re produced. So if the U.S. exports a gusher of oil, gas and coal abroad, none of that counts on paper against the nation's climate goals. While those are the rules of the system, environmental activists say it brings into question how the U.S. can pledge to raise its own climate ambitions while profiting off planet-heating fuels.



President Obama and Joe also have more crude oil history.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Politics/2018/1018/How-the-US-became-a-leading-fossil-fuels-exporter

Days after the Paris climate agreement was reached in 2015, Obama signed a budget bill to keep the federal government running; slipped inside was a provision allowing crude oil to be sold freely for the first time since 1975. The move was praised by an alliance of 16 companies, most of which are now capitalizing on an export-driven boom in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ecowatch.com/amp/9-gifts-president-obama-gave-big-oil-in-2015-1882138237

Big Oil won its biggest policy victory in years when President Obama accepted a deal to lift the 40-year crude oil export ban. Over the next 10 years this long-sought goodie could translate into $171 billion in new revenue for the oil industry and as much as 3.3 million barrels of new production per day by 2035. More money in Big Oil’s pocket and more carbon in the atmosphere—at precisely the time we need less of both.

Leroy42

So why did Trump gave such a strop about the Paris accord?

Tell me how

12gauge dave wrote: »

All while he has to supply big ole Dirty diesel generators to texas in the same week.


As regards to rejoining the the Paris climate accord??

In the words of Roy Keane

Do me a favour will ya.

An article from national geographic from 2019.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/2019/11/nations-miss-paris-targets-climate-driven-weather-events-cost-billions

The majority of the carbon emission reduction pledges for 2030 that 184 countries made under the Paris Agreement aren’t nearly enough to keep global warming well below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). Some countries won’t achieve their pledges, and some of the world's largest carbon emitters will continue to increase their emissions, according to a panel of world-class climate scientists.


A science mag article in 2020
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/paris-climate-pact-5-years-old-it-working

If a grade is awarded to the Paris pact “based on whether we have any prospect of meeting a 2°C target, from that point of view, it’s probably a D or an F,” says Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy expert at Princeton University.[

UN environment Programme report Dec 2020

https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2020

The report finds that, despite a brief dip in carbon dioxide emissions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is still heading for a temperature rise in excess of 3°C this century – far beyond the Paris Agreement goals of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing 1.5°C.

An article from politico

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/02/19/paris-agreement-joe-biden-fossil-fuels-470167

Fossil fuel production actually accelerated during the time Biden was Vice president apart from their grave concern for the environment.



The U.S. has shaped itself into the world’s top fossil fuel producer — a shift that began under George W. Bush and accelerated during the Obama era.

How did that happen Joe and Barack?
Well emissions only count in country fossil fuel is burned in so they get to export all the fossil fuels they want and it won't effect their Paris emmision figures.


Even amid its climate vows, the United States aims to ship its petroleum and liquefied natural gas all over the world on the grounds of promoting economic activity, energy security for allies and providing lower-carbon sources for energy-poor nations considering coal.

The Paris Agreement also contains a significant loophole: Nations only count the emissions from where fuels are burned, not when they’re produced. So if the U.S. exports a gusher of oil, gas and coal abroad, none of that counts on paper against the nation's climate goals. While those are the rules of the system, environmental activists say it brings into question how the U.S. can pledge to raise its own climate ambitions while profiting off planet-heating fuels.



President Obama and Joe also have more crude oil history.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Politics/2018/1018/How-the-US-became-a-leading-fossil-fuels-exporter

Days after the Paris climate agreement was reached in 2015, Obama signed a budget bill to keep the federal government running; slipped inside was a provision allowing crude oil to be sold freely for the first time since 1975. The move was praised by an alliance of 16 companies, most of which are now capitalizing on an export-driven boom in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ecowatch.com/amp/9-gifts-president-obama-gave-big-oil-in-2015-1882138237

Big Oil won its biggest policy victory in years when President Obama accepted a deal to lift the 40-year crude oil export ban. Over the next 10 years this long-sought goodie could translate into $171 billion in new revenue for the oil industry and as much as 3.3 million barrels of new production per day by 2035. More money in Big Oil’s pocket and more carbon in the atmosphere—at precisely the time we need less of both.

Instead of agonising over which parts of posts you should Bold or not, you should consider investigating the shenanigans that go on in getting bills passed with ammendums and riders often added in barely legible text in the margin.
To blame Obama for continued deals for fossil fuel industries is showing complete ignorance either for the influence of lobbyists and members of the Republican party and/or the influence of members of both the house and senate on how bills finally look.

Have a look of the commentary this week from conservative politicians and media about the fossil fuel industry in Texas. That will give you some indication of the challenge any Democrat has in getting meaningful change through.

Paris agreement is not going to be enough. But it is a step forward rather than back which is what Trump did without suggesting any meaningful alternative.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

...

Awww I feel bad that you copy pasted so much and yet still made such a terrible argument.

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

Awww I feel bad that you copy pasted so much and yet still made such a terrible argument.

If you would like to explain why it's such a bad argument and counter with some points of your own and defend the Paris climate agreement
i would be happy to read them?

Water John

When you start by referencing emergency generators in Texas, you've lost any rational argument.