Man, you Chump idiots picked a real "winner" e.g. "loser"

The Ukrainian deal was not proven. And if you want to push that angle we can get into Hunter and the "Big Guy". Originally Posted by CryptKicker

Really? Than how come the *edited* transcripts of the phone call show he tried to strong arm the Ukrainian President? (To be noted: his *edit* implicated him further in trying to strong arm a leader into doing his own personal bidding. (sp) ) Can you show me, in trumps words, where he did not quid pro quo?

Who's pushing angles? Try to keep up

Update: I see the official White House website doesn't have access to the transcript but it has been put out. I don't normally use the NYT as reference but they are just copying what was put out officially.

We are not talking about the same polls. You are talking about an overall approval rating poll which is a poll of a cross section of people of all political affiliations. I'm sure his ratings are down on this type of poll.

The ones I'm talking about are polls that have been taken from republican voters about whether or not they want Trump's influence in the party. By over 50% they indicated he should be a major influence in the Republican Party. And that was up from the day after the Capitol riots.

These are two different things and my answer was in response to an earlier statement a poster made about Trump's diminishing influence with Republicans. Originally Posted by CryptKicker

You are correct in that the 2 polls are measuring different things. However, in the approval rating polls, Trump's approval among Republicans is down from its peak in most of the polls, moreso since the Capitol riots.

I can't find polls indicating those polled who want him to be a major influence in the Republican party has increased since the Capitol riots. Here is the latest poll I could find which covers many subjects. It may be true that 57% of those Republicans polled still want Trum to ber a major influence, but 64% of Republicans polled still think Trump won the election.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...ever-job-mark/

I'm not advocating for Trump 2024. I've stated many times that I was not a Trumper. I do like a lot of the things that MAGA produced but I don't know that I want him back again. I do know that Biden is taking us down the wrong path. Originally Posted by CryptKicker

So what in your opinion is Biden doing to take us down the wrong path? I do not agree with everything Biden has done is such a short time, but I also see many positives, among which are:

His actions on the coronavirus
Getting us back into Paris Accord
Supporting WHO
Support for DACA.
Strengthening Obamacare and Medicaid
Removing the "Muslim ban"
Support for incentive package
Putting together a diverse cabinet and advisors.

I'm not sure about his actions on the Keystone pipeline at this time. But it was a campaign promise he made so it should not be a surprise. I do see more positives than negatives thus far.

My only real issue with Biden's COVID plan is that it "could" provide high income Americans with relief money at the sake of the low income folks that need it. Bipartisan concerns about this and other issues about the plan: Bipartisan group of senators pushes back on Biden Covid plan
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...id-plan-461987

The Paris Accord puts the biggest expense on the USA with nothing to make the other countries actually do or pay for anything. Without the Paris Accord the US under Trump has consistently lowered CO2 output: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Continue to Decline as the American Economy Flourishes Under the Trump Administration | U.S. EPA News Releases | US EPA
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/gre...-under-trump-0

The WHO has constantly failed to be unbised when it came to the pandemic. It as continued to fail in condemning China for it's part in releasing and trying to hide responsibility for the COVID outbreak. Supporting WHO supports a biased and fraudulent organization.

I don't really have a problem with DACA. It's not their fault that their illegal parents had a child in the US.

Obamacare has done nothing but cost the average American more money for medical care and prescriptions. We should not subsidize medical care for illegal aliens and people who refuse to work and are able to do so. Medicaid should only go to those who are unable to work. Not to illegal aliens and those who are simply to lazy to work.

The only problem I had with the Muslim ban was that it had no provision to actually vet Muslims wanting to travel here to make sure as best as possible that they were not extremists. Biden simply opening the door is not good for the safety of the US.

The incentive package needs to be more targeted and not encourage people to not go to work because they receive as much in incentive and unemployment as they would working.

I have no issue with diversity in the cabinet/advisors. I have an issue with putting the same people that sold out America in the Obama/Biden Presidency back in power.

Keystone and the wall cost way too many jobs that cannot be easily replaced and will not be replaced with like-pay jobs.

My only real issue with Biden's COVID plan is that it "could" provide high income Americans with relief money at the sake of the low income folks that need it. Bipartisan concerns about this and other issues about the plan: Bipartisan group of senators pushes back on Biden Covid plan
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...id-plan-461987

The Paris Accord puts the biggest expense on the USA with nothing to make the other countries actually do or pay for anything. Without the Paris Accord the US under Trump has consistently lowered CO2 output: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Continue to Decline as the American Economy Flourishes Under the Trump Administration | U.S. EPA News Releases | US EPA
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/gre...-under-trump-0

The WHO has constantly failed to be unbised when it came to the pandemic. It as continued to fail in condemning China for it's part in releasing and trying to hide responsibility for the COVID outbreak. Supporting WHO supports a biased and fraudulent organization.

I don't really have a problem with DACA. It's not their fault that their illegal parents had a child in the US.

Obamacare has done nothing but cost the average American more money for medical care and prescriptions. We should not subsidize medical care for illegal aliens and people who refuse to work and are able to do so. Medicaid should only go to those who are unable to work. Not to illegal aliens and those who are simply to lazy to work.

The only problem I had with the Muslim ban was that it had no provision to actually vet Muslims wanting to travel here to make sure as best as possible that they were not extremists. Biden simply opening the door is not good for the safety of the US.

The incentive package needs to be more targeted and not encourage people to not go to work because they receive as much in incentive and unemployment as they would working.

I have no issue with diversity in the cabinet/advisors. I have an issue with putting the same people that sold out America in the Obama/Biden Presidency back in power.

Keystone and the wall cost way too many jobs that cannot be easily replaced and will not be replaced with like-pay jobs. Originally Posted by CryptKicker

I agree with you on the incentives. I appreciated the $1800 I've received thus far but I don't need it to survive. More emphasis should be placed on getting the money to people who need it the most.

I don't disagree with you on your complaints about the Paris Accord but my opinion is that it is better to be in it than out of it in order to use our influence. Yes, The U.S. is not close to being a primary offender.

I believe the WHO does much more good than bad and we should support it.

Obamacare has given approximately 25 million people health insurance that they never had before. Yes, we should not subsidize illegal immigrants and others but to say Obamacare has not helped those in need is incorrect. It has had zero impact on my life either positive or negative.

We have had very effective vetting processes in place long before the "Muslim ban" took effective in 2017. Trump did nothing during his 4 years in office to strengthen them as far as I can tell. The ban never should have been open-ended. We should have put restrictions on certain countries and given them requirements to which they had to comply before the ban would be lifted. That was not done.

I have no problem with Biden choosing whomever he wants to for his cabinet and advisor posts. Trump had his freedom to choose and fired most of the original appointees and continued doing so until he got a bunch of yes men supporting him. Biden has always been open to compromise and hopefully his advisors will be there to help, just not agree.

Keystone XL jobs are very temporary, although mostly well-paying. 1,000 jobs were immediately lost. More jobs will not be filled. It is Biden't argument that there will be many more jobs created through his clean energy plan. Who is right?

Keystone XL jobs are very temporary, although mostly well-paying. 1,000 jobs were immediately lost. More jobs will not be filled. It is Biden't argument that there will be many more jobs created through his clean energy plan. Who is right? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You obviously don't know much about this or you would not call the jobs "very temporary". You should do some research.

You obviously don't know much about this or you would not call the jobs "very temporary". You should do some research. Originally Posted by CryptKicker

Actually I've been doing quite a bit of reading on the subject in the last week:

"However, TC Energy Corp., the Canadian company that owns the pipeline, told PolitiFact that it estimates 1,000 people will be out of work as a direct result of Biden's order.

The company estimated about 10,400 U.S. jobs and 2,800 Canadian jobs would be created throughout the pipeline's construction, according to the company's project overview of the project. Meaning, only 1,000 of those projected jobs have been filled so far, according to TC Energy Corp.

The company also told AFP Fact Check that these jobs are temporary, only lasting a few months. Only 50 of the jobs would be permanent with some based in Canada, according to a State Department report."

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/artic...9-35ea8df83ee3

"On Jan. 20, Biden signed an order that revoked the permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. In a Facebook post published the same day, one user said the move would cost thousands of jobs.

"By revoking the Keystone pipeline permit, Biden is destroying 11,000 jobs and roughly $2 billion in wages," the post says. "Democrats couldn’t even get through Day 1 without killing jobs for middle class Americans."

TC Energy Corp., the Canadian company that owns the Keystone XL pipeline with the Alberta government, has said more than 1,000 people are out of work because of Biden’s executive order. The 11,000 and $2 billion figures cited in the Facebook post are estimates published by the company, but most of the jobs would be temporary.

Fact-check:Will the Paris accord 'cost the U.S. economy 6.5 million jobs and $3 trillion'?

‘Thousands’ of lost jobs, but most are temporary

Over the past several years, we’ve fact-checked many claims that the Keystone XL pipeline would create thousands of American jobs. Several of them lack context about the duration and nature of these positions, and this Facebook post is similar.

In the report, the agency wrote that 10,400 estimated positions would be for seasonal construction work lasting four to eight-month periods. Since the State Department defines "job" as "one position that is filled for 1 year," that would equate to approximately 3,900 jobs over a two-year period."

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...ck/6673822002/

In short: Most of the estimated jobs were temporary.

The State Department forecasted that no more than 50 jobs, some of which could be located in Canada, would be required to maintain the pipeline. Thirty-five of them would be permanent, while 15 would be temporary contractors.

As Biden's Keystone XL order sparks job losses, climate adviser says, 'We're not asking for sacrifice' | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...jobs-sacrifice

Posts inflate job losses from Biden's Keystone pipeline reversal | Fact Check
https://factcheck.afp.com/posts-infl...eline-reversal

As Biden's Keystone XL order sparks job losses, climate adviser says, 'We're not asking for sacrifice' | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...jobs-sacrifice

Posts inflate job losses from Biden's Keystone pipeline reversal | Fact Check
https://factcheck.afp.com/posts-infl...eline-reversal Originally Posted by CryptKicker

Nothing in those links goes against what I've been saying -- there will be 1,000 immediate job losses and other job losses will be for very temporary jobs and eventually about 50-100 people will be employed on the Keystone XL pipeline.

Ahhhhh........

Texas is not putting up with Biden's BS. Besides the lawsuit on the 100 day moratorium on deportation he did this: https://abc13.com/abbott-executive-o...ouse/10101914/

Abbott knows how to sign his name also. LOL

Nothing in those links goes against what I've been saying -- there will be 1,000 immediate job losses and other job losses will be for very temporary jobs and eventually about 50-100 people will be employed on the Keystone XL pipeline. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Read through his links and pretty much agree that Crypt is supporting what you said.

For i'm for the previous things you stated in response to Crypt also. Though they may not be ideal in the state they are, the pure objectives are sound. Implementation is another story.

Read through his links and pretty much agree that Crypt is supporting what you said.

For i'm for the previous things you stated in response to Crypt also. Though they may not be ideal in the state they are, the pure objectives are sound. Implementation is another story. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Yes, implementation of some policies, if they go too far, will be difficult. Especially in the state of Texas.

Why is this thread in the 'Autism' section ???
Would not the Political Forum be more appropriate??
As the moderator chooses to post here, why not in the Political Forum as well ????

Why is this thread in the 'Autism' section ???
Would not the Political Forum be more appropriate??
As the moderator chooses to post here, why not in the Political Forum as well ???? Originally Posted by oeb11

There is no "Political Forum" in the Austin subgroup. We post where it best fits in.