Biden Tracker (3 Viewers)

[Farb]

For all the things related to the Biden/Harris Administration and their latest hits and misses

https://www.dailywire.com/news/whit...gedly-sexually-harassing-threatening-reporter

Interesting story, looks like 'only the best people' didn't stop with the new administration.

 

[Farb]

I'm sure they are harmful to the environment. But, this talk about gas stoves is not about fossil fuels being bad for the environment. It's about a study that showed that homes with gas stoves saw a significantly higher rate of childhood asthma.

Call me skeptical about a study that's end goal to the banning of something that uses fossil fuel as its main fuel source. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this is a just another push of big government to 'reduce carbon' or whatever nonsense they keep spouting. Besides, who would argue against helping kids?

I do think the funding the of that study would be beneficial to know.

 

[brandon]

Besides, who would argue against helping kids?

Apparently, you.

 

[Farb]

That would be awesome if this was true, and I hope it is but I doubt it, mainly by the track record of our government in the past on these very things.

 

[coldseat]

Why do Democrats always work so hard to give and provide for red states and red state voters in legislation like this, instead of investing in blue states and blue state voters? They aren't going to win over red state voters with investing in jobs in their states. They're just making it easier for Republican politicians to lie and say that all of that investment is because of their work. Red states are also so hostile to treating all citizens equally and are always working to hurt minorities, the back bone of the Democratic party. They don't care on lick about citizens that are Democrats in their states. Republicans have no problem passing legislation that hurts or disadvantages blue states.

But this is why Democrats lose so often. They don't always support and look out for the people that are voting for them, always trying to reach across the isle and show Republican voters they aren't that bad. But it never works.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

It's a legitimate question you failed to answer.

It's a liberal specialty to recognize that not all problems are black and white. There are shades of gray. Nuance.

I'm not going to sit in judgement of parents.
I'm just focusing on myself.
I personally do not have a child in my household and I'm gonna be quite upset if any government asks me to convert my kitchen from Natural Gas to Electric.
Nuance or not.
Hopefully that is clear.

 

[SamAndreas]

I'm not going to sit in judgement of parents.
I'm just focusing on myself.
I personally do not have a child in my household and I'm gonna be quite upset if any government asks me to convert my kitchen from Natural Gas to Electric.
Nuance or not.
Hopefully that is clear.

I'm going to be quite upset if the Republicans in the house subpoena me to testify before their "unamerican" committee the MAGA hats have created. The Gaul of them, how dare they subpoena me.

I would think I have about as much to be worried about with that, as you have to be worried about them coming for your gas stove.

Mark my words though I will be really, really, really upset if they do it. Why I'll write them a scalding letter with cuss words that will scald their so called human flesh off of their bones at 15 paces.

The Gaul:

 

[FullMonte]

This is the specialty of the liberals such as yourself.
Twisting common sense stuff to justify governmental over reach.
People SHOULD wear a seat belt because it is proven to save lives. I support that.
Yet on the real topic at hand...
Millions of Americans are living in a home in with there are no children.
They have lived there for decades.
Would it be ok with you if they continue to heat up their frozen corn on their gas cook top?
Seriously!

I’m no liberal. I’m as middle of the road as they come.

But, for some reason, you completely ignored the point of what I said.

You said the government should never pass a law forbidding the user of gas stoves. I simply listed examples of times the government has passed laws based on the danger of items…and you say that you agree with at least one of them. So, which is it? Should the government pass laws based on safety or not?

You say that wearing seatbelts has been proven to save lives? That’s fair. Can you show me the law thst was passed banning gas stoves because of the asthma risk? Of course not, because there isn’t one. Why? Because the CPSC has not yet done their analysis on the issue and determined if there is a real danger. They simply said thst a study showed an increase in asthma case, and they were looking into it to see what needed to be done. They never said that gas stoves would be banned. One person asked if a ban was possible, and the CPSC said thst nothing was off the table since they had not had a chance to research the issue.

 

[MT15]

I'm not going to sit in judgement of parents.
I'm just focusing on myself.
I personally do not have a child in my household and I'm gonna be quite upset if any government asks me to convert my kitchen from Natural Gas to Electric.
Nuance or not.
Hopefully that is clear.

They were talking about new construction and the phasing out of gas over the next 30 years or so. And I doubt if they will even do that. So don’t let them scare you with their bullshirt.

On a related note, I saw someone that is generally on the left post about the gas stove study saying something like - the study is measuring a correlation? OMG! Why didn’t they do a direct study?

This is a stupid criticism. Do you want to take children and expose them to natural gas byproducts on purpose in a lab? When we know they are harmful? Because that’s what you would have to do. We don’t experiment on humans in this way.

Same as that stupid criticism about the vaccine studies that antivaxxers were complaining about - the one where they said all breathlessly - Pfizer admitted they didn’t run studies on whether the virus stops transmission! Well, duh, that would mean purposefully exposing people to a deadly virus. We don’t do that kind of crap. They would do an analysis of data after the fact, and keep track of the people who got the vaccine during the trials.

There is so much bullshirt on line from people who don’t understand what they are talking about when it comes to science. It’s pathetic.

 

[Maxp]

New manufacturing plants and blue collar jobs come to MAGA states due to lack of unions and lax environmental laws.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

They were talking about new construction and the phasing out of gas over the next 30 years or so. And I doubt if they will even do that. So don’t let them scare you with their bullshirt.

On a related note, I saw someone that is generally on the left post about the gas stove study saying something like - the study is measuring a correlation? OMG! Why didn’t they do a direct study?

This is a stupid criticism. Do you want to take children and expose them to natural gas byproducts on purpose in a lab? When we know they are harmful? Because that’s what you would have to do. We don’t experiment on humans in this way.

Same as that stupid criticism about the vaccine studies that antivaxxers were complaining about - the one where they said all breathlessly - Pfizer admitted they didn’t run studies on whether the virus stops transmission! Well, duh, that would mean purposefully exposing people to a deadly virus. We don’t do that kind of crap. They would do an analysis of data after the fact, and keep track of the people who got the vaccine during the trials.

There is so much bullshirt on line from people who don’t understand what they are talking about when it comes to science. It’s pathetic.

Let the record show that on the night of January 25th, 2023
cuddlemonkey and Steve both gave a thumbs up to the very same post. (post #2,438)

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

SHOULD BIDEN RUN FOR A SECOND TERM?
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
*
Here is a related article...

Biden 2024? Most Democrats say no thank you: AP-NORC poll

A majority of Democrats now think one term is plenty for President Joe Biden, despite his insistence that he plans to seek reelection in 2024. While Biden has trumpeted his legislative victories and ability to govern, the poll suggests relatively few U.S. adults give him high marks on either...

news.yahoo.com

 

[SamAndreas]

SHOULD BIDEN RUN FOR A SECOND TERM?
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
*
Here is a related article...

Biden 2024? Most Democrats say no thank you: AP-NORC poll

A majority of Democrats now think one term is plenty for President Joe Biden, despite his insistence that he plans to seek reelection in 2024. While Biden has trumpeted his legislative victories and ability to govern, the poll suggests relatively few U.S. adults give him high marks on either...

news.yahoo.com

The AP opinion article refers to their opinion generation thingy as being a poll. It is not a poll, it's a thingy.

They call it an AP-NORC poll and while it is something, it doesn't follow the statistical rules for polling, so it's not a poll. 538 has pollsters ratings. Here's a link to that:

Pollster Ratings

FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings are calculated by analyzing the historical accuracy and methodology of each firm’s polls.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

AP-NORC is not listed in those ratings because what they do is so completely out of the orbit of polling that it's ill-defined. It's impossible to rate them.

1) They generally don't ask valid polling questions.
2) Their methods are of a focus group format, but they don't use a valid methodology to apply a statistical basis to it.
3) beyond not asking valid polling questions they often constrain the choices to an arbitrary yes/no framework when doing so is not rational.

It's both 1) and 3) which is wrong with this one. Asking Democrats if Biden should run for reelection confines the possibles to yes or no when that doesn't match up with any shape of the real world reality. Their question is in a neither space void.

The real reality is it's not a choice of voters to choose if he runs or not. It is the voters choice to vote for him, or not, if he does run. It may not seem that different, but it's very different because there are major external factors which are being ignored if one assumes that it's a voters choice for him to run, instead of it being a voters choice to vote for him if he does run.

As an example, what if looks like Trump is running and will most likely get the Republican nomination. Wow, that instantly flips the question of it being a yes/no Democratic voters choice if he runs on it's head. Suddenly the Democratic voters are faced with the real world question of it's Trump v Biden again, or Trump will likely win, will they suddenly be willing to vote for Biden in the primary if that external factor is real and applied, yes or no???

The answer is most likely to be an overwhelming YES, they will vote for him if he does run.

So this being a question for debate here in this thread is irrational at this early stage with this opinion article and its so called "poll" as its frame work to create the central question of that debate.

Even if it were a real poll the bounds of reality are stretched too thin by the fact that it's too early in the election cycle for even a real poll to deal with the unknown factors which have not fully revealed themselves at this point.

 

[Farb]

The media arm and political arm of the DNC are going against him. He will be there scape goat for their laughable equity agenda and policies.

 

[SamAndreas]

The media arm and political arm of the DNC are going against him. He will be there scape goat for their laughable equity agenda and policies.

It's 'their' Farb, not "there." Who says they're going after who???

I think it's "Republicans®" who're crawling all over their own talking points, trying to project those talking points onto "Democrats."

There's no such thing as "Democrats," it's "Republicans®" who are the unified seemly in lockstep ones. There are many individual "Democrats" and from amoung them one might hear all kinds of contradictory stuff.

When a "Republican®" says "Democrats are saying ... ". What that actually means is "Republicans® are saying ... ."

 

[Farb]

It's 'their' Farb, not "there." Who says they're going after who???

I think it's "Republicans®" who're crawling all over their own talking points, trying to project those talking points onto "Democrats."

There's no such thing as "Democrats," it's "Republicans®" who are the unified seemly in lockstep ones. There are many individual "Democrats" and from amoung them one might hear all kinds of contradictory stuff.

When a "Republican®" says "Democrats are saying ... ". What that actually means is "Republicans® are saying ... ."

Thanks, I promise to do better with my grammar.

 

[SamAndreas]

Thanks, I promise to do better with my grammar.

Don't worry about it.

Worry instead about those projections, saying someone else is doing what you're actually doing.

It's a daily common thing which ought not ever come up. I don't know why it happens, saying it's human nature is not reassuring.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Thanks, I promise to do better with my grammar.

Yeah. The person who criticized you is probably a perfect human being. THEY would NEVER accidentally make a mistake.

 

[Farb]

Yeah. The person who criticized you is probably a perfect human being. THEY would NEVER accidentally make a mistake.

Sarcasm is hard to rely via type so I have no problems at all with him.
There are many on here that I don't care for and the the feeling is more than mutual, but I do like SamA. Him and I have some fun and most of it is tongue in cheek. We would have a good time having a few beers and swapping some stories and talking politics.