Sadly both Biden and trump have a shameless record ot their friends or foes looking anyone in the eye and lying and embelleshing their record shamelessly even on things that are verifiable. Trump did it and does it regularly Biden's been doing it since way back when Baron trump was Donald's PR guy The best we can do is point across the isle and say he lies too...man when american politicians send their people, they don't send their best. Get us some new clowns for the clownshow
Oh they all lie... But it cracks me up when these Trumpsters have such a very short memory and act as if Trump never told a lie and always told the truth... The man lied 90% of the time... T_Man
I totally agree, the problem is the current climate feuled by media ratings of fox news and cnn has pundits playing it like a sports team, rockets mavs where one just roots for their side rather then seeing these chumps as public servants we hire to do the job and then almost all of them consolidate into some shitty version of a unioin to preserve their own power, focus on fundraising and playing surface level dumb media photo ops to buld their brand until they get a bust in wall street for doing nothing but staying there shamelessly while giving crumbs to the people, the cake to the lobbyist and interst and a nice slice for themselves Its an odd thing for me to see anyone say trump is 'honest' and 'tells it like it is', when his own quotes be it twitter or media often contradict himself over and over again, not really a trait who doesnt gfaf and tells it how it is. Likewise, biden since his very first run where he dropped out for allegations of copying speeches, embelleshing his record on verifiable things, and of course a career of flip flopping things. Americans deserve better, but they divide and conquer with this left right crap as if americans are just binary.
wow, does WaPo unload on anti-trust fund baby Joe on this one https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/28/bidens-false-claim-that-2nd-amendment-bans-cannon-ownership/ Biden’s false claim that the 2nd Amendment bans cannon ownership By Glenn Kessler The Fact Checker June 28, 2021 at 3:00 a.m. EDT “And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.” — President Biden, remarks on gun violence, June 23 The president offered this aside as he made a litany of his regular points about the need for background checks and what he says was the effectiveness of bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines that expired. Parenthetical asides from a prepared text often trip up presidents, especially Biden. In this case, he repeated a claim — that Americans were prohibited from owning cannons — that has already been fact-checked as false when he made it during the presidential campaign. The Facts The cannon element is what mostly interests us here, but we should also address Biden’s framing about the Second Amendment, which was part of the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791. The meaning of the Second Amendment — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — has long been debated. But experts said Biden especially mischaracterized it. “Everything in that statement is wrong,” said David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the Independence Institute. After 1791, “there were no federal laws about the type of gun you could own, and no states limited the kind of gun you could own.” Not until the early 1800s were there any efforts to pass restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, he said. “I think what he’s saying here is that the Second Amendment was never understood to guarantee everyone the right to own all types of weapons, which I believe is true,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “As phrased, it sounds like the Second Amendment itself limited ownership, which is not true.” Kopel noted that some states placed gun-ownership restrictions on Native American tribes, including orders to disarm them, but the tribes under the Constitution at the time were treated as the equivalent of foreign nations. Interestingly, during the campaign, Biden had asserted that the cannon restrictions happened during the Revolutionary War. “From the very beginning you weren’t allowed to have certain weapons,” Biden told Wired magazine in May 2020. “You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.” Historians at the time told PolitiFact there was no evidence this was the case. The Biden campaign could not point to any laws but seemed to suggest Biden’s point was more metaphorical than grounded in reality. Now Biden has moved the cannon metaphor to some 20 years after the Revolutionary War — and it’s still wrong. In fact, you do not have to look far in the Constitution to see that private individuals could own cannons. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war. But there is another element of that clause that might seem strange to modern ears — Congress also had the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” What’s that? These were special waivers that allowed private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it. The “letter of marque” allowed a warship to cross into another country’s territory to take a ship, while a “letter of reprisal” gave authorization to bring the ship back to the home port of the capturer. Individuals who were given these waivers and owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle. The White House did not provide an explanation of Biden’s comment. The Pinocchio Test Some readers might think this is a relatively inconsequential flub. But we disagree. Every U.S. president has a responsibility to get American history correct, especially when he’s using a supposed history lesson in service of a political objective. The president’s push for more gun restrictions is an important part of his political platform, so he undercuts his cause when he cites faux facts. Moreover, Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim. Four Pinocchios
"Fact check: Biden keeps repeating a false story about an Amtrak conductor he knew": https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/30/poli...amtrak-angelo-negri-miles-traveled/index.html
I'm going to disagree with the Washington Post here. That the Congress is granted the power to grant Letters of Marque and these were recognized as special waivers show that ownership of cannon were already legally questionable. In other words why would it be necessary to grant a special waiver if such weapons could be owned and used already? Those are another example that the use of arms for defense of the country and/or the states wasn't just a personal right but was within a structure of regulation.
the President's piling up the Pinocchios "The White House’s slipshod claim that Republicans are defunding the police": https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-claim-that-republicans-are-defunding-police/ excerpt The Pinocchio Test We often fact-check claims in which huge spending bills are reduced to one cherry-picked expense out of thousands. In this case, there’s not even a line item to attach to the White House’s claim that Republicans are trying to defund the police. The American Rescue Plan devoted $350 billion to “state and local aid,” a pot of money that was designed for a variety of budget-plugging purposes. Among those is keeping police, teachers and emergency medical technicians at work, but going strictly by the bill text, lawmakers had no guarantee that police would get a slice of the pie. What’s more, voting against a one-time infusion of cash is not the same as voting to cut funding, so there is little basis to claim that Republicans are trying to “defund the police.” Psaki and the White House are on more solid ground by framing this talking point in terms of the COPS program, which some Republicans did vote to cut funding for as recently as the Trump administration. That’s the only thing keeping this talking point from being a Four Pinocchio claim. Overall, we award Three Pinocchios. Three Pinocchios
"JOE BIDEN, SHAMELESS LIAR": https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/joe-biden-shameless-liar.php excerpt: If it were possible to get five Pinocchios, Biden would deserve all of them for his latest outrageous claim on voting. more at the link
"US drilling approvals increase despite Biden climate pledge": https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...t-and-nature-6ac8ff49970e4b052489678b40e3ba82 excerpt: BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Approvals for companies to drill for oil and gas on U.S. public lands are on pace this year to reach their highest level since George W. Bush was president, underscoring President Joe Biden’s reluctance to more forcefully curb petroleum production in the face of industry and Republican resistance. The Interior Department approved about 2,500 permits to drill on public and tribal lands in the first six months of the year, according to an Associated Press analysis of government data. That includes more than 2,100 drilling approvals since Biden took office January 20. New Mexico and Wyoming had the largest number of approvals. Montana, Colorado and Utah had hundreds each. Biden campaigned last year on pledges to end new drilling on federal lands to rein in climate-changing emissions. His pick to oversee those lands, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, adamantly opposed drilling on federal lands while in Congress and co-sponsored the liberal Green New Deal. But the steps taken by the administration to date on fossil fuels are more modest, including a temporary suspension on new oil and gas leases on federal lands that a judge blocked last month, blocked petroleum sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and cancellation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. Because vast fossil fuel reserves already are under lease, those actions did nothing to slow drilling on public lands and waters that account for about a quarter of U.S. oil production. Further complicating Biden’s climate agenda is a recent rise in gasoline prices to $3 a gallon ($0.79 a liter) or more in many parts of the country. Any attempt to limit petroleum production could push gasoline prices even higher and risk souring economic recovery from the pandemic. “He’s walking the tightrope,” said energy industry analyst Parker Fawcett with S&P Global Platts, noting that Keystone and ANWR came without huge political costs because they were aimed at future projects. “Those easy wins don’t necessarily have huge impacts on the market today,” Fawcett said. “He is definitely backing off taking drastic action that would rock the market. ... What you’re going to see is U.S. oil production is going to continue to rebound.” *** Under former President Donald Trump, a staunch industry supporter, the Interior Department reduced the time it takes to review drilling applications from a year or more in some cases, to just a few months. Companies rushed to lock in drilling rights before the new administration. And in December, Trump’s last full month in office, agency officials approved more than 800 permits — far more than any prior month during his presidency. The pace dropped when Biden first took office, under a temporary order that elevated permit reviews to senior administration officials. Approvals have since rebounded to a level that exceeds monthly numbers seen through most of Trump’s presidency. The data obtained by AP from a government database is subject to change because of delays in transmitting data from Interior field offices to headquarters. If the recent trends continue, the Interior Department could issue close to 6,000 permits by the end of the year. The last time so many were issued was fiscal year 2008, amid an oil boom driven by crude prices that reached an all-time high of $140 per barrel that June. *** Environmentalists who share the administration’s goals on climate have expressed growing frustration as prospects for a ban on drilling fade. They contend the administration could take executive action that would stop further permits but has caved to Republican pressure. “Every indication is they have no plans of actually fulfilling their campaign promise,” said Mitch Jones, policy director for the environmental group Food & Water Watch. “The result of that will be continued and increasing development of fossil fuels on public lands, which means more climate change.” more at the link
Like Obama, he's not going to get caught in a headline when gas prices are above 5 in some parts of the country. To bad the timing will all be ****ed.
Yeah, I meant he wasn't going to put even more gas (intended) onto that PR disaster w/ more regs. Too bad all the moves are either forward or lagging to current prices.
