You got years to go being miserable then. And I’m talking decades because the senate and the presidential cycles aren’t lining up for democrats for a very long time.
Manchin says he will not vote for Build Back Better: 'This is a no'
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
You got years to go being miserable then. And I’m talking decades because the senate and the presidential cycles aren’t lining up for democrats for a very long time.
Say it louder, one time for the people in the back.
I've reached the point where I am fine with it.I will never vote for a moderate democrat again.If its a really bad moderate like Manchin,Senima or Biden I'm voting for the republican.At least I get lower taxes from them while I get nothing from moderate democrats.
There is a pattern here of course. The fundamental problem of having poor staff and poor negotating skills cuts across everything the administration does.
Let's tale a quick trip down memory lane:
The State Departments first foray outside the beltway was a meeting with the chinese in Anchorage. They thought it would be a good way to get the ball rolling by humiliating them publicly about human rights in order to appease the home audience and to poke their fingers in their eyes as a way to get to know them. Fail. Then later on, they sent a mission to meet with Xi in china while dissing him on the way over and so Xi would not meet with them or let his staff meet with them. Fail.
Then our oldest ally France withdrew its ambassador - not because they lost the sub deal- but because they were blindsided by finding out about in the press as part of a Brit announcement and did not enjoy the embarassment. Fail.
"Negotiating" with the Taliban on a wide range of matters = Fail on a wide range of matters.
Negotiating with Manchin = fail.
Negotiating with the northern triangle and Mexico = Fail. Kamala had an overnight trip there in June. The rest is who-knows-what. Certainly not face to face negotiation. Fail.
They have a staffing and talent problem made worse by the fact that higher-ups, Biden and Kamala, are totally dependent on staff.
Omg.
We have laid highways across every type of socioeconomic land track that has ever existed in this country. Think those 10's of thousands of farmers wanted their fields cut in half with no way to get to the other side?
Your post wasn’t aimed at minority neighborhoods, you blamed the problem on a poorly engineered tunnel that forced trucks onto city streets.
At least try to stay on topic when you’re on your soapbox.
Last edited:
Yeah right.
From where to where?
Above ground or below ground.
What's the source of the water and where is it stored on the other end?
Do you have any idea how much electricity will be required to pump all that water across the continent?
We won't even get into the 8 gillion environmental issues this would create.
If the western side of the Continental Divide needs water, build a nuclear plant and start desalinizing the Pacific. Someday we'll have fusion and this problem will be solved.
Lol.... the only way you'd get a pipeline like that is if friggin' Trump were in office and he closed the entire EPA.
Although UsualTard is taking a bit of a walk on the wild side there with that proposal. Nevertheless, I will accept the spirit of what he is saying as meaning that more things can get looked at.
It should be noted that there has been a pile of such proposals over the years- usually proposing piping water from BC down to California. They get traction then blow over when reality and cost get assessed.
Out of the dozens of Rube Goldberg type proposals there are a couple that might have some merit. Or at least can be talked about with a straight face.
One such proposal is to pump water from the mouth of the Columbia River down to California. California's need for water is massive and - in the scheme of things- it is not all that far away. The Columbia has a ginormous discharge of water at its mouth that does not deplete any upstream users needs if you use it because you would be capturing water at the absolute tail end on the river just before it dumps into salt water. And, although it and any massive project is not without environmental impact, you would be starting out without the major risk proposed by fossil fuel pipelines, ie. gas, oil, whatever. Should the pipeline leak or burst you would just have water leaking into the ocean or on to land depending where it is.
Just sayin. There is a huge pile of Rube Goldberg proposals out there but might be a few that are worth some consideration, or will as the need justifies.
The future of nuclear is also a great topic although most people's mind slam shut when they hear the word. But the future is in the form of "micro-nuclear" that does not have the capacity to have all the well known meltdown and overheating problems that mega-plants do. The word "nuclear" is about where the word "hydrogen was just fifteen years ago. Everyone's mind slammed shut because all they could think of was the hydrogen bomb or the Hindenberg disaster. That has changed and unless one is an idiot it is understood that those fears are not or should not be applied to hydrogen fuel cells. Ditto for where nuclear is headed.
Alright, nuff of that I guess.
Last edited:
In the years to come this country will be mired in conservatism and stagnant government, it is in that climate you should see how much of fair weather friend to moderates you are.
You may want reread my post.