All_Pro_Bills

That's a weak Constitutional argument and likely any Federal court, specifically the Supreme Court would rule against the administration. If that's their best play call at this point in the game they're in big trouble. The 14th Amendment, Section 4 references the validity of the debt but nothing about issuing debt or any power of the executive branch. Section 5 states "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. But the White House doesn't see the need to negotiate with Congress even through the "out" they cite stipulates the power of the Article rests with Congress. The power to issue debt rests with Congress under Article One, section 8 of the Constitution. "To borrow money on the credit of the United States".

The 1970's. Good times! Re-boot the Death Wish series with woke Hollywood replacing tough guy Charles Bronson with trans sensation Dylan Mulvaney. The story opens with rioters attacking a Bud Light truck and in response they get lit up by the lead actor. Mercilessly killing them all for acts of toxic masculinity.

Truth is the ruling US intelligence and military establishment state, regardless of what administration plays the role of window dressing, doesn't like these socialist movements or idealists in resource rich countries overseas. Ideas such as nationalization of a countries resources can make it more difficult to employ the the US corporate sector and Washington's intelligence services for plundering the mineral and natural resources of these countries.

What history? Lots of people make all kinds of references to similarities to the 1930's prior to World War Two and Hitler to justify the use of force without much thinking going into the decision. The argument is we need to make sure the next Hitler is stopped. But the future is uncertain and you can't be sure actions will lead to better or worse outcomes. What if it leads to escalations that will end life on the planet? I'd also argue the current situation is more similar to around 1914 Pre-World War One. Alliances and treaties requiring action triggered a world war because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. The killing of an Austrian figure who was no concern of the United States and much of Europe. Nonetheless, war ensued with millions dead over one person's death which had no relevance to most.

That's pretty much it but getting some people to understand what was a clearly articulated and understood position prior to the war is an exercise in futility. As quoted in an acclaimed movie starring Paul Newman, "What we got here is a failure to communicate".

So let's take Canada. Let's define a simple hypothetical situation that will test your objective thinking skills. Let's see how it goes. Let's take Canada. If Canada decided to host Chinese troops and missile systems in Fort Erie how would Washington and Americans in general react? How would you view this situation? 1) Say this is unacceptable and demand action to remove the threat (the choice Russia made). 2) Let it be because Canada is an independent country that can do whatever they want (the choice most here think Russia should have taken).

The original question is simple to answer.. All you need to do is listen to or read the statements made by Russian leadership before they attacked. And review the concerns and "red lines" they expressed. You don't have to agree with them or accept they're true or justified from our perspective. Just objectively comprehend that its what they stated and its what they believe. In summary, they don't want US and NATO troops on their doorstep. That's it. But on this board these types of questions are a trap. As you've already changed the question. The original question was please explain why the Russians have any reason for what they are doing in Ukraine". You're suggesting anyone with the ability of articulating and comprehending their reasoning automatically approves of and condones their actions. Those are actually two different things. Understanding and approval. They're two different conversations.

I find that person to be a pathetic excuse for a human being and the story incredulous. Do these virtue signally woke morons truly have that little self-respect and regard for themselves? Or do they really believe their own BS? Their obsession to the nutty oppressor/victim ideology they subscribe to is on the same extreme level as the fanatical beliefs of those Christian fundamentalists excluding God (they substitute "The State" for God). As for these perps, I don't buy the automatically used behavioral issues narrative. Reality is you can't be that "mentally ill" to consistently every time pick on victims that you assess either won't put up a fight or that you can physically overpower if it comes to that situation. Notice how they never pick on somebody that can kick their ass into the next time zone if they try to pull off their harassment routine. That implies rational thinking applied in a malicious manner.

100% certain not one of these pompous progressive story tellers ever ride the subway or public transportation. No skin in the game and free to virtue signal while other people are victimized. No protests for them. Their solution to everything is chaos and word games

Dems will manufacture some crsis and loosen mail in voting rules in contested states where they control the ability to set voter validation and counting procedures. Like 2020, if you can't beat 'em, then cheat 'em. The lesson: stick with what works.

An important factor with any medical procedure is disclosure of risks and patient consent. You could effectively argue neither requirement was met regarding the vaccines. And in the case of gender reassignment procedures and surgeries these risk and disclosure requirements can likely be met with adult patients but I seriously doubt children have developed the mental capabilities necessary to understand and conceptualize risks and consequences in the future for actions in the present. I've said it before. Why do adults have an obsession to rush children into a life altering irreversible decision? My dad used to say when you my big decisions with emotion you usually end up regretting it. And clearly this is an emotionally driven decision. Think first

All these arguments about how nothing can be cut remind me of my crazy sister-in-law when confronted by the fact she could no longer afford to live her previous lifestyle refused to acknowledge the reality she couldn't keep spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave. In the case of the US debt the government is the crazy sister-in-law. But that's the premise behind never ending debt and deficit accumulation. We can't cut anything because somebody will suffer but heaven forbid Americans that comprise 5% of the world's population but consume 25% of its output, and have the highest debt levels in the world should ever be forced to live within their means. Be sure soon enough it will happen but when it does it won't be voluntary or painless.

Like the rule of first impressions, most people remember initial inaccurate news stories but nothing about corrections or retractions and certainly nobody pays attention to downward adjustments in previous month's BLS job numbers.

January (minus 32K) and February (minus 78K) also revised lower along with March (minus 71K). But the interesting story is the actual jobs number has exceeded the consensus estimate for 13 straight months. That's a statistical outlier equivalent of going to the casino and leaving a winner 13 straight visits or flipping a coin and having it come up heads every time.

Still unexplained is the obsession of these medical "professionals" with children. If an adult with the necessary maturity and self-awareness decides to make a decision for themselves that is their choice. And nobody should interfere. But this obsession with kids is psychotic. And in many ways malicious.

That's' a fine position to take but it also ignores the cost and consequences to the citizens who bankroll your generosity.

So you're saying there's no incremental increase in social support costs from to Biden's open border policy? Now that's BS.

What we don't need is more and more people depending on social programs for support. Which is what we're getting. Proof positive being cities saying they don't have the resources to cope with more and more immigrants. And those are just the places we know of because where and in what numbers the administration is shipping people in the middle of the night under top secret circumstances is unknown. But don't ask.

Well, if I was a White House press correspondent employed by a free and independent media outlet assigned to cover these WH press briefings I'd take the hour or two I waste here and either go out for a long lunch break or take a nap because that's a better use of my time than sitting through these ball-washing sessions and then constantly asking questions which the WHPS can never answer. She has no intellectual capacity to do the job and has to be the most uninformed person in the country.

Since 70% of the US economy depends on consumer spending the effect over time will be large. Previous job automation cycles hurt factory workers as robotics were employed in repetitive manufacturing and assembly tasks. From what I've read many white collar, low and middle management tasks, will be taken over by AI applications. Which means the middle class will not escape this next wave of automaton of work functions. The problem this creates for workers is obvious but it also creates issues for providers of goods and services because robots and AI applications don't buy what they sell.

I think the government managed by both major parties will keep borrowing and spending as much money as they can until there's a debt crisis which results in a default either 1) outright bankruptcy or through 2) inflating the debt away. Currently, they're operating under option 2. Its all supported by an international system of finance centered on the use of the US dollar. With lots of countries moving away from holding dollar reserves and using it in trade settlement the ability to run these deficits will disappear. That's happening at a pretty fast pace. Here's a link to some interesting data on deficits and debt. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/#us-deficit-by-year

Thankfully their understanding of DEI concepts, terminology, and methods will provide a foundation for future success!

As an example, an NEAP Report card on US 8th graders grasp of history reveals only 13% have a satisfactory level of proficiency. That might help explain how easily those attempting to re-write past events have been so successful at duping the public. 13% is sadly pathetic.

I've followed the nuclear industry for over 20 years as a potential investment opportunity. And along the way I've heard glowing stories from lots of experts and promotors about how plants will be built and uranium demand will follow. Sadly, all of the activity has been on the decommissioning side and environmentalist have killed the domestic uranium mining industry. Leading suppliers Kazakhstan and Canada. While I agree using nuclear power for base load applications makes sense when are we as a nation getting started on the plan? It takes maybe 12 to 15 years from concept to operations to bring a reactor online. The clocks ticking and nothing much is happening. It's now or never or we'll be facing an electric generation shortfall disaster without natgas and coal.

My observation is conspiracy theories of many shapes and sizes arise when "the story" inexplicably is contradicted by some set of facts or there is an unwillingness of "officials" and "experts" to address questions and inconsistencies in the story that are both logical and reasonable. But in the case of the gas stove ban story it was never a conspiracy. It was true. The conspiracy was generated by people denying there was an initiative to ban gas stoves. Not the people that concluded a ban was being entertained. They were correct. I'd also suggest its correct to expect this will do absolutely nothing to positively impact the amount of carbon emission produced. The conspiracy I see in the Climate movement is a mistaken belief that renewables and some unknown magical materials are going to replace all the energy output and petrochemical sourced materials like plastics derived of fossil fuels. I think that's fantasy. Like it or not, accept it or not, believe it or not, the future path these politicians are leading us down is a lower standard of living for the peasants. Unless somebody has a warp drive engine in their basement?