Joe Biden Going All In on 'Bloodbath'

[Deebo]

I'm really glad that Biden isn't a hypocrite or anything....

President Biden used campaign donations to help pay his legal bills last year during the special counsel's probe into his handling of classified documents, Axios' Alex Thompson writes.
• Why it matters: The payments — made through the Democratic National Committee — are at odds with the Biden campaign's recent attacks on Donald Trump for spending his campaign funds on legal fees.
The DNC, which has been collecting the biggest donations to Biden's re-election effort, paid more than $1.5 million to lawyers or firms representing Biden during the probe, according to the committee's financial filings.
• From July 2023 to February 2024, the DNC paid $1.05 million to Bob Bauer PLLC — the professional limited liability company for Biden's lead attorney, Bob Bauer.
The Biden team increasingly has attacked Trump for using campaign donations to pay for his myriad legal fights.
• DNC spokesperson Alex Floyd told Axios: "There is no comparison — the DNC does not spend a single penny of grassroots donors' money on legal bills — unlike Donald Trump, who actively solicits legal fees from his supporters."
Reality check: Trump almost certainly has spent many times more of his campaign money on legal fees. His legal costs have topped $100 million since he left office, according to a New York Times tally.
• Share this story.

[.Kodiak]

That fact check is garbage. It's either OK to use campaign funds for this purpose, or it's not. The amount doesn't make one OK and not the other.

I don't really agree that this should be possible, but if you look at it objectively, if you couldn't use campaign funds to defend yourself against lawsuits related to your campaign or time in office, then you would literally be able to sue the opposition out of the race (which, TBH, is exactly what the NY prosecutors are trying to do with Trump).

I would make a distinction that RNC/DNC funds should not apply, as those funds are meant for all party candidates to tap.

There's also the issue that the 4-5 cases against Trump all have some degree of merit, and all resulting from illegal or questionable actions Trump made that really shouldn't be shielded as falling under duties of office or campaign.

For example, if Trump shot a protestor disrupting one of his rallies, should he be entitled to use campaign funds to defend himself for breaking the law? Obviously I don't believe he has absolute immunity (likely the SCOTUS doesn't, either), which by extension should also disqualify certain legal bills from being paid with campaign funds.

[.Kodiak]

I am so shocked about this.

Everything on CNN and allied with leftist prog mindthink is all concocted to play on emotions. Cultural Marxism was designed to do this.

Nothing new. And it's very effective - more than a few on this very board buy into it hook, line and sinker. And the actual science is out there (including the actual IPCC report), you just aren't going to find it easily by googling some news articles (which is by design).

The same people who believe "Big Oil" covered this up and spends billions to stop green policies (reality is they are outspent more like 100-to-1) have blinders on to all the new "Big Green" money sloshing around. By far the biggest corporate welfare program in decades (at least outside defense contractors), and it's global. It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of energy and energy companies to think Big Oil isn't largely indifferent to green.

It almost deserves its own thread. I think why the Climate Change alarmism has been so effective is it's become an umbrella for every activist group under the sun, from environmentalism to racism to socialism. A unifying echo chamber, and it's a REALLY big tent.

[Pabst]

It almost deserves its own thread. I think why the Climate Change alarmism has been so effective is it's become an umbrella for every activist group under the sun, from environmentalism to racism to socialism. A unifying echo chamber, and it's a REALLY big tent.

A big problem with left-wing social movements is that they always devolve into the same sludge of pet left-wing causes. It's how you get complete non-sense like "Save the planet with living wages" or "Queers for Palestine". At best, none of this crap is related and at worst it completely contradicts itself and it gives normal people every excuse to tune them out.

[Professor Half Wit]

It almost deserves its own thread. I think why the Climate Change alarmism has been so effective is it's become an umbrella for every activist group under the sun, from environmentalism to racism to socialism. A unifying echo chamber, and it's a REALLY big tent.

A big problem with left-wing social movements is that they always devolve into the same sludge of pet left-wing causes. It's how you get complete non-sense like "Save the planet with living wages" or "Queers for Palestine". At best, none of this crap is related and at worst it completely contradicts itself and it gives normal people every excuse to tune them out.

I'd be happy to blow off worry about the climate if the right and left would agree to crack down on pollution (looking at you CA, some of the worst air quality in the world....).

Say you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change or you do, but don't think it's a problem.

Can we at least all agree pollution is bad for us and the natural world? Any chance we could embrace strict pollution controls for the sake of radically cutting down on pollution? Or do we like pollution? Would it be nice not to pollute the air we breathe or the oceans or lakes and rivers we enjoy? Or is that a big shrug? Would it be cool not to have microplastics in fish and food products we ingest? Might it be nice not to have trash islands floating in the ocean? Or is this a liberal pussy preference?

[Pabst]

Can we at least all agree pollution is bad for us and the natural world?

Of course!

I'm 100% for protecting the environment. Where I start to diverge is when many on the left vear into "protect the environment at all costs". I'm willing to accept a certain level of pollution as a means of lifting people out of poverty and/or increasing quality of life.

When I see shit like "Climate change is the result of the Capitalist Patriarchy" I start tuning out completely

[.Kodiak]

Can we at least all agree pollution is bad for us and the natural world?

Sure, but CO2 is not a pollutant.

In terms of plant life, 800ppm of CO2 - about double where we are today, is considered optimal. 160ppm is a REAL extinction level event where plants start dying off en mass. We had been at about 280ppm, but several times in history near the end of ice ages it has been 190ppm.

I don't know about you, but I feel A LOT better sitting at 430 or thereabouts than where we were.

[.Kodiak]

I'm willing to accept a certain level of pollution as a means of lifting people out of poverty and/or increasing quality of life.

Air quality, at least in most OECD countries (so not China, India, etc) is considerably better than it was 30-40 years ago.

What concerns me more than air quality is forever chemicals and micro plastics. And if you've read anything about rubber tire particulate (or maybe it was brake pad dust) in cities you'd probably be freaked out (to be fair, probably typical hyperbolic alarmism).

But that shit doesn't leave your body. And micro plastics are accumulating throughout the food chain.

[Professor Half Wit]

Can we at least all agree pollution is bad for us and the natural world?

Sure, but CO2 is not a pollutant.

In terms of plant life, 800ppm of CO2 - about double where we are today, is considered optimal. 160ppm is a REAL extinction level event where plants start dying off en mass. We had been at about 280ppm, but several times in history near the end of ice ages it has been 190ppm.

I don't know about you, but I feel A LOT better sitting at 430 or thereabouts than where we were.

But this is my point. Can we at least agree that pollution needs to be regulated and that we should not have massive garbage islands floating in the Pacific?

And my guess is cutting down on pollution (not CO2) and plastics will likely cut down on CO2 emissions. There's plenty to agree on.

Same. Microplastics showing up in breast milk bothers me quite a bit.

"As for microplastics, a small 2022 study found tiny plastic particles, less than five millimeters in diameter, in 75 percent of 34 breast milk samples studied. (Previous studies found microplastics in placentas, heart tissue and blood.) WaPo Feb 5, 2024"

[Professor Half Wit]

I'm willing to accept a certain level of pollution as a means of lifting people out of poverty and/or increasing quality of life.

Air quality, at least in most OECD countries (so not China, India, etc) is considerably better than it was 30-40 years ago.

What concerns me more than air quality is forever chemicals and micro plastics. And if you've read anything about rubber tire particulate (or maybe it was brake pad dust) in cities you'd probably be freaked out (to be fair, probably typical hyperbolic alarmism).

But that shit doesn't leave your body. And micro plastics are accumulating throughout the food chain.

Adding to this, why are cancer rates skyrocketing (statistically) among younger people? Wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out forever chemicals and things like microplastics enter the reasons.

https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/yale ... migration/

[Dan Smith--BYU]

"But this is my point. Can we at least agree that pollution needs to be regulated and that we should not have massive garbage islands floating in the Pacific?"

Yes and this is far more serious (and solvable and necessary to solve) than CO2.

CO2 went down to 180 20K years ago and almost killed the planet. We are still in an ice age. Anyone who worries about 420 is not seeing the big picture. I like having the cushion. Its been as high as 2200 during cooler periods.

[Professor Half Wit]

"But this is my point. Can we at least agree that pollution needs to be regulated and that we should not have massive garbage islands floating in the Pacific?"

Yes and this is far more serious (and solvable and necessary to solve) than CO2.

CO2 went down to 180 20K years ago and almost killed the planet. We are still in an ice age. Anyone who worries about 420 is not seeing the big picture. I like having the cushion. Its been as high as 2200 during cooler periods.

If I lived in Fresno, CA or SLC, UT, I'd be fucking pissed. Special inversion case, but still....

[Dan Smith--BYU]

We wax nostalgic about Pittsburgh in the 1970s but the Monangahela was an unswimmable shithole and the windowsill soot was horrible. Pollution control at the local level is always a great idea. At a larger level it becomes a grift.

[.Kodiak]

Adding to this, why are cancer rates skyrocketing (statistically) among younger people? Wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out forever chemicals and things like microplastics enter the reasons.

Possibly. But a simpler explanation might be all the processed foods and preservatives in what we eat.

A lot of new research is focusing on the gut microbiome, and with our shitty diets our guts [no pun intended] are in a pretty shitty state. Emerging views seem to be that health and well-being, particularly the immune system, starts with the gut.

Most of the meat we eat now is shipped frozen, and who knows how that affects all the healthy microbes we'd otherwise get from a diet of fresh foods. And, oh, by the way all our livestock are pumped full of growth hormones and other chemicals. I would expect the chemical/biological composition of most of what we eat is different from what it was even 20 years ago.

Mind you, this is all happening while our air is cleaner than it's ever been since the industrial revolution. It's amazing how little we still understand about the impact of diet and foods on our overall health, but what other link can there be between the increase not only in diseases but food allergies, autism and other diabetes other than diet?

[CKSteeler]

I'd be happy to blow off worry about the climate if the right and left would agree to crack down on pollution (looking at you CA, some of the worst air quality in the world....).

The environmentalism of the early 80's and 90's was bipartisan to some extent. It certainly was nowhere near as polarized as it currently is.

It was the shift to global warming hysteria (rebranded as climate change when that didn't work) and turning it into a push as others have stated for government-everything. Not only is every left wing cause associated with climate change, but the answer is always the same. Just give the government complete control over everything and they'll solve this problem.

Meanwhile, the private sector has done more to decrease greenhouse gas emissions here in America than anywhere else.

They made it so supporting the environment meant supporting climate change propaganda. And to go along with climate change, you need to accept about 5 premises before you agree with the left that are fundamentally in opposition to conservativism or limited government.

The science itself is hardly settled, but even if it was no one is ever going to convince me that the Obama's EPA is going to solve it without fucking the world up immensely more than climate change is at risk of.

So people on the right see it as a naked power grab.

[CKSteeler]

We wax nostalgic about Pittsburgh in the 1970s but the Monangahela was an unswimmable shithole and the windowsill soot was horrible. Pollution control at the local level is always a great idea. At a larger level it becomes a grift.

So yea, this. Environmentalism was most impactful when it was least political. Now it's the left's theory of everything, and it stinks as being about power/the grift.

[Professor Half Wit]

Adding to this, why are cancer rates skyrocketing (statistically) among younger people? Wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out forever chemicals and things like microplastics enter the reasons.

Possibly. But a simpler explanation might be all the processed foods and preservatives in what we eat.

A lot of new research is focusing on the gut microbiome, and with our shitty diets our guts [no pun intended] are in a pretty shitty state. Emerging views seem to be that health and well-being, particularly the immune system, starts with the gut.

Most of the meat we eat now is shipped frozen, and who knows how that affects all the healthy microbes we'd otherwise get from a diet of fresh foods. And, oh, by the way all our livestock are pumped full of growth hormones and other chemicals. I would expect the chemical/biological composition of most of what we eat is different from what it was even 20 years ago.

Mind you, this is all happening while our air is cleaner than it's ever been since the industrial revolution. It's amazing how little we still understand about the impact of diet and foods on our overall health, but what other link can there be between the increase not only in diseases but food allergies, autism and other diabetes other than diet?

GREAT POST

We all love profits. They make life better. But profits are booming. We can and should do better. You know what kind of air I'd like? As perfectly pure as possible. You know what kind of lakes and rivers I'd like to swim and fish in? Pristine ones. These are value choices, obviously.

I also wonder what kind of toll processed food has on us. With medical advancements, we should be heading into centagenerian normalcy in the first world. I would not be surprised if in the future we end up grasping that processed food isn't a good idea. I rather doubt it causes ADHD or autism or whatever. That's all genetic. Of course, what processed food and chemicals in the environment does to DNA replication, I have no clue, but I doubt it's helpful.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

"I'd be happy to blow off worry about the climate if the right and left would agree to crack down on pollution (looking at you CA, some of the worst air quality in the world....)."

That compound sentence is a self-own. Sacramento has the most fanatical environmental central planners in the country, i.e. the Coastal commission. If big government were the solution, CA would be an environmental paradise.

Horrible air quality. Forest mismanagement. Doubling of population and no new fresh water supplies. Shuttering nuclear plants.

But they have electric car mandates, so there's that.

Clearly the left is not really interested in "solving" anything except the "problem" of two party government.

Contrast that to the Carolinas and Tennessee air and water quality.

[fractalsteel]

Adding to this, why are cancer rates skyrocketing (statistically) among younger people? Wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out forever chemicals and things like microplastics enter the reasons.

Possibly. But a simpler explanation might be all the processed foods and preservatives in what we eat.

A lot of new research is focusing on the gut microbiome, and with our shitty diets our guts [no pun intended] are in a pretty shitty state. Emerging views seem to be that health and well-being, particularly the immune system, starts with the gut.

Most of the meat we eat now is shipped frozen, and who knows how that affects all the healthy microbes we'd otherwise get from a diet of fresh foods. And, oh, by the way all our livestock are pumped full of growth hormones and other chemicals. I would expect the chemical/biological composition of most of what we eat is different from what it was even 20 years ago.

Mind you, this is all happening while our air is cleaner than it's ever been since the industrial revolution. It's amazing how little we still understand about the impact of diet and foods on our overall health, but what other link can there be between the increase not only in diseases but food allergies, autism and other diabetes other than diet?

GREAT POST

We all love profits. They make life better. But profits are booming. We can and should do better. You know what kind of air I'd like? As perfectly pure as possible. You know what kind of lakes and rivers I'd like to swim and fish in? Pristine ones. These are value choices, obviously.

I also wonder what kind of toll processed food has on us. With medical advancements, we should be heading into centagenerian normalcy in the first world. I would not be surprised if in the future we end up grasping that processed food isn't a good idea. I rather doubt it causes ADHD or autism or whatever. That's all genetic. Of course, what processed food and chemicals in the environment does to DNA replication, I have no clue, but I doubt it's helpful.

Water
People don't drink enough of it.
60-70 ounces of water a day will help you feel better.
Personally I drink 100 ounces daily.
Water pushes the waste in our system through the digestive process more quickly.

I work with young people and they bring 3-4 energy drinks to work with them. It is what they choose to hydrate with. Either that or soda. Marketers have done a great job of putting 'choices' out there aimed at youth that drive profits but harm health.
Sugar, sugar sugar.

[Professor Half Wit]

"I'd be happy to blow off worry about the climate if the right and left would agree to crack down on pollution (looking at you CA, some of the worst air quality in the world....)."

That compound sentence is a self-own. Sacramento has the most fanatical environmental central planners in the country, i.e. the Coastal commission. If big government were the solution, CA would be an environmental paradise.

Horrible air quality. Forest mismanagement. Doubling of population and no new fresh water supplies. Shuttering nuclear plants.

But they have electric car mandates, so there's that.

Clearly the left is not really interested in "solving" anything except the "problem" of two party government.

Contrast that to the Carolinas and Tennessee air and water quality.

See bolded, sir.

[.Kodiak]

Well the other dumbshit California does is grow nuts in the fucking desert. The water requirements for nuts are like 10X that of other crops. Yeah, they've been in drought for years but their main water problem stems from population growth and farming the desert.

So what does California do? Instead of building additional reservoirs to capture run-off ("But what about the smelt?!?"), they spend $100B+ on a bullet train to nowhere. Perfect example of prioritizing pandering to the green agenda over practical and needed policy solutions.

[Jizz Mop]

I only get my news from The View. I’ve found the women on that show to be incredibly intelligent. Sunny said the eclipse and earthquake could be tied to climate change. If she said it I believe it.

Absent these incredibly gifted women I’d be lost in terms of current events and how to feel about politics.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

"Absent these incredibly gifted women I’d be lost in terms of current events and how to feel about politics."

Sheila Jackson Lee has a website with frequent updates on the composition of the moon.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

"looking at you CA, some of the worst air quality in the world...."

I agree. So why is water and air quality in red states better? TN and the Carolinas have embraced nukes.

[Stosh-67]

Can we at least all agree pollution is bad for us and the natural world?

Sure, but CO2 is not a pollutant.

In terms of plant life, 800ppm of CO2 - about double where we are today, is considered optimal. 160ppm is a REAL extinction level event where plants start dying off en mass. We had been at about 280ppm, but several times in history near the end of ice ages it has been 190ppm.

I don't know about you, but I feel A LOT better sitting at 430 or thereabouts than where we were.

But this is my point. Can we at least agree that pollution needs to be regulated and that we should not have massive garbage islands floating in the Pacific?

And my guess is cutting down on pollution (not CO2) and plastics will likely cut down on CO2 emissions. There's plenty to agree on.

Same. Microplastics showing up in breast milk bothers me quite a bit.

"As for microplastics, a small 2022 study found tiny plastic particles, less than five millimeters in diameter, in 75 percent of 34 breast milk samples studied. (Previous studies found microplastics in placentas, heart tissue and blood.) WaPo Feb 5, 2024"

Hence..
Very likely the increase in Autism rates over the last 3 decades.
I'm no scientist, chemist, etc..
But certainly could be..

[Professor Half Wit]

"looking at you CA, some of the worst air quality in the world...."

I agree. So why is water and air quality in red states better? TN and the Carolinas have embraced nukes.

Sure as sheeyit isn't better in Utah. Don't overgeneralize!

[CKSteeler]

Sure, but CO2 is not a pollutant.

In terms of plant life, 800ppm of CO2 - about double where we are today, is considered optimal. 160ppm is a REAL extinction level event where plants start dying off en mass. We had been at about 280ppm, but several times in history near the end of ice ages it has been 190ppm.

I don't know about you, but I feel A LOT better sitting at 430 or thereabouts than where we were.

But this is my point. Can we at least agree that pollution needs to be regulated and that we should not have massive garbage islands floating in the Pacific?

And my guess is cutting down on pollution (not CO2) and plastics will likely cut down on CO2 emissions. There's plenty to agree on.

Same. Microplastics showing up in breast milk bothers me quite a bit.

"As for microplastics, a small 2022 study found tiny plastic particles, less than five millimeters in diameter, in 75 percent of 34 breast milk samples studied. (Previous studies found microplastics in placentas, heart tissue and blood.) WaPo Feb 5, 2024"

Hence..
Very likely the increase in Autism rates over the last 3 decades.
I'm no scientist, chemist, etc..
But certainly could be..

When it comes to autism, and perhaps other issues, I'd wager they are the result of the diagnosis growing rather than the symptoms. I'd say that's definitely true of ADHD.

A kid who would have been viewed as odd now has autism. The kid who would have been slapped upside the head until he listens? He gets a pill now.

[Professor Half Wit]

But this is my point. Can we at least agree that pollution needs to be regulated and that we should not have massive garbage islands floating in the Pacific?

And my guess is cutting down on pollution (not CO2) and plastics will likely cut down on CO2 emissions. There's plenty to agree on.

Same. Microplastics showing up in breast milk bothers me quite a bit.

"As for microplastics, a small 2022 study found tiny plastic particles, less than five millimeters in diameter, in 75 percent of 34 breast milk samples studied. (Previous studies found microplastics in placentas, heart tissue and blood.) WaPo Feb 5, 2024"

Hence..
Very likely the increase in Autism rates over the last 3 decades.
I'm no scientist, chemist, etc..
But certainly could be..

When it comes to autism, and perhaps other issues, I'd wager they are the result of the diagnosis growing rather than the symptoms. I'd say that's definitely true of ADHD.

A kid who would have been viewed as odd now has autism. The kid who would have been slapped upside the head until he listens? He gets a pill now.

My kid has ADHD. It's real, dude (you're not saying it's not, just that it's over diagnosed). It's amazing to give your child what amounts to speed and then watch them calm down and focus instead of be all over the place. Is it over diagnosed? Real possibility. But most normal brains with normal neurotransmitter chemistry don't chill out on amphetamines.

Good news is in about 15 years, I bet we'll be able to run kids through MRI's and get observable diagnoses instead behavioral ones. Evidence trending in that direction.

To your point: no amount of head slapping curbs ADHD. According to the positivistic, operant-inclined behaviorists (are they still in fashion?), all the research shows that positive punishment is the least effective way to get a kid to change their behavior. Reinforcement is the way to go (according to behavioral research RCTs).

[Deebo]

Adding to this, why are cancer rates skyrocketing (statistically) among younger people? Wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out forever chemicals and things like microplastics enter the reasons.

Possibly. But a simpler explanation might be all the processed foods and preservatives in what we eat.

A lot of new research is focusing on the gut microbiome, and with our shitty diets our guts [no pun intended] are in a pretty shitty state. Emerging views seem to be that health and well-being, particularly the immune system, starts with the gut.

Most of the meat we eat now is shipped frozen, and who knows how that affects all the healthy microbes we'd otherwise get from a diet of fresh foods. And, oh, by the way all our livestock are pumped full of growth hormones and other chemicals. I would expect the chemical/biological composition of most of what we eat is different from what it was even 20 years ago.

Mind you, this is all happening while our air is cleaner than it's ever been since the industrial revolution. It's amazing how little we still understand about the impact of diet and foods on our overall health, but what other link can there be between the increase not only in diseases but food allergies, autism and other diabetes other than diet?

GREAT POST

We all love profits. They make life better. But profits are booming. We can and should do better. You know what kind of air I'd like? As perfectly pure as possible. You know what kind of lakes and rivers I'd like to swim and fish in? Pristine ones. These are value choices, obviously.

I also wonder what kind of toll processed food has on us. With medical advancements, we should be heading into centagenerian normalcy in the first world. I would not be surprised if in the future we end up grasping that processed food isn't a good idea. I rather doubt it causes ADHD or autism or whatever. That's all genetic. Of course, what processed food and chemicals in the environment does to DNA replication, I have no clue, but I doubt it's helpful.

I mean, want to know who has a vested interest in Ozempic/weight loss drugs or a single pill that will meet all your dietary needs NOT coming to market? Heinz, Kraft, and all the farmers. Food consumption is a HUUUUUUGE industry. If you remove that, there will be a ton of jobs lost.

Law of unintended consequences and all that...