Hanaguma

...or perhaps he is doing his job as a Senator and trying to account where the money is going? Seriously, no need to resort to ad hom attacks just because you disagree. Believe it or not, it IS possible to oppose Ukraine war funding and be neither of the things you mentioned.

Amazing how quickly the thread devolved into a "b-b-but Trump!" festival. As for Menendez, the envelopes of cash thoughtfully labelled "to Bob Menendez" and the one kilo gold bars might be a bit of a giveaway that something odd was going on.

I was agreeing with the final bit about 'why not just let others be happy'.

Most people would agree with you on this, regardless of their political leaning. However, the politics is the point. There is a difference between letting people be happy and letting men use the ladies' bathroom, or compete in women's sports, or trying to indocrinate children about it.

Sounds reasonable. Spending more money on Ukraine should be part of a separate bill, not the general government spending one. Let Congress debate openly about whether or not to add $6 billion to the national debt for that conflict. No reason for the US to pay the salaries of first responders and the like in another country.

How is it homophobia? Gay and trans are very different things. From what I have read, there is definitely a mental health component to being trans. Gender dysphoria, auto gynephelia, certainly depression and anxiety disorders... I guess the takeaway is that care that "affirms" the person claiming to be trans is not necessarily the best option. I can't think of too many other mental health conditions where the accepted treatment is to accept the delusion of the patient as being real.

I suspect you may be right about Biden. Who do you think is the "democratic STAR with landslide potential"? I can only think possibly of Gov. Newsom, hence his upcoming debate with DeSantis. A possible rehearsal for the big show... That would also put pressure on the GOP to come up with some new blood too. I can't see Trump beating a new, young Democrat.

At risk of going off topic, Hillary probably ran the worst campaign in the past half century. Realistically, she should have beaten Trump like a drum. New blood would be great. The Democrats are stuck with Kamala if Joe decides to quit, and that is a guaranteed loss. Yet if they try to ditch her, it will cause chaos in their base constituencies. So I fear we will be left with a rerun of 2020.

.,..which is not the case here.

Genuinely curious. How is it defending him to call him "scummy towards women" and a "legendary BS artist"? Or hoping that he does not get the nomination?

Already baked into the 'pie' for a lot of people. In 2016, the revelations about Trump being scummy towards women and being a legendary BS artist were new and surprising. These days, people aren't surprised anymore. Plus Biden is also a known commodity, and polling suggests that people don't like what they see. If it comes down to the two old codgers again, it is going to be closer than many think IMHO. But hopefully both parties will come to their senses and choose other candidates.

Perhaps there is a big enough anti-Trump vote. THe problem for Democrats is that Biden is beginning to alienate the Hispanic and Black communities. Trump is picking up support in both. Or, they will simply stay home. Either is a big problem for Democrats. I mean, you can't have the president calling an African American man "boy" and expect to do well.

Might not be that easy to persuade people that Trump is a danger. All they have to do is look at their lives today and compare their situation to 2018 or2019, and ask themselves, "am I better off today or 5 years ago?". The answer is not good for Biden.

Read the transcript. He never said to "inject bleach", as another poster wrongly asserted. But anyway, it is a bit off topic and a bit irrelevant.

You could say the same for both of them, ironically. Biden would lose to a younger and more vigorous Republican, Trump would lose to a less senile and more sentient Democrat. They need each other.

Except that, IF you read the transcript, he never said "inject bleach". He was just spitballing in the usual Trumpy way, talking out of his ass about things he didn't know much about.

Lots of Americans want Trump as President. They dont want to marry him. The indictments are baked into their thinking and weighed against everything else. Now if the Democrats were smart and put up someone demonstably younger and more charismatic, like Gavin Newsome, then Trump might be in more trouble. But against Biden he stands a good chance. Scumbag vs. senile isnt a great choice but people may just go for the scumbag if those are the only options.

True, especially when it never happened.

No. I am suggesting that government subsidies for those who are not working be cut. There are millions of people who are not working or looking for work, and for no discernable reason. They need to be gently encouraged to rejoin society and discover the joys of shifting for themselves, instead of relying on the goodwill of others.

Really? This link says that only 10% of restaurant workers are undocumented... https://www.foodandwine.com/fwpro/prioritize-undocumented-restaurant-workers-vaccine-coronavirus Pew Research says that 13% of construction workers and 21% of landscapers are illegal immigrants... https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2016/11/03/industries-of-unauthorized-immigrant-workers/ So, that means that 90% of restaurant workers, 87% of construction workers, and 80% of landscapers are either American citizens or legal residents.

From my previous link; https://www.epi.org/blog/how-much-would-it-cost-consumers-to-give-farmworkers-a-significant-raise-a-40-increase-in-pay-would-cost-just-25-per-household/ It says that a 40% increase in pay would cost 25 bucks per household. Therefore to double pay would cost 60 bucks, which means 5 dollars a month. Follow? The same place that says labor costs for all fresh fruit/veg amounts to about 10% of the retail cost to consumers. So doubling the pay for all workers would increase the cost by 10%, or the above $60 per year per family.

You think five bucks a month for a family is "significantly more expensive"? Biden has already spent a thousand dollars per family in America on the war in Ukraine. Which do you think is more important?

Yes, like I said, there is a difference between legal visa holders/immgrants and illegal workers. It is a very important distinction. The latter are much more vulnerable to exploitation and can easily fall through the cracks. But I was not wrong in my statement, as you asserted. Something like a third of ag workers are illegal immigrants.

Thank you for proving my point. I said, "less than a third of farm workers are illegal immigrants". Your link said 27% of all ag workers are undocumented. So I was erring in the wrong direction by overestimating. Sorry about that...

You are close to correct. According to this study, about 10% of the cost of agricultural products is labor. So, a $3 head of lettuce includes 30 cents of labour. https://www.epi.org/blog/how-much-would-it-cost-consumers-to-give-farmworkers-a-significant-raise-a-40-increase-in-pay-would-cost-just-25-per-household/ So, we could even double the pay for ag workers and still only increase the price of fresh foods by 10%. Doubling the pay would be a great incentive to get people working, even in tough jobs like these. And, for the average family, that would cost about an extra $60 per year on their grocery bill, or $5 a month. And for that extra money, they could be assured that their food was harvested by legal workers who were fully protected by labour laws and not exploited. A small price to pay for such a noble goal.