Hey dipshit, the point was that Biden was making money for his family, just as the OP was accusing Trump of doing. As I also posted, Trump himself actually lost money during his first term. Something that no other president has done in modern times.

No, Trump earned the least. He actually lost money.

Seek mental help.

Just 5.5 million people are benefiting from selling 2.2% of the global oil. So .07% of the population is responsible for sending out 2.2% of the worlds oil. It's also 3% of the worlds natural gas supply. It's still going to be converted into CO2, so what's it matter.

While I agree with you, what Trump is doing is no different than what others have done prior. Hell, Trump actually lost money after his first term. He went from a net worth of $3 billion to $2.3 billion after he got out in 2020.

Obama had a net worth of $1.3 million in 2008 and was worth $70 million when he left office. His "foundation" is worth almost $1 billion. Most of that will go toward paying his family and friends as most of those types of foundations do.

Bush Jr. went from $20 million to $40 million. Which is the most modest gain since Reagan.

Clinton was worth $1.3 million when he got in office and was worth over $240 million when he left in 2000. But they claimed they were broke.

Bush Sr. was worth $4 million when he became president and $23 million when he left office. Granted, he only had 4 years.

Reagan was worth $10.6 million in 1980 and $15.4 when he left. Considering the inflation we had in the early 1980's, that's not as great as it sounds.

Biden is an interesting one. His net worth in 2009 was $30K. Just $30 thousand. By the time he left office as vice president he was worth $270K. By 2019 he manged to get that up to $9 million. But his son raked in almost $7 million between 2013 and 2016 alone. If you look at where his income came from it makes no sense as he wasn't qualified for any of the roles he had. And then there's the "art". I'm pretty sure everyone with an IQ above 50 understands that art is one of the biggest money laundering schemes there is.

The Lordes new CD. If it's not playing for you, you must be incompetent or too stupid to hear the brilliance of the songs. .

No, I only listen to Pravda, Alex Jones, HuffPost, and Rush Limbaugh channeled through a Ouija board.

Marn'i Washington, the FEMA employee who was fired for this directive, stated that she was following "standard protocol to avoid hostility in the field"

We'll likely never know the truth. She could have been lying or she could have been the easy scapegoat. Because our government and it's agencies have never lied to us before. I mean politicians and bureaucrats are just beacons of truth and integrity.

So similar to how FEMA didn't stop at homes with Trump political signs in the yard?

Or when Biden withheld federal funds to Oklahoma because the Title X family planning program didn't hand out referrals for abortion?

Except that phrase at the time of it's writing was referring to their political allegiance, not if they could be arrested for breaking the law.

Additionally, native Americans were not legally citizens of the US until Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. If being born in the US was the only condition, then there would have been no need to pass that into law.

For hard core ICE haters they should start offering EV's have to be charged by manually cranking a generator. That way they can get the true off grid no fossil fuel experience.

The prefatory clause of the 2A is simply there for context and is not meant to limit the 2A. "Well regulated" had a different meaning at the time of its writing as well. It meant "well prepared" and not "regulated" as we think of it today. The operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" was originally the entire amendment in an early draft. The prefatory clause was added so the government couldn't disarm the population by saying only the army can have weapons. There were semiautomatic air powered rifles at the time and the founding fathers were very interested in them as well. But they were prohibitively expensive for the military, while civilians could still own them. Lewis and Clark took a Girandoni 20 round air rifle with them in 1806. Civilians could also own canons at that time as well as now. If you read any writings by the the folks who wrote the constitution, you would know that the intent was for the citizenry to have the same arms as the military. Washington had to quell several armed uprisings during his time as president. He never felt the civilians should have been disarmed.

This one is actually murkier. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." If you're not a citizen of the US, then you are not subject to that jurisdiction. You are subject to the jurisdiction of the country you are a citizen of. "...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" If someone is a resident of France and visiting the US, they don't reside in the US. They reside in France. The main reason for this amendment was to grant citizenship to African Americans when the Dred Scott decision by the SCOTUS tried to rule that African Americans were not citizens of the US and the Constitution did not apply to them.

Then all weapons restrictions should be ruled unconstitutional until a new amendment is in place?

I'd prefer the 14th amendment be upheld as it has been for over 150 years. But I'd also prefer the 2nd amendment also be upheld as intended. So the NFA of 1934 and all restrictions since then should be ruled unconstitutional. Granted, I do feel that there should be some limitations put on the 2A. Keep in mind, it says "arms" not "small arms". So no, my neighbor shouldn't be allowed to own an ICBM with multiple W87 warheads.

There is no clean way to produce the amount of electricity needed in the modern world. Renewables sound great, but so did nuclear... until reality set in. Don't get me wrong, nuclear is still good, just not unicorns and rainbows good like was originally presented.

We have no idea of what the actual cost is for solar as China has been dumping cheap panels on the market for years. We also have no real data on how much power is required to make them or what kind of toxic waste is involved with their manufacture. Then there's the EOL issue. Sure, solar panels can be recycled. But what is the power cost to do so? Yeah, they're made of glass, aluminum and silicon. But it's not as simple and easy to separate everything as we were told. Just like nuclear waste was not as simple to deal with. Or fly ash. In all honesty, natural gas is probably the cleanest, easiest, cheapest option for electricity.

On top of that, unless coal plants are totally decommissioned and not in use, they are burning coal 24/7 because they take hours to restart if shut down. CNG plants don't need as much time to restart, but still take time to produce power from a cold start. So even when renewables are at peak output, those fossil fuel plants are still dumping CO2

There is grid scale battery, but it's not ready for nationwide usage to replace fossil fuels. Moss Landing has been active since 2021. Since then they had to shut down at least twice for overheating issues. Then in January of this year they had a fire and had to go offline. Then the fire reignited again a month later. Clean up has been estimated to take a year. The Elkhorn battery facility had a fire in 2022 and was offline for months. It was shut down again after the Moss Landing fire and a restart was just halted earlier this month due to cooling issues.

A lot of folks point to China as a beacon of clean energy, but it's a joke. I've been to China. If you ever visit Beijing you will thank god for Nixon and his creation of the EPA when you return to the US(if that's your home anyway). Three Gorges Dam is a marvel that generates over 20 gigawatts of electricity. However I doubt the Baiji Dolphin will have much to say about it since they are now likely extinct because of it's construction. Yangtze porpoise and Chinese alligator are probably going extinct soon as well as several other animals. Then there are questions about if/when it will fail. I hope the folks who have been claiming there are issues with it's construction are wrong. But if they are not, it will be the largest loss of human life in the history of mankind and the environmental impact will be insane.

We need to keep moving forward to make electricity generation as cleanly as possible. But I really wish we'd stop acting like there is a magical way of doing so that won't have unwanted effects. As well as being honest about the drawbacks of so called renewables. Corporations lied to us about oil and coal power, they lied about nuclear, they lied about hydroelectric. Why wouldn't you think we're being lied to about solar and batteries? The sooner we know the truth, the sooner we can make the actual best decision.

Absolutely. But the temperature, toxicity, and difficulty in extinguishing them is quite different. Plus a lot of ICE fires don't completely destroy the vehicle.

Of course it's happened before. That's why the have fire suppression systems to begin with. The issue is that most don't have ones that can contain an EV fire. My hope is that this will be a wake up People will do whatever is cheapest until it bites them in the ass. Then they'll take things seriously. Unfortunately safety and security are almost never implemented until things go wrong. Simply because if things keep working without it, why waste the money on such things?

In the end. does it really matter if it's the EV that started the fire or the ship was lost because it's fire suppression systems aren't capable of extinguishing secondary EV fires?

Perhaps there needs to be new procedures in place that keep EV's away from flammable items. Or better fire suppression systems in place for shipping EV's.

When was the last time a new ICE vehicle fire sunk a ship? Those ships have fire suppression systems for such fires. Unfortunately those same systems are not as effective for EV fires. You're typical ICE vehicle fire burns around 850C while an EV fire can be more than 2500C. The amount of water needed to put our an EV fire can range from 2 to 10 times what's needed for an ICE vehicle fire and once the ICE fire is out, it's out. An EV can reignite hours, days or weeks later if it's not wrapped in a suppression blanket once the initial fire is extinguished.

All that being said, it's certainly possible that the fire was started by an ICE vehicle that then ignited an EV.