Phx-Suns.Net

Wait, you think Biden did something when he first came into office that drove the cost of crude up? If so, what was it?

It's because he was so woke! And a strongman totalitarian commie. That's why! Oh and he's also very weak and feeble.

If you rule out tv and the internet, your sources of information go downhill pretty fast. We might as well be living on a deserted island. We all pick and choose what information we choose to believe. There are so many sources of information and disinformation out there. I post a headline with a link often so people can check out the article if they want without me posting the entire article with every link. If you see me post five different articles linked with five headlines attached to them that come to the same conclusion it is usually a good barometer for what my opinion is on the subject.

My opinion? Gas prices go up and down all the time. Big global events usually have a big effect on oil prices. Blame Biden, don’t blame Biden. I don’t care. It doesn’t matter to me.

Republicans hating Dems so much they side with Putin invading Ukraine over Biden trying to stop it. Trump praising Putin’s invasion today. Pretty unbelievable.

EXCLUSIVE: Pete Buttigieg accepted $250,000 and gifts from mayoral campaign donors who were later awarded $33million in city contracts, raising concerns of 'pay to play' as Transportation Secretary doles out $210billion in infrastructure plan
Documents obtained by DailyMail.com reveal former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg's campaign took a total of $253,750 from 23 companies
Company executives were then awarded a combined $33,310,426 in city contracts from the Board of Public Works whose members Buttigieg appointed
Buttigieg, 40 - now the US Transportation Secretary - will oversee $210billion in discretionary grants under the new bipartisan infrastructure bill
But government watchdogs say the Democrat's pattern of donations and contracts as mayor could present the appearance of a 'pay to play' scandal
'This is alarming, and very concerning, because this is the swamp personified,' Taxpayers Protection Alliance president David Williams told DailyMail.com
By JOSH BOSWELL FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 09:58 EST, 23 February 2022 | UPDATED: 09:13 EST, 24 February 2022
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... mayor.html

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:28 am

EXCLUSIVE: Pete Buttigieg accepted $250,000 and gifts from mayoral campaign donors who were later awarded $33million in city contracts, raising concerns of 'pay to play' as Transportation Secretary doles out $210billion in infrastructure plan
Documents obtained by DailyMail.com reveal former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg's campaign took a total of $253,750 from 23 companies
Company executives were then awarded a combined $33,310,426 in city contracts from the Board of Public Works whose members Buttigieg appointed
Buttigieg, 40 - now the US Transportation Secretary - will oversee $210billion in discretionary grants under the new bipartisan infrastructure bill
But government watchdogs say the Democrat's pattern of donations and contracts as mayor could present the appearance of a 'pay to play' scandal
'This is alarming, and very concerning, because this is the swamp personified,' Taxpayers Protection Alliance president David Williams told DailyMail.com
By JOSH BOSWELL FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 09:58 EST, 23 February 2022 | UPDATED: 09:13 EST, 24 February 2022
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... mayor.html

Certainly worth looking into. I mean the 250k total from 23 companies is not uncommon, and it is over 9 years. That is 10k each, or $1200/year per comapany. That is normal stuff. And they don't say if there were 100 companies that donated 10k, and only 23 ended up winning contracts. Or that the companies that donated more won contracts.

Also, the city released this:

The City of South Bend told DailyMail.com that Buttigieg 'was not involved in the awarding of engineering and construction contracts' and that all contracts are awarded 'through a professional procurement process that is public and transparent', and given 'to the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder per State Law'.

In other words, a nothing burger.

It might be something. But that article just has a lot of documents referenced. No idea if they have evidence of actual quid pro quo, or normal campaign contributions to a mayor. I mean, that is what politicians do their entire last 2 years of their term--raise money for their next election. It is such a stupid system we have.

I couldn’t agree any more. Pay to play.

President Biden has decided on his Supreme Court nominee. Her name is Ketanji Brown Jackson:

I am glad he nominated someone with both judicial experience and public defender experience. I don't think we have ever had that.

Feels like she will be accepted pretty easily by both sides.

Graham, who previously voted for Ketanji Brown Jackson, says her nomination means "radical Left has won"
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... b81391763e

‘The radical left has won President Biden over yet again’: Lindsey Graham reacts to Biden SCOTUS nomine
https://www.wjbf.com/news/the-radical-l ... s-nominee/

People still care what Graham thinks and says?

Apparently. He keeps getting elected. Every crazy quote gets lots of airplay on every network. Trump isn’t elected to anything and every crazy thing he says is a headline story on every news site too.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 25, 2022 10:04 am

People still care what Graham thinks and says?

He is a current US Senator and will directly vote on whether the justice gets confirmed, so in this case, yes, his opinion does matter.

I don't think she will pass with broad bipartisan support. I think the GOP is so deeply identified with obstruction and opposition that most of them will vote "no" on this seemingly qualified applicant.

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:17 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 25, 2022 10:04 am

People still care what Graham thinks and says?

He is a current US Senator and will directly vote on whether the justice gets confirmed, so in this case, yes, his opinion does matter.

I don't think she will pass with broad bipartisan support. I think the GOP is so deeply identified with obstruction and opposition that most of them will vote "no" on this seemingly qualified applicant.

You could be right, but she seems well qualified and no need to get whipped up into a frenzy of rhetoric, hyperbole, and name calling.

I think she will get 2-3 GOP votes.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 25, 2022 1:19 pm

You could be right, but she seems well qualified and no need to get whipped up into a frenzy of rhetoric, hyperbole, and name calling.

I appreciate your willingness to give her a fair appraisal and not be reflexively partisan about it. She does seem to have a small amount of judicial experience, but so did Kavanaugh and Barrett; in fact I read that she has more than they did when they were nominated, so, meh. I read that she has background as a public defender, which is rare for a justice. Usually they're former prosecuting attorneys. The argument is that having a formber defender on the Court will make it more sympathetic to the point of view of the accused, more sympathetic and open-minded, etc.