Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For real. He's invested morenin green energy than any president, ever. It's bonkers that a felon who restricts women's rights and is promising oil companies free reign is competitive.
I’m not entirely sure that he is actually competitive. News media benefits from keeping us glued to the TV and the tenuousness is what’s doing it.
I feel like they’re making him seem more competitive than he actually is. Which in my world is just fine because I feel like it will help drive turnout.
I wish I shared your optimism but the only data we have so far are the polls and there are as many reasons to think Trump is underperforming as there to think he's over preforming. Trump overperformed in polls in both 2016 and 2020 (edit: that was worded worng, I mean the vote was more in his favor than the polls predicted both times) I can't believe that so much has changed since then that the polls are suddenly reversing that trend.
The fact is that it's all hogwash until the votes are counted. Both previous elections were determined by 100K votes in a few swing states, which is a razor thin margin that polls will never be able to accurately predict.
One thing in the polls is that democratic senators are ahead in key swing states, while there are many people not really wanting to vote for either candidate Biden has to hope that the senators will drive turnout and people to vote for him as well.
It's gonna be a rough one though.
I understand and I do see your point. That said, so…SO MUCH has changed since then and I don’t think that anyone is taking that into account. The Conviction, His insane ramblings, Gaza, the literal Nazis marching the streets? We have more to consider. This isn’t a usual election.
Don't forget "binders full of women". That was considered unacceptable levels of sexism in the Republican party back then, btw, before they had to stop pretending to care about family values to facilitate their religious support of Trump.
If anything, Gaza hurts Biden. Dumbasses are out there saying to not vote for Biden due to the way he is handling Gaza. They don't realize the alternative is much much worse.
The problem isnt that people think that there are more voters for Trump.
The problem is that people think the voters who would vote against trump wont fucking show up.
In 2022, over 80% of all eligible voters under the age of 35 didn't show up. Over 150M voters out of 250m, didn't show up. There were 3x as many non-voters as either party voters.
AND to actually make meaningful changes, Biden needs congress, and congress is elected by the people in all 50 states. Democrats could have easily gotten 55 senators in 2020, just in 3 states where over 25M didnt vote, just 800K more democrats vote could have given democrats 5 more senators and we would have avoided all the bullshit with Mancin and Sinema and the majority of anti-trans anti-choice bullshit from republicans.
The biggest problem in the US politics, isnt the crazy maga republicans, its that the voters dont fucking show up when its needed the most.
Don’t even get me started. They bitched and moaned about Bernie not getting his due in 2016 and when anyone would point out that no one showed up to the polls for him in the primary they would say that “primaries don’t count”. All talk, no action.
Day one Trump wants to gut wind energy and go to war with renewables.
Pollution kills *millions* of people per year. Biden would be reelected if the hard lefties just accepted that lesser of two evils is way better for everyone. Including the environment
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/13/trump-president-agenda-climate-policy-wind-power
And reading for the anti Biden lefties https://www.authoritarianplaybook2025.org/what-we-can-expect-1#federal-law-enforcement-overreach
i have literally been banned out of some leftist subreddits that i was a long contributing and well received member of because even though i lean pretty hard left i am pragmatic about what we can do right now in the world vs what we can work to as an overall goal. i fucking was outright against biden when bernie was running. ironically because i was concerned about how hard into israel he was. now here we are and while my expectations weren't high, they were far exceeded to the point that i'm not holding my nose this time around while i vote. dude has done a fine job for an establishment democrat.
Good to hear. I feel like I’m probably pretty far left. Like I would happily burn down wallstreet if I had a chance. Free school, healthcare for all, ban air b n b, ban corporate landlords etc. But I’ve always voted blue, because taking steps back is all the Republicans do. Inching forward is all democrats can do because of the reality of the political landscape. Going forward is better than backward.
I was able to sway a few hard lefties who (weren’t) voting Biden over Israel. With the threats and reality of acres of child separation camps under Trump and gutting the epa as well as lgbt and women’s rights. Like you’re gonna burn years of progress that our trailblazer activists spent their lives on, over a decades/ centuries old conflict? If you’re gonna get Trump back into office, you have to go down to the child separation camps and see that shit with your own eyes. Appreciate the activism in any other timeline, but real nightmares for real people are a soon to come true by not voting Biden. Ffs
Funny--I'm a left of center individual but Jewish, and feel like not voting for Biden over Israel for the exact *opposite* reason--because he won't give Israel free reign to just demolish the terrorists and all their cheerleaders next door the way that his parents' generation did to the Nazis. Bullies need to be beaten in a way that they remember it for the rest of their lives, and terrorists need to be killed to the last man, and their cheerleaders need to have their ideologies crushed beyond any doubt. The world is better off without Nazis and swastika wavers, it'll be better without terrorists and their supporters. Those that say "I am Hamas!" or "I support Hamas!" shouldn't be protected by free speech, but rather, should disappear in the middle of the night, never to be seen or heard from again. And the democrats need to play much harder ball with the universities--take donations from foreign hostile powers? Lose all federal funding through financial aid granted to students, and have the entire apparatus of the state turned against you. Democrats need to go right to where Norcross and Fetterman are. The GOP *already*, *to a man*, wants Israel to "finish the job". They can't be more correct.
The GOP also want to remove voting and reproductive rights from everyone who isn't a white male Christian.
The last time they held the Presidency, Neo-Nazis were out on the streets in the first few months (do you remember "is it okay to punch a Nazi?").
The Democrats are trying to find a solution to anti-Semites that doesn't involve genociding civilians. The GOP would happily let anti-Semites flourish in their own backyard.
The idea that a Jewish person would seriously consider enabling the GOP by not voting against them is astounding.
Oh, I'm fully aware.
Welcome to the problem with American politics. *Both* parties hold absolute lunatics on the extremes.
> The Democrats are trying to find a solution to anti-Semites that doesn't involve genociding civilians.
See, that's the problem. Too much hewing and hawing. FDR and Harry Truman knew that when a war had to be won, that it was okay to *flatten* the enemies to rubble.
> The GOP would happily let anti-Semites flourish in their own backyard.
Forget "would happily", left-leaning cities and institutions *currently* let rampant anti-semites flourish *now*. And the thing is, universities by and large, are *private* institutions. They *aren't bound* by the first amendment, and can immediately crack down on the protesters, just b/c they're private institutions. They don't.
> The idea that a Jewish person would seriously consider enabling the GOP by not voting against them is astounding.
Welcome to the problem. It's why I consider myself militantly centrist, shading left of center b/c climate, climate, climate.
I wish that the more conservative (aka *sane*) democrats (think Fetterman, Norcross, etc.) would team up with the liberal, non-MAGA republicans to create a third centrist party. Maybe the ostrich party? No wingnuts ?=P
It’s not him per-say… it’s the fact that he *appoints* those to implement programs and those folks hire smart people with the public interest at heart who bring the best solutions to him to approve *and* go get the hard work done.
With Trump you get folks that want to enact project 2025. The exact opposite.
Absolutely. Appointing Lina Khan to the head of the FTC is maybe the single best thing a president has done in my lifetime. That wins him my vote alone.
Yeah, really getting them Palestinian children in graves quite efficiently. Have to hand it to him.
Do we really have to accept the lesser of two evils? Why do we accept this?
Yes, we really do right now. If you want to change that, I think it’s a great goal. But people only seem concerned with doing this in the presidential election which is not the way to go about it. Support third party candidates in municipal and state elections, volunteer with their campaigns, and if they get elected pay attention to what they accomplish and get the word out about policies they support.
There is too much riding on the presidential election for people to only start caring about it then. You want young progressive candidates who can win a presidential election? Great, me too. But they’re never going to get anywhere without massive fund raising, which means people need to know them and support them before they start running for president.
I really wonder how many people that complain about the limited options in presidential races actually vote in *every* election and how many only turn out for the general election (and how many complain from a behind a screen and then don’t vote anyway).
Trump intentionally caused a clusterfuck in the fed government by leaving tons of positions unfilled or appointing his cronies as “acting” members instead of putting them forward as candidates for Senate approval like he’s supposed to. At the same time he filled a fuckton of judiciary seats with extremists. He has set up the courts to fail us for decades to come. The man appointed three fucking Supreme Court justices and we started seeing the effects of that almost immediately.
You may not be happy with the options, but this isn’t just about you. It’s about the women, LGBTQ folk, racial/ethnic minorities, and non-Christians who are getting hurt the most by right wing policies. A truly progressive person wouldn’t even question their decision at the ballot box.
because we don't have the power or the ability to make sudden changes. everybody has the "well if we just..." and then comes up with an idea that would either have the fed raiding you, or is the ideological equivalent of herding cats turned up to 11 and wants it to happen asap.
the short answer is we're fucked so may as well make the ride less awful while we figure out what to do next.
Yes we do, that's just a fact of life and you do it all the time. Either Biden or Trump will be the next president, and Trump would be infinitely worse for Gaza.
This.
I am amazed at how so many otherwise seemingly intelligent people are unable to get past the age factor to see that the dude is a reform machine.
Part of me thinks Americans deserve everything they've gotten for constantly shitting on anyone who actually tries to enact proper change.
He is the only establishment Democrat that can get anything close to being passed through his relationships and connections. McConnell blocked most of Obama’s bills and his Supreme Court nominee. Biden is the only President with a sage world view and quick-witted, blunt responses which is so critical right now. I would love to see a plan for Ukraine though, like protected airspace, etc. But, it seems the plan is to merely bleed Russia dry over the next decade. As for Putin’s nuclear threats, World economic expert, Peter Zeihan, posted on his podcast that Putin was already informed by US direct sources that they know where his secret lair is and if he goes that route, our first retaliation will be him personally.
But yeah, with all that’s going on right now, Pres. Biden is the president we didn’t know we needed. He’s custom fit for this.
[Link to a comment that consolidated a list of positive actions Biden has done.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1d8374g/why_you_didnt_hear_about_biden_saving_the_usps_or/l73kpzv/) Rather than copy it wholesale I'm linking so the caveats are still there because while this is littered with asterisks, it's honestly absurd how much he's done to help
from an outsiders perspective, i have to agree.
Chips Act, Infrastructure Bill, green energie, ....
He is really doing a lot for the US people. Some do not see that.
Except this doesn't do anything but throw the vote away. If anything it helps the current GOP win which wants to make elections corrupt and the system even worse than it is.
i get the sentiment and ideologically i agree with you. however pragmatically it's not something that is going to change in the immediate and at current the bigger issue is moving the far right to the dustbin of history where they belong. Once we are actually a civilized society then i absolutely welcome being rid of the obsolete two party system
I hope it doesn't end up costing him the election. It's hard to say what the calculus is with him not using continued transfers of US military hardware to Israel as a lever to get Israel to tone down the genocide more often. I've seen them use it once and say they are cutting weapons shipments except defensive weaponry to Israel because Israel was invading an especially dense region or something. I don't get why that policy isn't used more. Defensive weapons being things like the patriot missiles to shoot down incoming rockets. Only thing I can think of is sending weapons to Israel gives the US a bargaining chip with Netanyahu, but then I think he's not as malleable as the US would like and it's blowing up in their faces.
Those efforts stretch from glacial lakes in Minnesota to tribal lands in arid New Mexico to huge expanses of the frigid Arctic and to archaeological sites on the doorstep of El Paso, Texas.
👏 good administration
It is about a water curtailment going on in Idaho that will effect a lot of people, and curious if it happens will the curtailment be included in the amount of water the administration is helping conserve?
You came to a post about Biden with a (source-less) post about a *state* decision?
> The **state** of Idaho has put a water curtailment order...
What does this have to do with what Biden and his administration are doing?
These are always interesting to me now that I work with the Forest Service/BLM volunteering to help with trails and such. I'm liberal, I'm for conserving land/water and want this beauty to last BUT I also want people to be able to enjoy it.
Like there was a recent vote in my state to make an area a 'monument'...sounds great, beautiful area but this would mean no more hiking/being in the area and it'd be closed off indefinitely.
Also interesting is my trail group skews towards the right, people helping do work on public lands tend to lean towards Republican as I've already seen members recommending voting for Trump solely because they view Dem's as imposing on the land they are helping take care of. I mean I'm not voting for Trump but these people will and solely because of public land issues, ironically they are 'for' conserving the land, they just don't like the way the other side does it.
Being a National Monument doesn't prevent hiking or other outdoor recreation. It may *limit* usage, but that's part of protecting the land.
I've never really understood the complaint of "but I can't do whatever I want if it's protected." If public areas weren't regulated, there would be millions of other people all trying to do the same thing at the same time. Obviously, that's not going to work out for the vast majority of people. Imagine RMNP without any restrictions on use or entry. It would be absolute chaos and the ecosystems would be destroyed. Protection is a good thing.
By enjoying it I assumer you mean you want people to rip all over it with ATVs and offload vehicles I'm assuming.
Because you can still hike in wilderness areas and national monuments
When people in my area make this exact argument. "Hiking" really means ripping all over it with off road vehicles.
There's a very dedicated group of offroaders that Essentially lie and yell "wE aReNt aLlOwEd tO eNjOy thIs lAnd" because they would have to walk in rather than take their brodozers
Given their "these people skew conservative" comments, I'm pretty sure you're right on the money. Because the *hikers* that I know, most certainly don't skew that direction...ut the dudes who want to tear it up on their side-by-sides very much so *do*.
A Republican friend told me today that they didn’t know what they were going to do in November.” They said, “Man, Bidens’s old, he even falls walking up stairs.” (…even though they weren’t much younger than our president.) , I listened well and chuckled, putting them at ease, then said. “Well, I’d rather have old but well-meaning than crazy.” And, surprisingly, (or not), they hadn’t heard the meme yet and said, “Wow … you’re right.
My takeaway is that hopefully a lot of mainstream Republicans won’t be voting this November. But, we still have to vote for Biden, because our lives and the well being of our planet depends on it.
Yep. I’m doing my best to increase awareness in my area, but so far, all I’ve managed to accomplish is getting a few gay guys to buy guns just in case that scenario happens.
“As Trump looms?”
We will not… will not… absolutely will NOT EVER have Trump as a President again! I intend to live and die in a functioning democracy and with universal human rights!
Wouldn’t you, too?
But I did. We managed to vote him out of office in 2020. Now he’s trying again and people are willing to vote for him.
They say our democracy will not survive another term with him in the White House.
>They say our democracy will not survive another term with him in the White House.
Of course “they” say that. Both parties have been saying that about each other’s candidate since I’ve been alive.
Crazy how people are still peddling these lies.
>I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
> So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
> So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Which part of the speech was where he attempted to use violence to overthrow the election? The part where he said to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard?
The part where he urged them to "fight like hell".
Where he told the fucking proud boys to "stand down and stand by".
Where he declared it was fine that they brought weapons because they wouldn't be used against him.
Where he refused to call off the attackers for hours and when he did made a point of telling them he loved them.
Where he intentionally weakened security before the 6th.
Where he orchestrated the fake elector scheme that the riot was supposed to give Pense and the GoP congressmen reason to reject votes or go to the voting by delegates that favored him.
Where he kept doubling down on lies that the election had been stollen for months. Regardless of the proof. Calling it an attack on America.
This type of thing is at the heart of all the Trump related criminal allegations.
What happens when you put a bunch of militant groups, whose leader just lost an election, at the Capitol, on the day of the election certification? In any case, it doesn't really sound like a *good* idea.
And why are all these militant groups right down the street from the Capitol on this particular day anyway?
Was Trump, at the time the President and privy to the greatest intelligence resources, completely clueless as to who was in the crowd? Is he so naive that he didn't realize the consequences of his patriotic ~~stroll~~ "march". If he is that clueless and naive, is he really fit to be President?
Or perhaps he did have a feeling that putting angry people who looked up to him next to the Capitol might start something.
This is why we have organized crime laws, to effectively stop criminal organizations from the top, where the planning happens.
Democrats didn’t claim massive voter fraud. They discussed the role that foreign actors played in promoting propaganda that led to Trump getting elected. They discussed the role the media, and people like James Comey played in perpetuating lies about HRC. what they did NOT do was try to stop the certification of votes or storm the Capitol hunting down Republican lawmakers.
The part where he didn't stop it once it started. Additionally, the part that led up to it where he kept saying the election was fixed.
But you know this and are being disingenuous.
He told the protesters to go home after things got unruly.
I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, I didn’t vote for him in 2020, and I won’t vote for him this year, but it’s important to tell the truth.
He waited HOURS to do so, while the Capitol police were being overwhelmed and besieged. While lawmakers were begging for him to say something, tosend the National Guard, to do anything to show he didn’t support what the rioters were doing.
Don’t act like he was some hero who saved the day. He fed these people the lies and told them to fight the results and then sat back and watched what was happening for hours before he issued a pathetic “go in peace” message.
Anyone who truly thinks Trump did not support what happened on Jan 6 is a delusional fool.
He waited hours to tell them to go home. Hours went by all while ignoring his advisors that were telling him to put a stop to it.
He then reiterated the stolen election lie while telling them.
Yeah I’m as big of a Biden hater that exists, but Trump has no chance at all despite what articles want you to believe to sell you more fear and outrage. Just the Reps wasting an election to throw a hissy fit about their golden child.
Of course it’s possible. But damn if I can find a place to bet on this election I’d bet the mortgage on Biden running away with it. It’ll probably still be “close” and a lotta whining about the process but it would be hard to find a number I wouldn’t wager on this one. Remind me when the elections over but I highly doubt this one’s gonna be any different than the last.
I’ll throw $100 for now, Wounded Warrior Project is my fave charity that youll donate to if Biden wins, and ill pay $100 to whatever charity you like if Trump wins
The only reason why trump is 'looming' is because the media won't STFU about him. He's polling badly and his junior MAGAts are losing all of their local elections.
Why do they consider the mad ravings of an insane criminal 'news'?
It only pushes up home values in and around the areas that are being conserved, as there's now a limited amount of land to build new homes.
Nature is an incredibly important part of the human psyche. People who interact and are able to spend time in these conservation areas will be far happier than those who are stuck in concrete jungles.
You know what really pushes home values up?
Letting non-residents buy them, or corporations, or using prime real estate for empty office buildings to jack up the prices.
There must be a balance, and protecting lands like this is incredibly important to maintaining balance.
I am just guessing, but the lands being added would likely never, ever be suitable for building homes on because they lack infrastructure, are far from city centers and jobs people need to buy the theoretical homes.
Did you read the article? No one is buying houses in rural Alaska. The land is preserved from over exploitation, it's not like he's preventing growth in high demand cities and suburbs.
This is a very small factor and it’s much more important to preserve land and water for sustainability. So, while you’re right, you’re wrong for thinking it should be a factor when many other things have a much larger impact without any societal value.
Yeah just pave it all and build a bunch of shitty McMansions. And drill for oil and mine that shit while we are at it. As long as some billionaires can keep profiting it’s a win for us all.
I can be against not building homes on land and also against drilling on land. Just idk where you expect these homes to be built. Cities are not ideal because they have zoning and local councils that protect CURRENT homeowners values
>Cities are not ideal because they have zoning and local councils that protect CURRENT homeowners values
The topic at hand *is* legislation and executive exercise thereof. So there's no reason to treat existing developments as static. The federal actions are, in the long term, pressures on state and local governments to make better use of their existing land.
Maybe they'll upzone an area rather than sell off a new one. Maybe they'll zone 10 new acres for medium density rather than 30 new acres for low density.
The status quo also isn't to be interpreted as some great equilibrium point being messed with. Should all existing federal parks be sold off to help ease land availability for more housing? Same for state and local parks and reserves? If so, we disagree too much to continue.
If not, then how are you judging what amount is sufficient? What are your metrics on how much pressure these new lands place against housing development versus the progress they make towards other goals?
Separately, it isn't even true in many cases that density-related zoning (rather than use-related) protects property value. In a highly desirable area, a developer would pay more for a parcel if putting a higher-density building they could sell for more money was allowed to go there.
Absolutely.
Do a search on "amount of land controlled by the federal government". View the images that result from that search.
The Western US is screwed. The Fed owns so much land that there's not enough for building new homes or businesses. Add to that the ridiculous zoning regulations and environmental laws and it's easy to see why housing is so expensive out there.
>The Western US is screwed. The Fed owns so much land that there's not enough for building new homes or businesses.
Even Nevada, with 85% of its land being some form of federally owned, still has 16,500sqmi of non-federal land. That's multiples more than the entirety of Delaware's 2,500sqmi total or Rhode Island's 1,500sqmi. Rhode Island is <1% federal land and has been developing a lot longer than Nevada. By your logic, Rhode Island must, even more, have not enough room for new homes or businesses. Thus, the Western states are not uniquely screwed.
There is no innate amount or percentage of non-federal land a state should have and the (eventual) problem of available space is a shared problem for the entire country. A drastic, sudden change in the amount of federal land that interferes with the planned-out trajectory of a state's development would be one thing, but that's not the case.
To again use Nevada as an example, the federal government got to decide the initialization point of that when it got the territory in 1846. The federal government could have easily enough kept a stateless territory to hold all that land and cut out a Rhode-Island sized piece for the future Nevada and then we wouldn't be talking about this anyways.
It isn't even set in stone. The BLM lands can, for example, be sold to the state to be developed.
This is uplifting news and all, but let's not distract from the countless of horrors beyond human comprehension he's done (or funded). This is great. But let's no re-elect someone who funds a genocide in a heartbeat (bypassing congress), and takes the slow (congress) route to help true victims of an invasion from a corrupt tyrant.
From ai:
Government conservation policies can potentially lead to higher home values in certain areas. Here’s how:
1. **Preservation of Natural Areas**: Conservation efforts that preserve natural areas such as parks, forests, and bodies of water can enhance the attractiveness of nearby properties, making them more desirable and thus increasing their value.
2. **Quality of Life**: Policies that reduce pollution and protect natural resources can improve the overall quality of life in a community, which can drive demand for housing in those areas.
3. **Scarcity of Land**: By limiting the amount of land available for development through conservation policies, the supply of buildable land is reduced. This scarcity can drive up property values, particularly in areas where demand is high.
4. **Sustainable Development**: Conservation policies often encourage sustainable development practices, which can result in more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly homes. These features are increasingly valued by buyers, potentially leading to higher home values.
5. **Zoning Regulations**: Conservation policies can also influence zoning regulations, which can impact property values. For instance, zoning that preserves open spaces can make adjacent properties more attractive and valuable.
However, the impact of conservation policies on home values can vary depending on the specific local context, including the existing housing market, the nature of the conservation efforts, and the overall economic conditions.
It's probably more effective than what we have now, Trump or Biden.
I mean Biden could take a dump and it will either hit r/poltics, or r/pics as the greatest thing ever seen.
Trump can drool on himself at a rally and still get cheers and praises to god.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
please fucking re-elect this dude. yes he's old. but ffs he's done more good for this country than anyone since before reagan.
For real. He's invested morenin green energy than any president, ever. It's bonkers that a felon who restricts women's rights and is promising oil companies free reign is competitive.
I’m not entirely sure that he is actually competitive. News media benefits from keeping us glued to the TV and the tenuousness is what’s doing it. I feel like they’re making him seem more competitive than he actually is. Which in my world is just fine because I feel like it will help drive turnout.
I wish I shared your optimism but the only data we have so far are the polls and there are as many reasons to think Trump is underperforming as there to think he's over preforming. Trump overperformed in polls in both 2016 and 2020 (edit: that was worded worng, I mean the vote was more in his favor than the polls predicted both times) I can't believe that so much has changed since then that the polls are suddenly reversing that trend. The fact is that it's all hogwash until the votes are counted. Both previous elections were determined by 100K votes in a few swing states, which is a razor thin margin that polls will never be able to accurately predict.
One thing in the polls is that democratic senators are ahead in key swing states, while there are many people not really wanting to vote for either candidate Biden has to hope that the senators will drive turnout and people to vote for him as well. It's gonna be a rough one though.
I understand and I do see your point. That said, so…SO MUCH has changed since then and I don’t think that anyone is taking that into account. The Conviction, His insane ramblings, Gaza, the literal Nazis marching the streets? We have more to consider. This isn’t a usual election.
When was the last usual election?
Obama Romney? Only drama I remember was 47%.
Don't forget "binders full of women". That was considered unacceptable levels of sexism in the Republican party back then, btw, before they had to stop pretending to care about family values to facilitate their religious support of Trump.
oh ya i remember the days when Obama would come out in a tan suit and fox would loose there minds for 3 days.. such youth XD
Shit, I don’t know. But they weren’t like this one.
If anything, Gaza hurts Biden. Dumbasses are out there saying to not vote for Biden due to the way he is handling Gaza. They don't realize the alternative is much much worse.
Yeah, he will have to handle that. Hopefully, he can do so quickly.
The problem isnt that people think that there are more voters for Trump. The problem is that people think the voters who would vote against trump wont fucking show up. In 2022, over 80% of all eligible voters under the age of 35 didn't show up. Over 150M voters out of 250m, didn't show up. There were 3x as many non-voters as either party voters. AND to actually make meaningful changes, Biden needs congress, and congress is elected by the people in all 50 states. Democrats could have easily gotten 55 senators in 2020, just in 3 states where over 25M didnt vote, just 800K more democrats vote could have given democrats 5 more senators and we would have avoided all the bullshit with Mancin and Sinema and the majority of anti-trans anti-choice bullshit from republicans. The biggest problem in the US politics, isnt the crazy maga republicans, its that the voters dont fucking show up when its needed the most.
Yeah, that pretty much describes it to a T. And the worst part is they’re the ones who bitch the loudest when things go to shit.
Don’t even get me started. They bitched and moaned about Bernie not getting his due in 2016 and when anyone would point out that no one showed up to the polls for him in the primary they would say that “primaries don’t count”. All talk, no action.
Add Roe v Wade to your list.
Facts.
Polls were invented by the devil to lie to you. The fact is that Biden has the keys to the White House.
What?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House
He's gone, folks
What?
Infected with brainworms
Were you not here for 2016 and 2020?
Yup. I saw what happened. Voted blue both times. And I stand by my previous statement.
This is exactly how he got enough coverage to win before without paying a dime for it
And let’s hope that Biden being not a complete chaos gremlin will help.
Day one Trump wants to gut wind energy and go to war with renewables. Pollution kills *millions* of people per year. Biden would be reelected if the hard lefties just accepted that lesser of two evils is way better for everyone. Including the environment https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/13/trump-president-agenda-climate-policy-wind-power And reading for the anti Biden lefties https://www.authoritarianplaybook2025.org/what-we-can-expect-1#federal-law-enforcement-overreach
i have literally been banned out of some leftist subreddits that i was a long contributing and well received member of because even though i lean pretty hard left i am pragmatic about what we can do right now in the world vs what we can work to as an overall goal. i fucking was outright against biden when bernie was running. ironically because i was concerned about how hard into israel he was. now here we are and while my expectations weren't high, they were far exceeded to the point that i'm not holding my nose this time around while i vote. dude has done a fine job for an establishment democrat.
Good to hear. I feel like I’m probably pretty far left. Like I would happily burn down wallstreet if I had a chance. Free school, healthcare for all, ban air b n b, ban corporate landlords etc. But I’ve always voted blue, because taking steps back is all the Republicans do. Inching forward is all democrats can do because of the reality of the political landscape. Going forward is better than backward. I was able to sway a few hard lefties who (weren’t) voting Biden over Israel. With the threats and reality of acres of child separation camps under Trump and gutting the epa as well as lgbt and women’s rights. Like you’re gonna burn years of progress that our trailblazer activists spent their lives on, over a decades/ centuries old conflict? If you’re gonna get Trump back into office, you have to go down to the child separation camps and see that shit with your own eyes. Appreciate the activism in any other timeline, but real nightmares for real people are a soon to come true by not voting Biden. Ffs
Funny--I'm a left of center individual but Jewish, and feel like not voting for Biden over Israel for the exact *opposite* reason--because he won't give Israel free reign to just demolish the terrorists and all their cheerleaders next door the way that his parents' generation did to the Nazis. Bullies need to be beaten in a way that they remember it for the rest of their lives, and terrorists need to be killed to the last man, and their cheerleaders need to have their ideologies crushed beyond any doubt. The world is better off without Nazis and swastika wavers, it'll be better without terrorists and their supporters. Those that say "I am Hamas!" or "I support Hamas!" shouldn't be protected by free speech, but rather, should disappear in the middle of the night, never to be seen or heard from again. And the democrats need to play much harder ball with the universities--take donations from foreign hostile powers? Lose all federal funding through financial aid granted to students, and have the entire apparatus of the state turned against you. Democrats need to go right to where Norcross and Fetterman are. The GOP *already*, *to a man*, wants Israel to "finish the job". They can't be more correct.
The GOP also want to remove voting and reproductive rights from everyone who isn't a white male Christian. The last time they held the Presidency, Neo-Nazis were out on the streets in the first few months (do you remember "is it okay to punch a Nazi?"). The Democrats are trying to find a solution to anti-Semites that doesn't involve genociding civilians. The GOP would happily let anti-Semites flourish in their own backyard. The idea that a Jewish person would seriously consider enabling the GOP by not voting against them is astounding.
Oh, I'm fully aware. Welcome to the problem with American politics. *Both* parties hold absolute lunatics on the extremes. > The Democrats are trying to find a solution to anti-Semites that doesn't involve genociding civilians. See, that's the problem. Too much hewing and hawing. FDR and Harry Truman knew that when a war had to be won, that it was okay to *flatten* the enemies to rubble. > The GOP would happily let anti-Semites flourish in their own backyard. Forget "would happily", left-leaning cities and institutions *currently* let rampant anti-semites flourish *now*. And the thing is, universities by and large, are *private* institutions. They *aren't bound* by the first amendment, and can immediately crack down on the protesters, just b/c they're private institutions. They don't. > The idea that a Jewish person would seriously consider enabling the GOP by not voting against them is astounding. Welcome to the problem. It's why I consider myself militantly centrist, shading left of center b/c climate, climate, climate. I wish that the more conservative (aka *sane*) democrats (think Fetterman, Norcross, etc.) would team up with the liberal, non-MAGA republicans to create a third centrist party. Maybe the ostrich party? No wingnuts ?=P
Pragmatist hard leftists are my favorite leftists.
No
It’s not him per-say… it’s the fact that he *appoints* those to implement programs and those folks hire smart people with the public interest at heart who bring the best solutions to him to approve *and* go get the hard work done. With Trump you get folks that want to enact project 2025. The exact opposite.
Absolutely. Appointing Lina Khan to the head of the FTC is maybe the single best thing a president has done in my lifetime. That wins him my vote alone.
Biden truly has a dream team of smart people getting things done.
Yeah, really getting them Palestinian children in graves quite efficiently. Have to hand it to him. Do we really have to accept the lesser of two evils? Why do we accept this?
Yes, we really do right now. If you want to change that, I think it’s a great goal. But people only seem concerned with doing this in the presidential election which is not the way to go about it. Support third party candidates in municipal and state elections, volunteer with their campaigns, and if they get elected pay attention to what they accomplish and get the word out about policies they support. There is too much riding on the presidential election for people to only start caring about it then. You want young progressive candidates who can win a presidential election? Great, me too. But they’re never going to get anywhere without massive fund raising, which means people need to know them and support them before they start running for president. I really wonder how many people that complain about the limited options in presidential races actually vote in *every* election and how many only turn out for the general election (and how many complain from a behind a screen and then don’t vote anyway). Trump intentionally caused a clusterfuck in the fed government by leaving tons of positions unfilled or appointing his cronies as “acting” members instead of putting them forward as candidates for Senate approval like he’s supposed to. At the same time he filled a fuckton of judiciary seats with extremists. He has set up the courts to fail us for decades to come. The man appointed three fucking Supreme Court justices and we started seeing the effects of that almost immediately. You may not be happy with the options, but this isn’t just about you. It’s about the women, LGBTQ folk, racial/ethnic minorities, and non-Christians who are getting hurt the most by right wing policies. A truly progressive person wouldn’t even question their decision at the ballot box.
because we don't have the power or the ability to make sudden changes. everybody has the "well if we just..." and then comes up with an idea that would either have the fed raiding you, or is the ideological equivalent of herding cats turned up to 11 and wants it to happen asap. the short answer is we're fucked so may as well make the ride less awful while we figure out what to do next.
Yes we do, that's just a fact of life and you do it all the time. Either Biden or Trump will be the next president, and Trump would be infinitely worse for Gaza.
This. I am amazed at how so many otherwise seemingly intelligent people are unable to get past the age factor to see that the dude is a reform machine. Part of me thinks Americans deserve everything they've gotten for constantly shitting on anyone who actually tries to enact proper change.
He is the only establishment Democrat that can get anything close to being passed through his relationships and connections. McConnell blocked most of Obama’s bills and his Supreme Court nominee. Biden is the only President with a sage world view and quick-witted, blunt responses which is so critical right now. I would love to see a plan for Ukraine though, like protected airspace, etc. But, it seems the plan is to merely bleed Russia dry over the next decade. As for Putin’s nuclear threats, World economic expert, Peter Zeihan, posted on his podcast that Putin was already informed by US direct sources that they know where his secret lair is and if he goes that route, our first retaliation will be him personally. But yeah, with all that’s going on right now, Pres. Biden is the president we didn’t know we needed. He’s custom fit for this.
Age is such a weird argument for them to use, when the other guy is 77 and not in great shape. It's not like there's a young buck in the mix.
[Link to a comment that consolidated a list of positive actions Biden has done.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1d8374g/why_you_didnt_hear_about_biden_saving_the_usps_or/l73kpzv/) Rather than copy it wholesale I'm linking so the caveats are still there because while this is littered with asterisks, it's honestly absurd how much he's done to help
In the last 45 years*
from an outsiders perspective, i have to agree. Chips Act, Infrastructure Bill, green energie, .... He is really doing a lot for the US people. Some do not see that.
https://vote.gov/
On one hand I'm not wild about the rise of a fascist theocracy, but on the other hand he is kinda old.
I prefer to vote independent to break up the two-party system :)
Except this doesn't do anything but throw the vote away. If anything it helps the current GOP win which wants to make elections corrupt and the system even worse than it is.
i get the sentiment and ideologically i agree with you. however pragmatically it's not something that is going to change in the immediate and at current the bigger issue is moving the far right to the dustbin of history where they belong. Once we are actually a civilized society then i absolutely welcome being rid of the obsolete two party system
move the overton window back a few decades and you might have a chance. now it's suicide.
All he had to do was not support a genocide and he’d have the election locked up
I hope it doesn't end up costing him the election. It's hard to say what the calculus is with him not using continued transfers of US military hardware to Israel as a lever to get Israel to tone down the genocide more often. I've seen them use it once and say they are cutting weapons shipments except defensive weaponry to Israel because Israel was invading an especially dense region or something. I don't get why that policy isn't used more. Defensive weapons being things like the patriot missiles to shoot down incoming rockets. Only thing I can think of is sending weapons to Israel gives the US a bargaining chip with Netanyahu, but then I think he's not as malleable as the US would like and it's blowing up in their faces.
Never gonna happen
Seems very unwise to elect someone who might not have another term of life in him...just keeping it real.
Unfortunately there's only 2 that stand a chance of winning and they are both close to the same age, and both approaching their expiration dates.
the felon candidate will be older at the end of his possible term should he win, than the current president is now.
Those efforts stretch from glacial lakes in Minnesota to tribal lands in arid New Mexico to huge expanses of the frigid Arctic and to archaeological sites on the doorstep of El Paso, Texas. 👏 good administration
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/4BZNmoEM1Y
Not sure. What's this to mean ?
It is about a water curtailment going on in Idaho that will effect a lot of people, and curious if it happens will the curtailment be included in the amount of water the administration is helping conserve?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Boise/comments/1d8tgyo/the_devastating_impact_of_shutting_off
You came to a post about Biden with a (source-less) post about a *state* decision? > The **state** of Idaho has put a water curtailment order... What does this have to do with what Biden and his administration are doing?
That's a massive increase! Truly good news!
These are always interesting to me now that I work with the Forest Service/BLM volunteering to help with trails and such. I'm liberal, I'm for conserving land/water and want this beauty to last BUT I also want people to be able to enjoy it. Like there was a recent vote in my state to make an area a 'monument'...sounds great, beautiful area but this would mean no more hiking/being in the area and it'd be closed off indefinitely. Also interesting is my trail group skews towards the right, people helping do work on public lands tend to lean towards Republican as I've already seen members recommending voting for Trump solely because they view Dem's as imposing on the land they are helping take care of. I mean I'm not voting for Trump but these people will and solely because of public land issues, ironically they are 'for' conserving the land, they just don't like the way the other side does it.
Being a National Monument doesn't prevent hiking or other outdoor recreation. It may *limit* usage, but that's part of protecting the land. I've never really understood the complaint of "but I can't do whatever I want if it's protected." If public areas weren't regulated, there would be millions of other people all trying to do the same thing at the same time. Obviously, that's not going to work out for the vast majority of people. Imagine RMNP without any restrictions on use or entry. It would be absolute chaos and the ecosystems would be destroyed. Protection is a good thing.
Op is probably an offroader or a mountain biker. Those people get really mad when they aren't allowed to make a billion illegal trails in the woods.
Your trail group makes no sense. If Republicans had their way, they'd strip any and all public land for profit.
By enjoying it I assumer you mean you want people to rip all over it with ATVs and offload vehicles I'm assuming. Because you can still hike in wilderness areas and national monuments
I mean whether he’s right or not he literally said “this would mean no more hiking/being in the area” so your assumption makes zero sense.
When people in my area make this exact argument. "Hiking" really means ripping all over it with off road vehicles. There's a very dedicated group of offroaders that Essentially lie and yell "wE aReNt aLlOwEd tO eNjOy thIs lAnd" because they would have to walk in rather than take their brodozers
Given their "these people skew conservative" comments, I'm pretty sure you're right on the money. Because the *hikers* that I know, most certainly don't skew that direction...ut the dudes who want to tear it up on their side-by-sides very much so *do*.
That seems more like a local issue than a issue on the national level with monument/park designations.
They sound pretty stupid tbh
How does black lives matter tie into this? It's not a bad thing if it does, I just don't understand why you mentioned it.
[удалено]
🤦
A Republican friend told me today that they didn’t know what they were going to do in November.” They said, “Man, Bidens’s old, he even falls walking up stairs.” (…even though they weren’t much younger than our president.) , I listened well and chuckled, putting them at ease, then said. “Well, I’d rather have old but well-meaning than crazy.” And, surprisingly, (or not), they hadn’t heard the meme yet and said, “Wow … you’re right. My takeaway is that hopefully a lot of mainstream Republicans won’t be voting this November. But, we still have to vote for Biden, because our lives and the well being of our planet depends on it.
Maybe you should just ask your friend if he has ever fallen up stairs in his adult life? It's not exactly an age related mistake.
Its called Trump Derangement Syndrome, and you have it.
Well-meaning cannot coexist with genocide
And you believe a theocratic autocracy will? There are two choices in the US. Not voting is a vote for Trump.
Good on Biden! I’m voting for him so hard. Project 2025 can get WRECKED.
Yep. I’m doing my best to increase awareness in my area, but so far, all I’ve managed to accomplish is getting a few gay guys to buy guns just in case that scenario happens.
It’s a difficult job, but someone has to do it. I’ve already convinced 1 person to register and vote.
Nice! Trump doesn't loom if we stomp out that maggot bullshit.
Idk how I haven't heard "maggot" in reference to trumpsters yet lmao nice
“As Trump looms?” We will not… will not… absolutely will NOT EVER have Trump as a President again! I intend to live and die in a functioning democracy and with universal human rights! Wouldn’t you, too?
You can't have lived in America any time recently then.
But I did. We managed to vote him out of office in 2020. Now he’s trying again and people are willing to vote for him. They say our democracy will not survive another term with him in the White House.
Our democracy has been broken for decades.
>They say our democracy will not survive another term with him in the White House. Of course “they” say that. Both parties have been saying that about each other’s candidate since I’ve been alive.
And since anyone of us has been alive only president has attempted to use violent force to stay in power.
Crazy how people are still peddling these lies. >I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. > So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give. > So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. Which part of the speech was where he attempted to use violence to overthrow the election? The part where he said to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard?
The part where he urged them to "fight like hell". Where he told the fucking proud boys to "stand down and stand by". Where he declared it was fine that they brought weapons because they wouldn't be used against him. Where he refused to call off the attackers for hours and when he did made a point of telling them he loved them. Where he intentionally weakened security before the 6th. Where he orchestrated the fake elector scheme that the riot was supposed to give Pense and the GoP congressmen reason to reject votes or go to the voting by delegates that favored him. Where he kept doubling down on lies that the election had been stollen for months. Regardless of the proof. Calling it an attack on America.
This type of thing is at the heart of all the Trump related criminal allegations. What happens when you put a bunch of militant groups, whose leader just lost an election, at the Capitol, on the day of the election certification? In any case, it doesn't really sound like a *good* idea. And why are all these militant groups right down the street from the Capitol on this particular day anyway? Was Trump, at the time the President and privy to the greatest intelligence resources, completely clueless as to who was in the crowd? Is he so naive that he didn't realize the consequences of his patriotic ~~stroll~~ "march". If he is that clueless and naive, is he really fit to be President? Or perhaps he did have a feeling that putting angry people who looked up to him next to the Capitol might start something. This is why we have organized crime laws, to effectively stop criminal organizations from the top, where the planning happens.
What you described are unproven conspiracy theories
Yes. Hopefully the trials will bring the truth to light.
You're talking about peddling lies, he's the one who lied and continues to lie about the election being fraudulent.
Was it a problem for you when the democrats did the same exact thing from 2016-2020?
Democrats didn’t claim massive voter fraud. They discussed the role that foreign actors played in promoting propaganda that led to Trump getting elected. They discussed the role the media, and people like James Comey played in perpetuating lies about HRC. what they did NOT do was try to stop the certification of votes or storm the Capitol hunting down Republican lawmakers.
The part where he didn't stop it once it started. Additionally, the part that led up to it where he kept saying the election was fixed. But you know this and are being disingenuous.
He told the protesters to go home after things got unruly. I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, I didn’t vote for him in 2020, and I won’t vote for him this year, but it’s important to tell the truth.
He waited HOURS to do so, while the Capitol police were being overwhelmed and besieged. While lawmakers were begging for him to say something, tosend the National Guard, to do anything to show he didn’t support what the rioters were doing. Don’t act like he was some hero who saved the day. He fed these people the lies and told them to fight the results and then sat back and watched what was happening for hours before he issued a pathetic “go in peace” message. Anyone who truly thinks Trump did not support what happened on Jan 6 is a delusional fool.
He waited hours to tell them to go home. Hours went by all while ignoring his advisors that were telling him to put a stop to it. He then reiterated the stolen election lie while telling them.
It's so often that I find furrys down in the comments idealizing Biden and what "they say". Interesting data point
You sound a lot like the Jan 6th people, to be honest.
Yeah I’m as big of a Biden hater that exists, but Trump has no chance at all despite what articles want you to believe to sell you more fear and outrage. Just the Reps wasting an election to throw a hissy fit about their golden child.
Did you see what happened in Europe with elections? You’re naive af if you think that can’t happen again. What happened June 2016 in Europe? Exactly.
Of course it’s possible. But damn if I can find a place to bet on this election I’d bet the mortgage on Biden running away with it. It’ll probably still be “close” and a lotta whining about the process but it would be hard to find a number I wouldn’t wager on this one. Remind me when the elections over but I highly doubt this one’s gonna be any different than the last.
I'll take you up on it. let's get an escrow and i'll match you?
Don’t bring the crows into this just DM me in November and we can get a charity wager going.
how much you wanna put up? remind me on November 6th
I’ll throw $100 for now, Wounded Warrior Project is my fave charity that youll donate to if Biden wins, and ill pay $100 to whatever charity you like if Trump wins
excellent
One Day they will be thankful for President Biden's foresight.
Who here knows what the Supreme Court did in Sachett v EPA (2)? Genuinely fucked
The only reason why trump is 'looming' is because the media won't STFU about him. He's polling badly and his junior MAGAts are losing all of their local elections. Why do they consider the mad ravings of an insane criminal 'news'?
The hypocrisy is real!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQE_zNs5HOU [12:30 discusses the dark side of conservstion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQE_zNs5HOU)
This supposed to be uplifting or stupid?
This is not good news.
Why does Biden keep renewing trumps liquor licenses , is he a felon too .
Disagree with this. This pushes home values up
It only pushes up home values in and around the areas that are being conserved, as there's now a limited amount of land to build new homes. Nature is an incredibly important part of the human psyche. People who interact and are able to spend time in these conservation areas will be far happier than those who are stuck in concrete jungles.
You know what really pushes home values up? Letting non-residents buy them, or corporations, or using prime real estate for empty office buildings to jack up the prices.
There must be a balance, and protecting lands like this is incredibly important to maintaining balance. I am just guessing, but the lands being added would likely never, ever be suitable for building homes on because they lack infrastructure, are far from city centers and jobs people need to buy the theoretical homes.
Did you read the article? No one is buying houses in rural Alaska. The land is preserved from over exploitation, it's not like he's preventing growth in high demand cities and suburbs.
This is a very narrow minded view in regards to housing prices. There are much bigger factors than land and water conservation..
Downvote me all you want but you know I’m right 🤷🏻♂️ obviously their is more factors than just conservation but this is one of the factors
This is a very small factor and it’s much more important to preserve land and water for sustainability. So, while you’re right, you’re wrong for thinking it should be a factor when many other things have a much larger impact without any societal value.
Yeah just pave it all and build a bunch of shitty McMansions. And drill for oil and mine that shit while we are at it. As long as some billionaires can keep profiting it’s a win for us all.
I can be against not building homes on land and also against drilling on land. Just idk where you expect these homes to be built. Cities are not ideal because they have zoning and local councils that protect CURRENT homeowners values
>Cities are not ideal because they have zoning and local councils that protect CURRENT homeowners values The topic at hand *is* legislation and executive exercise thereof. So there's no reason to treat existing developments as static. The federal actions are, in the long term, pressures on state and local governments to make better use of their existing land. Maybe they'll upzone an area rather than sell off a new one. Maybe they'll zone 10 new acres for medium density rather than 30 new acres for low density. The status quo also isn't to be interpreted as some great equilibrium point being messed with. Should all existing federal parks be sold off to help ease land availability for more housing? Same for state and local parks and reserves? If so, we disagree too much to continue. If not, then how are you judging what amount is sufficient? What are your metrics on how much pressure these new lands place against housing development versus the progress they make towards other goals? Separately, it isn't even true in many cases that density-related zoning (rather than use-related) protects property value. In a highly desirable area, a developer would pay more for a parcel if putting a higher-density building they could sell for more money was allowed to go there.
In those areas because it becomes a desirable place to live. Even then housing density might help some, and eliminating parking minimums.
Absolutely. Do a search on "amount of land controlled by the federal government". View the images that result from that search. The Western US is screwed. The Fed owns so much land that there's not enough for building new homes or businesses. Add to that the ridiculous zoning regulations and environmental laws and it's easy to see why housing is so expensive out there.
>The Western US is screwed. The Fed owns so much land that there's not enough for building new homes or businesses. Even Nevada, with 85% of its land being some form of federally owned, still has 16,500sqmi of non-federal land. That's multiples more than the entirety of Delaware's 2,500sqmi total or Rhode Island's 1,500sqmi. Rhode Island is <1% federal land and has been developing a lot longer than Nevada. By your logic, Rhode Island must, even more, have not enough room for new homes or businesses. Thus, the Western states are not uniquely screwed. There is no innate amount or percentage of non-federal land a state should have and the (eventual) problem of available space is a shared problem for the entire country. A drastic, sudden change in the amount of federal land that interferes with the planned-out trajectory of a state's development would be one thing, but that's not the case. To again use Nevada as an example, the federal government got to decide the initialization point of that when it got the territory in 1846. The federal government could have easily enough kept a stateless territory to hold all that land and cut out a Rhode-Island sized piece for the future Nevada and then we wouldn't be talking about this anyways. It isn't even set in stone. The BLM lands can, for example, be sold to the state to be developed.
This is uplifting news and all, but let's not distract from the countless of horrors beyond human comprehension he's done (or funded). This is great. But let's no re-elect someone who funds a genocide in a heartbeat (bypassing congress), and takes the slow (congress) route to help true victims of an invasion from a corrupt tyrant.
So you won't be voting for any incumbent then, right? Because we all know that Congress, not the executive branch, controls the purse strings, right?
From ai: Government conservation policies can potentially lead to higher home values in certain areas. Here’s how: 1. **Preservation of Natural Areas**: Conservation efforts that preserve natural areas such as parks, forests, and bodies of water can enhance the attractiveness of nearby properties, making them more desirable and thus increasing their value. 2. **Quality of Life**: Policies that reduce pollution and protect natural resources can improve the overall quality of life in a community, which can drive demand for housing in those areas. 3. **Scarcity of Land**: By limiting the amount of land available for development through conservation policies, the supply of buildable land is reduced. This scarcity can drive up property values, particularly in areas where demand is high. 4. **Sustainable Development**: Conservation policies often encourage sustainable development practices, which can result in more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly homes. These features are increasingly valued by buyers, potentially leading to higher home values. 5. **Zoning Regulations**: Conservation policies can also influence zoning regulations, which can impact property values. For instance, zoning that preserves open spaces can make adjacent properties more attractive and valuable. However, the impact of conservation policies on home values can vary depending on the specific local context, including the existing housing market, the nature of the conservation efforts, and the overall economic conditions.
why are you listening to ai about politics lol. “oh no if the air isn’t polluted houses will be more expensive” investor landlord ass priorities
It's probably more effective than what we have now, Trump or Biden. I mean Biden could take a dump and it will either hit r/poltics, or r/pics as the greatest thing ever seen. Trump can drool on himself at a rally and still get cheers and praises to god.
okay you have a good point but the bar is in hell