• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Joe officially announces he's running again

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
GodisanAtheist said:
*Knocks On Wood* How many civilizations fell or declined because of some goofy happenstance thing that occurred at a weird time and altered the course of history.

My nightmare scenario with an oldie like Biden running is that he kicks it close to the finish line and we're left with Kamala Harris to fuck everything up at the most crucial juncture.

Anyone can die at any time, but there is a huge difference between 50 and 80.
Click to expand...

You’ll have to give me a pretty good reason why you think her judgment would be so poor as to cause something catastrophic to happen. Harris, while certainly not as charismatic as any of the last 8 presidents, isn’t stupid nor does she seem to have any moneyed interests that might jeopardize her decision making.
 
ivwshane said:
You’ll have to give me a pretty good reason why you think her judgment would be so poor as to cause something catastrophic to happen. Harris, while certainly not as charismatic as any of the last 8 presidents, isn’t stupid nor does she seem to have any moneyed interests that might jeopardize her decision making.
Click to expand...

- Because she's intensely uncharismatic and unpopular while Presidential races are popularity contests.

To clarify, the catastrophe would be the Republican candidate winning on account of her lack of charisma, not Biden winning, then dying, then Harris taking over.

"True terror is waking up and realizing your high school class is running the country" - Vonnegut
 
pcgeek11 said:
OOps.
I said Rate I meant Fees.


From your linked article:

New federal rule causing major backlash from some home buyers. The new rule will hike mortgage rates for home buyers with higher credit scores in an effort to subsidize mortgage rates for those with riskier credit scores.

Beginning May 1, upfront fees for loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be adjusted because of changes in the Loan Level Price Adjustments (LLPAs). Those fees are based on things including the borrower's credit score, size of the down payment, type of home and more. In some cases, people with better credit scores may pay more in fees, while those with lower credit scores will pay less.

and

Some housing experts fear the new rules will encourage banks to lend to borrowers who perhaps shouldn't qualify for a mortgage in the first place. Lending to unqualified buyers is what led to the financial crisis of 2008; banks gave too many unqualified buyers home loans that they ultimately couldn't pay back.

"This confusing approach won't work and, more importantly, couldn't come at a worse time for an industry struggling to get back on its feet after these past 12 months," David Stevens, a former commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration during the Obama administration, wrote in a social media post. "To do this at the onset of the spring market is almost offensive to the market, consumers and lenders.
Click to expand...
"For example, beginning May 1, a buyer with a good credit score of 750 who puts down 25% on a $400,000 home would now pay 0.375% in fees on a 30-year loan, or $1,125, compared to 0.250%, or $750, under the previous fee rules.

Meanwhile, a buyer with a credit score of 650 putting a 25% down payment on a $400,000 home would now pay 1.5% in fees on a 30-year loan, or $4,500. That compares with 2.75%, or $8,250, under the previous rules."
pcgeek11:
17c38b6d-efde-40fd-9ec3-2b3742dc95f6_text.gif
 
fskimospy said:
You claimed he put no consideration into their effects on the country and then I directly linked you to a document showing his consideration into the effects on the country.

If you want to retreat to ‘he didn’t consider them ENOUGH’ that’s something you can do but what you said before is undeniably false and you should admit it.
Click to expand...


Yes, he may have given it some consideration. Then went ahead and made bad choices anyway.

The document you referenced doesn't "prove" anything.

I never said Everything he has done is bad. I like several things that are in the Inflation reduction act. If they come into fruition.

Cutting Prescription Drug Cost.

Lowering Health Care Costs.

Lowering Energy Costs. ( so far they have only gone up )

Building a Clean Energy Economy. Solar panels, Windmills and Grid scale battery plants. ( if we do it here without China) We will still need more oil production.

Even still all my biggest concerns remain.

Border, Drugs, Inflation, Excessive Spending, His refusal to negotiate with Republicans.

And here we are.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Yes, he may have given it some consideration. Then went ahead and made bad choices anyway.

The document you referenced doesn't "prove" anything.

I never said Everything he has done is bad. I like several things that are in the Inflation reduction act. If they come into fruition.

Cutting Prescription Drug Cost.

Lowering Health Care Costs.

Lowering Energy Costs. ( so far they have only gone up )

Building a Clean Energy Economy. Solar panels, Windmills and Grid scale battery plants. ( if we do it here without China) We will still need more oil production.

Even still all my biggest concerns remain.

Border, Drugs, Inflation, Excessive Spending, His refusal to negotiate with Republicans.

And here we are.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you know where we are and that’s what everyone keeps trying to tell you.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Target goals are not forcing things. What has been done is to extend the existing EV tax credit to the end of this year.

You are still ignoring the fact that our grid can handle the EV's. You're ignoring it because you're wrong and you know it.
Click to expand...


Well it doesn't seem like it when California had to tell users to stop plugging in their EVs during a heat wave last year, even with the low percentage of EVs in use at the time.

calmatters.org

Race to zero: Can California’s power grid handle a 15-fold increase in electric cars?

California officials insist that the grid can provide enough electricity. But that’s based on a lot of assumptions that may not be realistic.
calmatters.org calmatters.org

State officials claim that the 12.5 million electric vehicles expected on California’s roads in 2035 will not strain the grid. But their confidence that the state can avoid brownouts relies on a best-case — some say unrealistic — scenario: massive and rapid construction of offshore wind and solar farms, and drivers charging their cars in off-peak hours.


Under a groundbreaking new state regulation, 35% of new 2026 car models sold in California must be zero-emissions, ramping up to 100% in 2035. Powering these vehicles and electrifying other sectors of the economy means the state must triple its power generation capacity and deploy new solar and wind energy at almost five times the pace of the past decade.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Well it doesn't seem like it when California had to tell users to stop plugging in their EVs during a heat wave last year, even with the low percentage of EVs in use at the time.

calmatters.org

Race to zero: Can California’s power grid handle a 15-fold increase in electric cars?

California officials insist that the grid can provide enough electricity. But that’s based on a lot of assumptions that may not be realistic.
calmatters.org calmatters.org

State officials claim that the 12.5 million electric vehicles expected on California’s roads in 2035 will not strain the grid. But their confidence that the state can avoid brownouts relies on a best-case — some say unrealistic — scenario: massive and rapid construction of offshore wind and solar farms, and drivers charging their cars in off-peak hours.


Under a groundbreaking new state regulation, 35% of new 2026 car models sold in California must be zero-emissions, ramping up to 100% in 2035. Powering these vehicles and electrifying other sectors of the economy means the state must triple its power generation capacity and deploy new solar and wind energy at almost five times the pace of the past decade.
Click to expand...

"Drivers charging their cars during non-peak hours" is an easy one. Electricity is 60% cheaper after 9:00 p.m. and everyone with an EV knows it. There are actually billboards on freeways here that remind EV drivers to not plug until after 9 or they will have higher bills. The only peak charging that gets done is when people taking long trips use commercial charging stations, but that is a tiny fraction of it because people tend not to use EV's for long trips.

So far as whether CA will have the capacity by 2035, we are in an exponential growth pattern for solar and wind. As is the entire world.

Renewables to overtake coal and become world's biggest source of electricity generation by 2025, IEA says​

The global energy crisis, sparked by Russia's war in Ukraine, has sparked "unprecedented momentum for renewables," the IEA said.


“Renewables [will] become the largest source of global electricity generation by early 2025, surpassing coal,” it added.

According to its “main-case forecast,” the IEA expects renewables to account for nearly 40% of worldwide electricity output in 2027, coinciding with a fall in the share of coal, natural gas and nuclear generation.

In its largest-ever upward revision to its renewable power forecast, the IEA now expects the world’s renewable capacity to surge by nearly 2,400 gigawatts between 2022 and 2027 — the same amount as the “entire installed power capacity of China today.”
Click to expand...

Anyway, what you are citing is California, not the federal government and not Joe Biden. CA is a state that has brownout problems, much of it due to summer heat which in turn has been caused by climate change. This problem has been around since the early 2000's, before we had EV's here.

You live in another state so I fail to see how you're so concerned about brownouts in California.

But this has nothing to do with Biden in any event, so you've utterly failed to support your arguments.
 
Last edited:
pcgeek11 said:
Border, Drugs, Inflation, Excessive Spending, His refusal to negotiate with Republicans.
Click to expand...
Border Issues - takes both houses of congress and the pres to fix. It's been tried, negotiations always fail.
Drugs - Only fix is for Americans to stop using Heroin and Cocaine. Not happening.
Inflation - we live in a cyclical economy, not awesome, but not terrible compared to other parts of the world.
Excessive spending - well, you've got me there:

After a huge Covid stimulus by Republicans and Democrats (to prevent the economy from burning down), we haven't come down back down to a normal growth rate in government spending.
I would argue that this is because, in part, many things like infrastructure spending keep getting kicked down the road - till now. And we are making a huge investment in 'green' technologies.
This is everything from help to get mining up to speed (to reduce our dependence on China, etc.) to installing wind and solar farms and setting up EV chargers so we can use that carbon
neutral energy to power stuff like BEV cars. Just to be clear - spending on green technologies isn't just a climate change thing - it's an economic imperative to wrest some control from China
and make sure we stay competitive with some of the other advanced economies in the world. Oh, and military spending is way up as well.

So, which of the two above (infrastructure or green tech) do you want to cut?
fredgraph.png
 
pcgeek11 said:
Yes, he may have given it some consideration. Then went ahead and made bad choices anyway.

The document you referenced doesn't "prove" anything.

I never said Everything he has done is bad. I like several things that are in the Inflation reduction act. If they come into fruition.

Cutting Prescription Drug Cost.

Lowering Health Care Costs.

Lowering Energy Costs. ( so far they have only gone up )

Building a Clean Energy Economy. Solar panels, Windmills and Grid scale battery plants. ( if we do it here without China) We will still need more oil production.

Even still all my biggest concerns remain.

Border, Drugs, Inflation, Excessive Spending, His refusal to negotiate with Republicans.

And here we are.
Click to expand...
So did he consider the effects or not?
 
eelw said:
WTF, RFK jr is polling at 20% 😵

Well not like that’s enough for him to go against Biden.
Click to expand...
I wonder how much of that is the folks that pretend to be D just to fuck with things.

Edit: apparently pcgeek11 either isn't aware that this is an actual thing, or he thinks it's funny that it's a thing. Don't worry, li'l fella, there are some Ds that masquerade as R for the same reason, but probably not as many.
 
Last edited:
fskimospy said:
So did he consider the effects or not?
Click to expand...


As I stated:

He may have given it some consideration. Then went ahead and made bad choices anyway.

As for If he actually gave it some meaningful consideration, I couldn't tell you.

I'm not even old Joe is actually making these decisions or if he is being guided by his background handlers.
 
pcgeek11 said:
As I stated:

He may have given it some consideration. Then went ahead and made bad choices anyway.

As for If he actually gave it some meaningful consideration, I couldn't tell you.

I'm not even old Joe is actually making these decisions or if he is being guided by his background handlers.
Click to expand...
You can just admit you were wrong, you know.

Edit: you literally said he gave no consideration before.
 
Last edited:
Hell he couldn't even remember that he was just in Ireland.

nypost.com

Biden can’t recall recent Ireland visit, seems to forget Hunter’s love child during Q&A with kids

“The last country I’ve traveled, I’m trying to think of the last one I was in,” Biden mused to the children of administration staffers and members of the media.
nypost.com nypost.com

www.washingtontimes.com

Biden forgets trip to Ireland he made earlier this month; child has to remind him

President Biden on Thursday blanked when pressed to name his most recent overseas trip, despite having traveled to Ireland less than two weeks ago.
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com

The 80-year-old commander-in-chief had difficulty remembering his recent state visit to Ireland Thursday while being grilled by kids during a Take Your Child to Work event at the White House.

“The last country I’ve traveled, I’m trying to think of the last one I was in,” Biden mused to the children of administration staffers and members of the media.

“I’ve been to, met with 89 heads of state so far. So, uh, trying to think where was the last place I was; it’s hard to keep track.”

“Ireland,” a child shouted out, jogging the president’s memory.

“Yeah, you’re right, Ireland. That’s where it was,” he said good-naturedly.

“How’d you know that?”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top