Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Biden suggests commercial aircraft will fly at 21,000 MPH

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Biden suggests commercial aircraft will fly at 21,000 MPH

    Biden suggests commercial aircraft will fly at 21,000 miles an hour in next decade


    President Joe Biden has caused confusion after predicting some commercial airplanes could fly at speeds of up to 21,000 miles per hour in the next 10 years, faster than the hypersonic weapons under development by the military.

    “We’re going to talk about commercial aircraft flying at subsonic speeds, supersonic speeds, be able to figuratively, if you may, if we decide to do it, be able to traverse the world in an hour, travel at 21,000 miles an hour," Biden said.

    The White House has yet to clarify Biden's comments, made during a Wednesday address aimed at promoting his $2.25 trillion infrastructure and jobs spending package.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  • #2
    Figuratively, of course.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      That speed corresponds to what Elon Musk was proposing a few years back and has reiterated more recently. Presumably that's what Biden's referring to.

      On the plus side, Biden didn't claim that stealth aircraft were invisible to the naked eye like his predecessor.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        That speed corresponds to what Elon Musk was proposing a few years back and has reiterated more recently. Presumably that's what Biden's referring to.

        On the plus side, Biden didn't claim that stealth aircraft were invisible to the naked eye like his predecessor.
        no, but he did claim to be arrested to meet nelson mandela.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
          no, but he did claim to be arrested to meet nelson mandela.
          Sure, that one was amusing. I'm not a fan of Biden, and he's a serial liar, but about two to three orders of magnitude less so than his predecessor.

          But the OP's 'gotcha journalism' on Biden is amusing when he was just repeating Elon Musk's idea.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Sure, that one was amusing. I'm not a fan of Biden, and he's a serial liar, but about two to three orders of magnitude less so than his predecessor.

            But the OP's 'gotcha journalism' on Biden is amusing when he was just repeating Elon Musk's idea.
            Except Biden probably didn't have a clue what he was talking about, or what that had to do with anything.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              ...and he's a serial liar....
              Interesting you would say that, as kccd said pretty much the same thing.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Except Biden probably didn't have a clue what he was talking about, or what that had to do with anything.
                In some ways it doesn't really matter if Biden has jelly for brains and is just reading what is put in front of him. Reagan did that and many Americans viewed his presidency very positively - although infamously Reagan's cabinet lacking leadership descended into infighting and power struggles among them and ended up the most investigated and indicted administration in US history. It's the overall competence of the cabinet and the team around the president that really matters, it's not 100% about the president himself.

                From what I can tell, it doesn't seem to be true that Biden's got jelly for brains and is a puppet of his handlers - he seems to be actually taking quite an active role in steering policy - which, frankly, isn't always to my liking as he's quite conservative and shoots down a lot of progressive priorities that it would be nice for the US to have. Biden instead just seems to occasionally have senior moments where he descends into incoherency for 30 seconds, but most of the time he stays focused and seems to understand the issues. Some days he's much better than others, but I observe the same with my own grandparents. Overall the Biden team seems to be doing a tolerable job at the moment.
                Last edited by Starlight; 04-09-2021, 08:31 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Interesting you would say that, as kccd said pretty much the same thing.
                  Why is it interesting?

                  Obviously I didn't vote since I'm not American, but would've crawled ten miles over broken glass to vote Bernie in the primaries over Biden if I could vote, though obviously I would have voted Biden over Trump in the general because I'm not insane. Biden is a very flawed person. But there's flawed, and then there's Trump.

                  Biden I would give 5/10 as a president, maybe 6/10. Trump would be a 0/10. Obama would be a 5/10. (Note that these rankings are as much about if not more about the policies of the administration, as they are about the person of the president - Obama gets near perfect marks on giving good speeches and acting presidential and being charismatic but abysmal marks on his actually getting policies passed to help working people in the US, a president who was literally dead and wheeled around and operated as a puppet by his aides could get decent marks from me if the policies his administration passed were good ones that caused the country to thrive)
                  Last edited by Starlight; 04-09-2021, 08:44 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Why is it interesting?

                    Obviously I didn't vote since I'm not American, but would've crawled ten miles over broken glass to vote Bernie in the primaries over Biden if I could vote, though obviously I would have voted Biden over Trump in the general because I'm not insane. Biden is a very flawed person. But there's flawed, and then there's Trump. Biden I would give 5/10 as a president, maybe 6/10. Trump would be a 0/10. Obama would be a 5/10.
                    For someone who said I was obsessed with US policy with Russia, you do display a complete fixation on the US. At least my "obsession" is backed with legitimate concern. Your obsession with the US is ... just weird.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                      For someone who said I was obsessed with US policy with Russia, you do display a complete fixation on the US. At least my "obsession" is backed with legitimate concern.
                      No, your Russia obsession is not 'legitimate', it's just silly.

                      Your obsession with the US is ... just weird.
                      I am interested in politics. The politics of my own small nation tends to be boring. In the papers here, the other nation that we get the most political stories about - by far - is the US - we tend to have about as many articles about US politics as about local politics. The US is also the most powerful nation militarily, geopolitically and economically, and is the easiest to follow as an English speaker having the most youtube politics channels, most politics websites, most politics TV programs etc. So I default to following the politics of the US because politics interests me, not because I made any conscious choice.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        No, your Russia obsession is not 'legitimate', it's just silly.
                        Silly? You're ranking presidents of a foreign nation, estimating their intelligence, talking about crawling over glass to vote for one, and my concern about a war with Russia is "silly"?

                        https://theweek.com/articles/452685/...s-aimed-russia

                        Why are all of America's nuclear missiles aimed at Russia?

                        Out of sync with the times, ICBMs are a singular weapon in a multi-variable world.

                        The Soviet Union collapsed more than two decades ago, but the United States has continued to keep these dangerous relics of the Cold War on a hair trigger, controlled by officers prone to alarming behavior, and all ready to wipe Russia off the map at a moment's notice.

                        And that's the problem. We have 450 active ICBMs, but because of geographical constraints, they can really only be used to attack Russia.

                        Due to the location of missile silos and launch trajectories, to hit targets in East Asia or even the Middle East, American missiles would first have to fly over parts of Russia. Needless to say, nuclear missiles streaking over Russian territory would trigger alarms and likely a retaliatory attack...


                        No, I have legitimate concerns about me and my family being nuked because of a provocative foreign policy of my nation. You are obsessed with the US because you're bored and got nothing better to do. Now that's "silly."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                          Silly? You're ranking presidents of a foreign nation, estimating their intelligence
                          If I was following closely the politics of Moldova, or Gabon, or Uruguay, you'd have a point... it would be arbitrary of me to follow the politics of a tiny country that has no influence on the world stage and no connection with mine - you could then reasonably ask why I was making the arbitrary choice to pay great attention to them.

                          But given I'm following the politics of the globally most influential country of the last century, who's historically been one of my countries greatest allies and trading partners, which our newspapers are full of news about, and from which we get most of our TV programs... you don't seem to have any valid point that my following US politics is arbitrary: It's the default choice for anyone in my country who's interested in international politics.

                          Your best possible argument would seem to be that China is becoming more relevant than the US, but even if I were to agree with that, which I don't, it's immensely difficult to try to follow Chinese politics because much of it is hidden from even Chinese-speaking people in China, and my local newspapers barely have any stories on the subject.

                          my concern about a war with Russia is "silly"?
                          It's understandable 50 years ago. So I guess it's understandable if you're 90 and your mind is still stuck in the cold war by virtue of Alzheimer's.

                          Today Russia isn't remotely the economic powerhouse that the USSR was, and has a GDP lower than Italy, never mind the more well-to-do European nations. The European nations combined spend an order of magnitude more on military forces than Russia does, quite aside from any US presence in the region. Unless you have a reason to think Russia is actually seriously likely to launch their nukes, they're at worst a minor annoyance with regard to cyberattacks and interference in democratic elections.

                          If one wanted to be paranoid, and find a country to fret over for paranoia's sake, the only serious threat in the world today to the US, is China. They are increasingly a serious rival in trade and GDP, are increasingly trying to play the role of a superpower in geopolitics, and have serious military forces at their disposal were they inclined to use them. So if a paranoid American wanted to fret, that's the country to be fretting over.

                          For pretty much everyone else, the country a paranoid person should fret over, is America, since you guys invade countries at random, overthrow democracies at random, and collapse the world economy at random.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            If I was following closely the politics of Moldova, or Gabon, or Uruguay, you'd have a point... it would be arbitrary of me to follow the politics of a tiny country that has no influence on the world stage and no connection with mine - you could then reasonably ask why I was making the arbitrary choice to pay great attention to them.
                            My posts about Russo-US relations are positively dwarfed by the amount of your posts on the US. So that might be a good template to judge an obsession by.

                            But given I'm following the politics of the globally most influential country of the last century, who's historically been one of my countries greatest allies and trading partners, which our newspapers are full of news about, and from which we get most of our TV programs... you don't seem to have any valid point that my following US politics is arbitrary: It's the default choice for anyone in my country who's interested in international politics.
                            I never said "arbitrary." But you do seem all consumed with the US.

                            Your best possible argument would seem to be that China is becoming more relevant than the US, but even if I were to agree with that, which I don't, it's immensely difficult to try to follow Chinese politics because much of it is hidden from even Chinese-speaking people in China, and my local newspapers barely have any stories on the subject.
                            I think China IS a greater threat to the US. But China is mostly ignored by Lefties here, and they see a Russian assassination of a Russian dissident as an excuse for provocative retaliations. And Russia has (approx) 6,000 nukes aimed at the US. As far as anyone knows for certain, China doesn't have any of their 300 or so nukes aimed at us. And as the article states, the whole point of ICBMs is for them to have a hair trigger.

                            It's understandable 50 years ago. So I guess it's understandable if you're 90 and your mind is still stuck in the cold war by virtue of Alzheimer's.
                            Safely said by someone who didn't live through the Cold War and have nuclear-attack drills as part of their life.

                            Today Russia isn't remotely the economic powerhouse that the USSR was, and has a GDP lower than Italy, never mind the more well-to-do European nations. The European nations combined spend an order of magnitude more on military forces than Russia does, quite aside from any US presence in the region. Unless you have a reason to think Russia is actually seriously likely to launch their nukes, they're at worst a minor annoyance with regard to cyberattacks and interference in democratic elections.
                            I agree with all of that. They have little reason to start a war with the US, but Lefties here seem to want a war with them. They are relatively weak in nearly every sense - except for their nuclear arsenal. That's all that sets them apart anymore, and it is being held by the Russian military complex. You know, the American counterpart of generals that never met a war they didn't like. US saber rattling over Ukraine just makes these generals giddy.

                            If one wanted to be paranoid, and find a country to fret over for paranoia's sake, the only serious threat in the world today to the US, is China. They are increasingly a serious rival in trade and GDP, are increasingly trying to play the role of a superpower in geopolitics, and have serious military forces at their disposal were they inclined to use them. So if a paranoid American wanted to fret, that's the country to be fretting over.

                            For pretty much everyone else, the country a paranoid person should fret over, is America, since you guys invade countries at random, overthrow democracies at random, and collapse the world economy at random.
                            Well, in the final analysis, you think your hobby isn't silly but my concern is. It just highlights our different perspectives on what is actually serious in this world, and what isn't.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                              no, but he did claim to be arrested to meet nelson mandela.
                              And marched in Civil Rights demonstrations.

                              And he is the first one ever in his family's history to attend and graduate college.

                              On a full academic scholarship (actually a partial scholarship based on financial need), where he received the outstanding student award at the University of Delaware (nope), won a moot court competition (no evidence he even competed), and graduated in the top half of his class (he was actually close to the bottom).


                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 01:18 PM
                              0 responses
                              8 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:01 AM
                              12 responses
                              117 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 06-14-2021, 10:51 AM
                              7 responses
                              52 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 06-14-2021, 09:46 AM
                              30 responses
                              150 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by rogue06, 06-14-2021, 06:44 AM
                              6 responses
                              40 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Working...
                              X