Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well it appears.. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/dhs-alejandro-mayorkas-border-wall-b1827535.html to be a maybe.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/5/dhs-may-restart-border-wall-construction-plug-gaps/

Conjecture from am ICE official, so that's a no

biko

It's a matter of time, and once it starts being built again it will be called "repairs".

hotmail.com

Bambi wrote: »

I'm not pleading ignorance, pay attention. I'm stating that my interest in this topic is proportional to that of someone who does not live in the US

Presidents Biden intention to carry on with the wall is widely reported in the press now so, like a few others, I look forward to the reaction of posters who's level of interest in the topic is quite intense for people who don't live in the US. Many of them have previously been voiciferous in the opposition to walls and immigration control, it will be interesting to see if they maintain that level of righteous indignation.

Is there anything else that you need cleared up?

Controlling immigration is a popular policy in America as it is in most countries.

People just wanted to focus on Trump and had a personal dislike for him. They didn't actually care about the issues or the policies.

They faked an interest in the needs of immigrants.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

Controlling immigration is a popular policy in America as it is in most countries.

People just wanted to focus on Trump and had a personal dislike for him. They didn't actually care about the issues or the policies.

They faked an interest in the needs of immigrants.

If the first sentence of your post is true, then the last 2 are false.

The last guy set the agenda for how immigration was discussed with his simple rhetoric of 'Build the wall' coupled with his reference that the people coming were criminals and racists.

If Biden is continuing to build portions of the wall, or whatever (can understand why he would) it shows once more as to just how badly Trump handled it, going so far as to shut down the government in an attempt to get funding for it (Aside from the fact that he had already said that Mexico was going to pay for it).

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote: »

If the first sentence of your post is true, then the last 2 are false.

The last guy set the agenda for how immigration was discussed with his simple rhetoric of 'Build the wall' coupled with his reference that the people coming were criminals and racists.

If Biden is continuing to build portions of the wall, or whatever (can understand why he would) it shows once more as to just how badly Trump handled it, going so far as to shut down the government in an attempt to get funding for it (Aside from the fact that he had already said that Mexico was going to pay for it).

There's no doubt Trump heightened existing negative attitudes to Latino immigrants but the policy of stopping as many immigrants coming to America is a cross party policy, that most Americans support.

They just didn't like the way Trump talked about it, but the policy is still pretty much the same.

Smee_Again

hotmail.com wrote: »

There's no doubt Trump heightened existing negative attitudes to Latino immigrants but the policy of stopping as many immigrants coming to America is a cross party policy, that most Americans support.

They just didn't like the way Trump talked about it, but the policy is still pretty much the same.

You’re conflating objectives and policies.

The objective is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants, the policies are how that is done.

Trump’s policies were rightly called out and criticised for being racist and xenophobic and despite all that largely ineffective.

Sweetemotion

People smugglers. "Pay us $8,000 and we will get you to America".

Illegal immigrant. "That's all we have, why would I part with my life savings"?

People smugglers. "This is why"

Illegal immigrant. "Shut up and take my money"

Professor Moriarty

Sweetemotion wrote: »

People smugglers. "Pay us $8,000 and we will get you to America".

Illegal immigrant. "That's all we have, why would I part with my life savings"?

People smugglers. "This is why"

Illegal immigrant. "Shut up and take my money"

Good speech and well delivered. Fair play to Joe. Thanks for putting that up.

SEPT 23 1989

Sweetemotion wrote: »

People smugglers. "Pay us $8,000 and we will get you to America".

Illegal immigrant. "That's all we have, why would I part with my life savings"?

People smugglers. "This is why"

Illegal immigrant. "Shut up and take my money"

Unbelievable

How can people defend that

Tell me how

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Unbelievable

How can people defend that

Are you serious?

Do you not understand the context in which that speech was made? That it was made to people who had being awarded citizenship.

Obviously, the people who published it looked to create a narrative with the inclusion of the word 'Bumbling' in the title. There was no bumbling, and it was an entirely appropriate message for those it was directed at.

You are probably like those in the comments of the video who think that it was being made while looking over the border wall.

extra gravy

Tell me how wrote: »

Obviously, the people who published it looked to create a narrative with the inclusion of the word 'Bumbling' in the title. .

Ah "The Sun", guess it's an easy way to get clicks from dumb Trumpists.

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

People smugglers. "Pay us $8,000 and we will get you to America".

Illegal immigrant. "That's all we have, why would I part with my life savings"?

People smugglers. "This is why"

Illegal immigrant. "Shut up and take my money"

did you actually listen to his speech before posting that nonsense?

Billy Mays

Tell me how wrote: »

Are you serious?

Do you not understand the context in which that speech was made? That it was made to people who had being awarded citizenship.

Obviously, the people who published it looked to create a narrative with the inclusion of the word 'Bumbling' in the title. There was no bumbling, and it was an entirely appropriate message for those it was directed at.

You are probably like those in the comments of the video who think that it was being made while looking over the border wall.

That bastion of honesty, The Sun

Real Donald Trump

So the ATF is now the AFT according to Biden, the gaffes continue, along with referring to VP Harris as the President on more than one occasion according to Joe, but I guess that's not a sign of anything, failed to correct himself to I might add. Just imagine if the orange man said this, it would be breaking news on CNN all week.

everlast75

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

So the ATF is now the AFT according to Biden, the gaffes continue, along with referring to VP Harris as the President on more than one occasion according to Joe, but I guess that's not a sign of anything, failed to correct himself to I might add. Just imagine if the orange man said this, it would be breaking news on CNN all week.

When Joe says something like "Windmills give you cancer" come back to me.

Ffs

Wanderer78

everlast75 wrote:

When Joe says something like "Windmills give you cancer" come back to me.

Don't forget the whole disinfectant thing!

Real Donald Trump

everlast75 wrote: »

When Joe says something like "Windmills give you cancer" come back to me.

Ffs

Never referred to Mike Pence as the president, try harder

Real Donald Trump

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

Never referred to Mike Pence as the president, try harder

He was referring to Harris as the President of the Senate which she is..

Leroy42

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

So the ATF is now the AFT according to Biden, the gaffes continue, along with referring to VP Harris as the President on more than one occasion according to Joe, but I guess that's not a sign of anything, failed to correct himself to I might add. Just imagine if the orange man said this, it would be breaking news on CNN all week.

What do you think it all means? And what should be done about it?

Hamsterchops

Things are certainly much quieter theses days in the White House, much less Twitter noise

salmocab

Leroy42 wrote: »

What do you think it all means? And what should be done about it?

Mainly people should pretend they are outraged

SexBobomb

Hes always making little mistakes in his speeches in fairness, like when he said "there will not be another foot of wall constructed on my administration No.1" and "well past time that the minimum wage nationally be a minimum of $15" that silly sausage.

everlast75

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

Never referred to Mike Pence as the president, try harder

He referred to Matt Gaetz as Rick Gates.

He referred to Tim Cook as Tim Apple.

He referred to the town "Paradise" as "Pleasure".

Think harder.

Leroy42

SexBobomb wrote: »

Hes always making little mistakes in his speeches in fairness, like when he said "there will not be another foot of wall constructed on my administration No.1" and "well past time that the minimum wage nationally be a minimum of $15" that silly sausage.

I know right.

What do you think it all means? And what should be done about it?

extra gravy

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

So the ATF is now the AFT according to Biden, the gaffes continue, along with referring to VP Harris as the President on more than one occasion according to Joe, but I guess that's not a sign of anything, failed to correct himself to I might add. Just imagine if the orange man said this, it would be breaking news on CNN all week.

The smell of desperation off this post is quite something :pac:

Hector Savage

Sweetemotion wrote: »

People smugglers. "Pay us $8,000 and we will get you to America".

Illegal immigrant. "That's all we have, why would I part with my life savings"?

People smugglers. "This is why"

Illegal immigrant. "Shut up and take my money"

in fairness, this speech is to new citizens, they would have gone through a long legal process.

And as you know I am no fan of Joe.

SexBobomb

Leroy42 wrote: »

I know right.

What do you think it all means? And what should be done about it?

That Biden voters who backed him because of these campaign promises have been conned. I dont think theres much can be done, maybe they dont care or maybe they'll just defend the breaking of promises.
What do you think it means? And what do you think should be done about it Leroy?

Leroy42

SexBobomb wrote: »

That Biden voters who backed him because of these campaign promises have been conned. I dont think theres much can be done, maybe they dont care or maybe they'll just defend the breaking of promises.
What do you think it means? And what do you think should be done about it Leroy?

I don't think it means anything. I think people are trying to take a few slip ups in speeches to derive some form of judgment on the man's ability. Rather than looking at what he is actually achieving.

Nothing can be done of course, as Trump supporters were so happy to tell people. Biden won the election and if broken promises on the election trail were sufficient to get one kicked out of office, well that comes in 3+ years.

On the subject of broken promises. He is only in the job since end of January, after not being being any help in handover due to Trump being such a sore loser and having no regard for the future of the US.

And he, rightfully, put COVID as the No1 priority and he has delivered an that, far better than even his most ardent supporter could have dared think.

So given his performance so far, I think it only sensible that we give him the time and space to actually deliver on his agenda an then consider if he is fulfilling his role properly or not over time.

But a few missed up words, out of many many speeches he gives, isn't enough for me to start to question his suitability or ability for the job.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think it means anything. I think people are trying to take a few slip ups in speeches to derive some form of judgment on the man's ability. Rather than looking at what he is actually achieving.

Nothing can be done of course, as Trump supporters were so happy to tell people. Biden won the election and if broken promises on the election trail were sufficient to get one kicked out of office, well that comes in 3+ years.

On the subject of broken promises. He is only in the job since end of January, after not being being any help in handover due to Trump being such a sore loser and having no regard for the future of the US.

And he, rightfully, put COVID as the No1 priority and he has delivered an that, far better than even his most ardent supporter could have dared think.

So given his performance so far, I think it only sensible that we give him the time and space to actually deliver on his agenda an then consider if he is fulfilling his role properly or not over time.

But a few missed up words, out of many many speeches he gives, isn't enough for me to start to question his suitability or ability for the job.

Can't see why his approval rating is so high* if he broke all those promises...


*higher than Trump's ever was

SexBobomb

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think it means anything. I think people are trying to take a few slip ups in speeches to derive some form of judgment on the man's ability. Rather than looking at what he is actually achieving.

Nothing can be done of course, as Trump supporters were so happy to tell people. Biden won the election and if broken promises on the election trail were sufficient to get one kicked out of office, well that comes in 3+ years.

On the subject of broken promises. He is only in the job since end of January, after not being being any help in handover due to Trump being such a sore loser and having no regard for the future of the US.

And he, rightfully, put COVID as the No1 priority and he has delivered an that, far better than even his most ardent supporter could have dared think.

So given his performance so far, I think it only sensible that we give him the time and space to actually deliver on his agenda an then consider if he is fulfilling his role properly or not over time.

But a few missed up words, out of many many speeches he gives, isn't enough for me to start to question his suitability or ability for the job.

On his speeches, hes not great but I dont think its indicative of his cognitive abilities or anything just a tendency to get tongue tied or losing his place on speeches or whatever. But reversals on campaign promises /policies is something different entirely.

Leroy42

SexBobomb wrote: »

On his speeches, hes not great but I dont think its indicative of his cognitive abilities or anything just a tendency to get tongue tied or losing his place on speeches or whatever. But reversals on campaign promises /policies is something different entirely.

You actually think he should be judged on his delivery on his election promises after 3 months, during which he has deliver an amazing COVID response.

And bearing in mind that he does not have the votes in the Senate to get his policies through?

3 months and you deem him to have conned the electorate?

SexBobomb

SexBobomb wrote: »

On his speeches, hes not great but I dont think its indicative of his cognitive abilities or anything just a tendency to get tongue tied or losing his place on speeches or whatever. But reversals on campaign promises /policies is something different entirely.

What campaign promises/policies has he broken?

In only his first three months he has already completed 8% of his promises and has 25% of them in the works. None of his promises have been compromised, stalled or broken.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true

Compared to the preceding president, he's doing a fine job.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/

SexBobomb

Leroy42 wrote: »

You actually think he should be judged on his delivery on his election promises after 3 months, during which he has deliver an amazing COVID response.

And bearing in mind that he does not have the votes in the Senate to get his policies through?

3 months and you deem him to have conned the electorate?

@Aristotle also. I cant multiquote on my phone.

By all reports Biden has signalled a restart to Border Wall construction. There has also been no action to increase the minimum wage to 15 despite the Dems having control. I read an interesting article in the guardian in relation to it recently by David Sirota.
Hopefully that link will work.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/01/joe-biden-minimum-wage-democrats

duploelabs

SexBobomb wrote: »

@Aristotle also. I cant multiquote on my phone.

By all reports Biden has signalled a restart to Border Wall construction. There has also been no action to increase the minimum wage to 15 despite the Dems having control. I read an interesting article in the guardian in relation to it recently by David Sirota.
Hopefully that link will work.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/01/joe-biden-minimum-wage-democrats

There is absolutely no truth to restarting of the wall, the article that it stemmed from was conjecture from an ICE official (who prob just wants to keep their job)

SexBobomb

SexBobomb wrote: »

@Aristotle also. I cant multiquote on my phone.

By all reports Biden has signalled a restart to Border Wall construction. There has also been no action to increase the minimum wage to 15 despite the Dems having control. I read an interesting article in the guardian in relation to it recently by David Sirota.
Hopefully that link will work.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/01/joe-biden-minimum-wage-democrats

• Biden has not signalled a restart to the construction of the wall.
• Biden is still pushing for the $15 minimum wage to be in the next reconciliation package.

Leroy42

SexBobomb wrote: »

@Aristotle also. I cant multiquote on my phone.

By all reports Biden has signalled a restart to Border Wall construction. There has also been no action to increase the minimum wage to 15 despite the Dems having control. I read an interesting article in the guardian in relation to it recently by David Sirota.
Hopefully that link will work.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/01/joe-biden-minimum-wage-democrats

The Dems could push it through, but it would create total animosity within an already divided Senate and would have little real work effects as individual GOP would simply find workarounds.

Biden has stated that he wants a bi-partisan approach, for the betterment of all Americans rather than the Us v Them approach so distilled by his predecessor.

So he needs to take a apolitical approach. Take the example of infrastructure. GOP are opposed to it, not because they don't think that infrastructure is needed, indeed even Trump acknowledged that and the GOP seemed on board then, but they want to limit it to such small amounts that it would have almost no effect and this they can claim that the whole thing is a disaster.

That is what Biden is up against. So he needs to thread his way through the minefield. Given that he has only been there 3 months it is going to take a lot longer to see any benefits.

I don't think you understand the almost visceral hatred and fear that he GOP have about the minimum wage. They blame it on the people, see it as nothing but a stepping stone to communism and that it will result in most small business having to close and the majority of people simply sitting at home whelching off the state.

It is that context that Biden needs to work, and it takes time and work to enable change.

BanditLuke

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Unbelievable

How can people defend that

Absolute farce leadership from Biden

ohnonotgmail

BanditLuke wrote: »

Absolute farce leadership from Biden

do you understand the context in which he said that?

Billy Mays

BanditLuke wrote: »

Absolute farce leadership from Biden

Bless

namloc1980

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

So the ATF is now the AFT according to Biden, the gaffes continue, along with referring to VP Harris as the President on more than one occasion according to Joe, but I guess that's not a sign of anything, failed to correct himself to I might add. Just imagine if the orange man said this, it would be breaking news on CNN all week.

Tim Apple.

Tippex

BanditLuke wrote: »

Absolute farce leadership from Biden

SMH there are no words.

duploelabs

namloc1980 wrote: »

Tim Apple.

Airports in the civil war

y0ssar1an22

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think it means anything. I think people are trying to take a few slip ups in speeches to derive some form of judgment on the man's ability. Rather than looking at what he is actually achieving.

Nothing can be done of course, as Trump supporters were so happy to tell people. Biden won the election and if broken promises on the election trail were sufficient to get one kicked out of office, well that comes in 3+ years.

On the subject of broken promises. He is only in the job since end of January, after not being being any help in handover due to Trump being such a sore loser and having no regard for the future of the US.

And he, rightfully, put COVID as the No1 priority and he has delivered an that, far better than even his most ardent supporter could have dared think.

So given his performance so far, I think it only sensible that we give him the time and space to actually deliver on his agenda an then consider if he is fulfilling his role properly or not over time.

But a few missed up words, out of many many speeches he gives, isn't enough for me to start to question his suitability or ability for the job.

i think he's doing a grand job. i dont really care about slips on stairs or during speeches. everyone's done it. i'll still use it of course to have a jibe at him, but it doesn't really matter.

i agree re giving him some more time, but...you cant be boasting about how many people you have vaccinated while still not demanding schools reopen for example.

immigration...i have made my thoughts on that clear.

as for guns, they need to do something. my thoughts on it are to charge the gunowner with the crime the gun was used for. that should stop blackmarket sale of (registered) guns, if it can be proven you willingly sold (or gave away) the gun. probably means banning 3rd party sale of guns as well cos that would be used a defense. and thats fine, you can have your gun but you cant give/sell it to anyone.
for unregistered guns/no serial number, what can you do but charge people in possession of those guns to the max extent of the law.

make the consequences so severe that you wont engage in that.

y0ssar1an22

Leroy42 wrote: »

You actually think he should be judged on his delivery on his election promises after 3 months, during which he has deliver an amazing COVID response.

And bearing in mind that he does not have the votes in the Senate to get his policies through?

3 months and you deem him to have conned the electorate?

was looking into this, they have the option if they want..the nuclear option:

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, such as the three-fifths vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that contravenes a standing rule, such as that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but this ruling is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.
As of April 2021, the nuclear option has not been used to end debates on legislation

the last time there was a president, house majority and 60 senate seats was under obama, but he only held the 60 senate seats for 72 days while the Senate was actually in session.

this makes no sense, over a 2 year period how can the senate only be in session for 72 days?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

duploelabs

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

was looking into this, they have the option if they want..the nuclear option:

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, such as the three-fifths vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that contravenes a standing rule, such as that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but this ruling is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.
As of April 2021, the nuclear option has not been used to end debates on legislation

the last time there was a president, house majority and 60 senate seats was under obama, but he only held the 60 senate seats for 72 days while the Senate was actually in session.

this makes no sense, over a 2 year period how can the senate only be in session for 72 days?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Actually it has, For the covid relief bill a few weeks ago

ohnonotgmail

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

was looking into this, they have the option if they want..the nuclear option:

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, such as the three-fifths vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that contravenes a standing rule, such as that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but this ruling is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.
As of April 2021, the nuclear option has not been used to end debates on legislation

the last time there was a president, house majority and 60 senate seats was under obama, but he only held the 60 senate seats for 72 days while the Senate was actually in session.

this makes no sense, over a 2 year period how can the senate only be in session for 72 days?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

it was over a 1 year period. there was a special election election in Jan 2010 that the democrats lost.

y0ssar1an22

duploelabs wrote: »

Actually it has, For the covid relief bill a few weeks ago

if you cant trust wikipedia what hope is there?

duploelabs

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

if you cant trust wikipedia what hope is there?

Actual trusted verifiable sources, not something that can be edited by anyone

y0ssar1an22

duploelabs wrote: »

Actual trusted verifiable sources, not something that can be edited by anyone

sher when i googled that there were articles going back to 2013 (and prob prior as well).

The Senate approved a historic rules change on Thursday by eliminating the use of the filibuster on all presidential nominees except those to the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-nuclear-option-100199

having said that, the wiki article does cover that:

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the three-fifths vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

seems to be a case that the 'nuclear option' is slowly becoming obsolete with the ever dividing politics of america.

its not yet been used to end debates on legislation, but that aint true according to duploelabs

duploelabs

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

sher when i googled that there were articles going back to 2013 (and prob prior as well).

The Senate approved a historic rules change on Thursday by eliminating the use of the filibuster on all presidential nominees except those to the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-nuclear-option-100199

having said that, the wiki article does cover that:

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the three-fifths vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

seems to be a case that the 'nuclear option' is slowly becoming obsolete with the ever dividing politics of america.

its not yet been used to end debates on legislation, but that aint true according to duploelabs

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/03/06/senate-covid-19-relief-bill-vote-a-rama/

Happened here