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

Sonics2k

12gauge dave wrote: »

More Americans have died from COVID-19 in the first three weeks of Joe Biden's presidency than during the entire Vietnam War, a grim milestone for a leader who vowed to make ending the pandemic "the first priority, the second priority, and the third priority" of his administration.

The COVID-19 death count since Biden took office on Jan. 20 surpassed 60,000 over the weekend. That is more than the 58,220 American soldiers who died in the Vietnam War between 1964 and 1975.

Numerous media outlets marked the occasion when COVID-19 deaths surpassed Vietnam War deaths under former president Donald Trump. NPR, among others, reported at the time:

Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) Tweeted:
BIDEN'S VIETNAM: 60K Americans Dead from COVID-19 in First Three Weeks of Presidency

Via @AndrewStilesUSA

https://t.co/vxBVyZM9Rv https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1358835485053865987?s=20

With him now saying herd immunity won't be achieved until after the summer due to shortage of vaccines the old blaming the trump administration won't be an option forever.
That will only fly for so long.

It is what it is.

Isn't that what your lot were saying before?

astrofool

12gauge dave wrote: »

That will only fly for so long.

Don't you agree that 3 weeks in control of a pandemic that started 11 months ago is far too short a time to have an effect?

Biden will have it under control by summer, leading by example, memories of trump will be like a fart on the wind at that stage.

Water John

Sonics2k wrote: »

It is what it is.

Isn't that what your lot were saying before?

Don't think any Biden watchers would be borrowing Trump's phrase, he owns it.
Progress on Covid will be steady and slow over this year and hopefully will overtake any possible variants.

namloc1980

12gauge dave wrote: »

More Americans have died from COVID-19 in the first three weeks of Joe Biden's presidency than during the entire Vietnam War, a grim milestone for a leader who vowed to make ending the pandemic "the first priority, the second priority, and the third priority" of his administration.

Besides being absolutely mortifying for you to post this nonsense, this is actually an attack on your guy. I mean, if you're so upset that there have been thousands of deaths since Biden took office (mostly people who got sick while your Dear Leader was in office), you must be extremely angry and upset at the hundreds of thousands of people who died under your guys watch, when things went from bad to worse to absolutely appalling and he fanned the flames that led to the current situation.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Besides being absolutely mortifying for you to post this nonsense, this is actually an attack on your guy. I mean, if you're so upset that there have been thousands of deaths since Biden took office (mostly people who got sick while your Dear Leader was in office), you must be extremely angry and upset at the hundreds of thousands of people who died under your guys watch, when things went from bad to worse to absolutely appalling.

This is the thing with maga heads, none of that is/was a problem when their guy was in charge. Now that they are hurling from the ditch it's the apocalypse.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Besides being absolutely mortifying for you to post this nonsense, this is actually an attack on your guy. I mean, if you're so upset that there have been thousands of deaths since Biden took office (mostly people who got sick while your Dear Leader was in office), you must be extremely angry and upset at the hundreds of thousands of people who died under your guys watch, when things went from bad to worse to absolutely appalling and he fanned the flames that led to the current situation.

The only thing that he is actually genuinely angry about is that the current president is a democrat. The bias is very strong with this one.

robinph

Always worth sticking certain posters contributions into Google search before bothering to reply, you'll often find it's just a copy and paste and zero thought of their own.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/satire/bidens-vietnam-60k-americans-dead-from-covid-19-in-first-three-weeks-of-presidency/amp/

Not a site I've heard of before, but the URL suggests it's basically Waterford Whispers which makes the reposting of it here under the guise of being original content even sillier.

y0ssar1an22

2 questions (these are both asked in the general sense, and could apply to any president):

can someone explain what reconciliation is, and why its so important?

a president takes an oath that says 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. how can any president issue any EO that is in contravention of the constitution? some get overturned in courts, but the fact that something was overturned in court requires the EO initially to be in contravention of their oath. surely any EO should go through the courts 1st, to establish if it is against the constitution? and if so, you cannot do it as it breaks your oath of office.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

2 questions (these are both asked in the general sense, and could apply to any president):

can someone explain what reconciliation is, and why its so important?

a president takes an oath that says 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. how can any president issue any EO that is in contravention of the constitution? some get overturned in courts, but the fact that something was overturned in court requires the EO initially to be in contravention of their oath. surely any EO should go through the courts 1st, to establish if it is against the constitution? and if so, you cannot do it as it breaks your oath of office.

Not attacking you here but just curious, why have you asked for the definition and usefulness of something on a discussion forum? Is it the case that you e.g. have read the Wikipedia page about it but are still confused?

y0ssar1an22

Deleted User wrote: »

Not attacking you here but just curious, why have you asked for the definition and usefulness of something on a discussion forum? Is it the case that you e.g. have read the Wikipedia page about it but are still confused?

i've not read that. watched a very brief youtube vid where it says you dont need ~66% senate consent, but 50% if you can prove its part of a bigger bill or something.

it was one of those new youtube shorts from legal eagle (i think) but it was only like 45 seconds.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i've not read that. watched a very brief youtube vid where it says you dont need ~66% senate consent, but 50% if you can prove its part of a bigger bill or something.

it was one of those new youtube shorts from legal eagle (i think) but it was only like 45 seconds.

Well if you have any questions after reading it feel free to ask.

Rjd2

robinph wrote: »

Always worth sticking certain posters contributions into Google search before bothering to reply, you'll often find it's just a copy and paste and zero thought of their own.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/satire/bidens-vietnam-60k-americans-dead-from-covid-19-in-first-three-weeks-of-presidency/amp/

Not a site I've heard of before, but the URL suggests it's basically Waterford Whispers which makes the reposting of it here under the guise of being original content even sillier.

Its a conservative site which does humor, its not particularly interesting and obviously biased but in American MSM this is the era of the echo chamber so its not exactly alone.

I think Politico is one of the few sites left which tries to somewhat do balance and does try to hold its ground when the echo chamber warriors come for it.

nolivesmatter

Regarding intelligence briefings it's kind of funny the idea of that Jimmy Carter might still be getting them while Trump doesn't. But there must have been a temptation to have some kind of pretend intelligence briefings just for him.

y0ssar1an22

Deleted User wrote: »

Well if you have any questions after reading it feel free to ask.

ay jaysus, i was hoping for an abridged version :P

ETA: just read the 1st paragraph...

The Senate filibuster effectively requires a 60-vote super-majority for the passage of most legislation in the Senate, but reconciliation provides a process to prevent the use of the filibuster and thereby allow the passage of a bill with simple majority support in the Senate.

am i right in thinking that a senate filibuster is only used to block legislation? as in, you dont need reconciliation if you have bipartisan agreement (or 60 seats).

just for myself here:

ineligible for reconciliation—in six cases:[2]

If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues; spend less, or generate more? net affect 0.
If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions; no clue, but sounds like 1
If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years);[c] or
If it recommends changes in Social Security.

i'm non the wiser TBH. it seems to be a way to pass certain legislation (without needing 60% senate approval).

nolivesmatter

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Regarding intelligence briefings it's kind of funny the idea of that Jimmy Carter might still be getting them while Trump doesn't. But there must have been a temptation to have some kind of pretend intelligence briefings just for him.

It's my understanding that if they want them, they get them as a courtesy of the current administration to assist them in talks about current world affairs, when they travel abroad and if on a specific government appointed diplomatic mission.
Been flagged for a good while even before the election, by former trump security advisors and other members of the security area that if he lost, trump shouldn't get them because they don't trust him to be responsible with the information.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

ay jaysus, i was hoping for an abridged version :P

Introduction section does a good job.

y0ssar1an22

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Regarding intelligence briefings it's kind of funny the idea of that Jimmy Carter might still be getting them while Trump doesn't. But there must have been a temptation to have some kind of pretend intelligence briefings just for him.

i just looked that up, it seems its more of a tradition than anything else so you can ask for advice and bounce things off an ex president who might have been in contact with similar info.

'These briefings aren't just a privilege, they're a time-honored tradition among U.S. leaders so that they can be better prepared to give counsel to the incumbent president for important matters. Whether it's helping to show the ropes around the presidential role, or give their feedback on an important issue, it's pretty useful to have folks who were once put in charge in managing one of the world's most powerful and influential countries give their advice'.


obviously biden will go to barack for any advise. trump should be included though for any recent insight. jimmy carter, maybe not.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i'm non the wiser TBH. it seems to be a way to pass certain legislation (without needing 60% senate approval).

Pretty much. It's a tool the majority party can use once per year to jam something through.

nolivesmatter

DubInMeath wrote: »

It's my understanding that if they want them, they get them as a courtesy of the current administration to assist them in talks about current world affairs, when they travel abroad and if on a specific government appointed diplomatic mission.
Been flagged for a good while even before the election, by former trump security advisors and other members of the security area that if he lost, trump shouldn't get them because they don't trust him to be responsible with the information.

It's the pragmatic decision. But given how difficult he made the transition of power to the current administration he's understandably undeserving of courtesy from them.

scuba8

robinph wrote: »

Always worth sticking certain posters contributions into Google search before bothering to reply, you'll often find it's just a copy and paste and zero thought of their own.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/satire/bidens-vietnam-60k-americans-dead-from-covid-19-in-first-three-weeks-of-presidency/amp/

Not a site I've heard of before, but the URL suggests it's basically Waterford Whispers which makes the reposting of it here under the guise of being original content even sillier.

If you actually read the content in the link it states, at the very top of the piece, that it is satire.

mcmoustache

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its a conservative site which does humor, its not particularly interesting and obviously biased but in American MSM this is the era of the echo chamber so its not exactly alone.

I think Politico is one of the few sites left which tries to somewhat do balance and does try to hold its ground when the echo chamber warriors come for it.

The two sides thing is something I could have accepted 20 years ago but now, it's not a left v right thing at all. It's reality v nonsense and that can definitely make the mainstream media look like an echo chamber. The crazy media like fox oann, the blaze, gatewaypundit and the likes aren't read by serious people. Their content is aimed at morons. Serious people get their info from serious media, even if it's slanted because it bears a much stronger resemblance to reality. When the picture painted by FT, Reuters, AP and so on are showing one reality and OANN, Newsmax, FOX and so on are showing another, it's not hard to compare both sides to reality and one side here is clearly bonkers.

Tell me how

mcmoustache wrote: »

The two sides thing is something I could have accepted 20 years ago but now, it's not a left v right thing at all. It's reality v nonsense and that can definitely make the mainstream media look like an echo chamber. The crazy media like fox oann, the blaze, gatewaypundit and the likes aren't read by serious people. Their content is aimed at morons. Serious people get their info from serious media, even if it's slanted because it bears a much stronger resemblance to reality. When the picture painted by FT, Reuters, AP and so on are showing one reality and OANN, Newsmax, FOX and so on are showing another, it's not hard to compare both sides to reality and one side here is clearly bonkers.

I think that is grossly over simplistic.

A lot of the people at the Capitol on the 6th of January were highly educated, relatively wealthy, employed, business owners etc. Were they motivated to attend based on the content on Reuters, AP, FT etc?

y0ssar1an22

lets not build walls, cos they dont work



i know you will say X,Y, or Z but the reality is that walls do work. why would joe build them to stop unscrupulous characters?

Tell me how

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

lets not build walls, cos they dont work


i know you will say X,Y, or Z but the reality is that walls do work. why would joe build them to stop unscrupulous characters?

You should consider this in the context of that scene from Fr Ted where they discussed the concept of scaling.

y0ssar1an22

Tell me how wrote: »

You should consider this in the context of that scene from Fr Ted where they discussed the concept of scaling.

i must confess, never watched father ted.

a few clips, but i dont get the inside jokes

eagle eye

y0ssar1an22 wrote:

i must confess, never watched father ted.

a few clips, but i dont get the inside jokes

Highly intelligent comedy.
Go give yourself a good laugh. It's great to give the mind a break from reality, you might find you'll have lots of rational, well-founded opinions if you do.

extra gravy

12gauge dave wrote: »

If hypocrisy was a photo.

No article to plagiarise this time?

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

2 questions (these are both asked in the general sense, and could apply to any president):

can someone explain what reconciliation is, and why its so important?

a president takes an oath that says 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. how can any president issue any EO that is in contravention of the constitution? some get overturned in courts, but the fact that something was overturned in court requires the EO initially to be in contravention of their oath. surely any EO should go through the courts 1st, to establish if it is against the constitution? and if so, you cannot do it as it breaks your oath of office.

eagle eye wrote: »

Highly intelligent comedy.
Go give yourself a good laugh. It's great to give the mind a break from reality, you might find you'll have lots of rational, well-founded opinions if you do.

never mind father ted.

tell me this, appointing people on merit? whats your view?

eagle eye

y0ssar1an22 wrote:

tell me this, appointing people on merit? whats your view?

I'm sure it's always difficult as people's views on who deserves it will differ.

Overheal

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

lets not build walls, cos they dont work



i know you will say X,Y, or Z but the reality is that walls do work. why would joe build them to stop unscrupulous characters?

Shoes work but putting a giant pair of shoes on the United States won’t make it run faster.

Such lazy false equivalencies between sovereign border security and property barricades. (must have missed the endangered migratory animals that traverse between Lafayette square and the rose garden?)

everlast75

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

lets not build walls, cos they dont work



i know you will say X,Y, or Z but the reality is that walls do work. why would joe build them to stop unscrupulous characters?

My god, this is such a lazy, lazy "argument".

Roanmore

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i just looked that up, it seems its more of a tradition than anything else so you can ask for advice and bounce things off an ex president who might have been in contact with similar info.

'These briefings aren't just a privilege, they're a time-honored tradition among U.S. leaders so that they can be better prepared to give counsel to the incumbent president for important matters. Whether it's helping to show the ropes around the presidential role, or give their feedback on an important issue, it's pretty useful to have folks who were once put in charge in managing one of the world's most powerful and influential countries give their advice'.


obviously biden will go to barack for any advise. trump should be included though for any recent insight. jimmy carter, maybe not.

Carter is way more deserving of getting a briefing than Trump is. He may be old but is well up to date on international affairs than Trump is.
Trump even called Carter to discuss China and how to handle them.

everlast75

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

obviously biden will go to barack for any advise. trump should be included though for any recent insight. jimmy carter, maybe not.

If you want Trump's opinion, just call Carlson or Hannity.

Ffs

Munstersrebel

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

lets not build walls, cos they dont work



i know you will say X,Y, or Z but the reality is that walls do work. why would joe build them to stop unscrupulous characters?

Joe didn't get this wall build... The seditious one aka the Corrupter in chief aka the super spreader in chief.. aka Russia's top spy Donald Trump had it build in anticipation of the 6th of January

newhouse87

Jen Psaki already had lady g homophobic slur at Lindsay graham last year and now is mocking reporters questions after a few weeks, seems a real piece of work. No answer to the reporters questions of the over 1000 jobs lost on the keystone pipeline. He simply asked when they can expect green jobs and was mocked. At least Kayleigh was easy on the eye.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9239485/Jen-Psaki-mocks-reporter-1-000-people-work-president-decision-cancel-Keystone-XL-pipeline.html

everlast75

newhouse87 wrote: »

Jen Psaki already had lady g homophobic slur at Lindsay graham last year and now is mocking reporters questions after a few weeks, seems a real piece of work. No answer to the reporters questions of the over 1000 jobs lost on the keystone pipeline. He simply asked when they can expect green jobs and was mocked. At least Kayleigh was easy on the eye.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9239485/Jen-Psaki-mocks-reporter-1-000-people-work-president-decision-cancel-Keystone-XL-pipeline.html

Ahahahahahahaha.

Brilliant! *claps slowly*

Tries to put a woman down for doing her job and then says "well, at least the other broad was a looker".

How trumpian..

newhouse87

everlast75 wrote: »

Ahahahahahahaha.

Brilliant! *claps slowly*

Tries to put a woman down for doing her job and then says "well, at least the other broad was a looker".

How trumpian..

the homophobic slur was last year btw, and lets be honest Kayleigh was a looker. BTW i rather biden to trump. Was never a fan of trump, its hypocrisy on here that i dislike. If people called a spade a spade the world would be much less divisive, i do find it v funny how angry people on here are,keep it up, its entertaining.

The Phantom Jipper

The most sympathetic reading of Trump's time in office is to take him at his word that he wasn't really reading his briefings, such as his claim that he was unaware there were bounties on American soldiers. On that basis alone, it isn't worth the time and effort providing him with briefings. That's before you even get to his potential to try monetise the information or use it maliciously.

ollkiller

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

never mind father ted.

Lad watch Father Ted now. It's up there with Fawlty Towers as a timeless comedy. You will not be disappointed.

joe40

newhouse87 wrote: »

Jen Psaki already had lady g homophobic slur at Lindsay graham last year and now is mocking reporters questions after a few weeks, seems a real piece of work. No answer to the reporters questions of the over 1000 jobs lost on the keystone pipeline. He simply asked when they can expect green jobs and was mocked. At least Kayleigh was easy on the eye.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9239485/Jen-Psaki-mocks-reporter-1-000-people-work-president-decision-cancel-Keystone-XL-pipeline.html

There was nobody "mocked" in that exchange. This is getting ridiculous.

Just to sum up, the points made by Trumpists in the last week as to why Biden has been a bad president so far are:

• He has not ended the pandemic yet
• He is signing too many exercutive orders
• He has not signed enough executive orders
• A fence built in July is somehow Biden's doing
• His press secretary is less attractive

Is that right?

maik3n

joe40 wrote: »

There was nobody "mocked" in that exchange. This is getting ridiculous.

Definitely no mocking there.

Mind you, it was just our old friend Steve/Peter Doocy asking another shameless ''GOTCHA'' question.
He's really trying to become the poor mans Jim Acosta. :P

newhouse87

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to sum up, the points made by Trumpists in the last week as to why Biden has been a bad president so far are:

• He has not ended the pandemic yet
• He is signing too many exercutive orders
• He has not signed enough executive orders
• A fence built in July is somehow Biden's doing
• His press secretary is less attractive

Is that right?

Where did i say biden was doing bad as president? Point me to it retract your last point.

Cody montana

newhouse87 wrote: »

Jen Psaki already had lady g homophobic slur at Lindsay graham last year and now is mocking reporters questions after a few weeks, seems a real piece of work. No answer to the reporters questions of the over 1000 jobs lost on the keystone pipeline. He simply asked when they can expect green jobs and was mocked. At least Kayleigh was easy on the eye.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9239485/Jen-Psaki-mocks-reporter-1-000-people-work-president-decision-cancel-Keystone-XL-pipeline.html

Where was the homophobia?

Cody montana

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just to sum up, the points made by Trumpists in the last week as to why Biden has been a bad president so far are:

• He has not ended the pandemic yet
• He is signing too many exercutive orders
• He has not signed enough executive orders
• A fence built in July is somehow Biden's doing
• His press secretary is less attractive

Is that right?

And he owns a Rolex!

newhouse87

Cody montana wrote: »

Where was the homophobia?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/white-house-press-secretary-jen-125522607.html?guccounter=1

Dont expect any condemnation from the many hypocrites on this thread just deflection as usual, trump is bad blah blah.

extra gravy

newhouse87 wrote: »

Jen Psaki already had lady g homophobic slur at Lindsay graham last year

You mean the same Lindsay Graham who is actually a homophobe and is hated by the LGBTQ+ community? Maybe you should spend less time looking for gotcha material like the other Trumpists here and focus on the source of the misogyny that's dripping off your post.

newhouse87

extra gravy wrote: »

You mean the same Lindsay Graham who is actually a homophobe and is hated by the LGBTQ+ community? Maybe you should spend less time looking for gotcha material like the other Trumpists here and focus on the source of the misogyny that's dripping off your post.

Ah deflection as usual, didn't actually condemn psakis homophobic tweet, see the hyprcorisy as i predicted.

Cody montana

newhouse87 wrote: »

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/white-house-press-secretary-jen-125522607.html?guccounter=1

Dont expect any condemnation from the many hypocrites on this thread just deflection as usual, trump is bad blah blah.

Did you read what you posted?
I called him Lady G as well, that’s his nickname.
Does that make me homophobic?

newhouse87

Cody montana wrote: »

Did you read what you posted?
I called him Lady G as well, that’s his nickname.
Does that make me homophobic?

Yes that would make you homphobic.