Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Opinions?

Originally posted by Blakemore
Opinions? Yeah, what happened to Newjaks thread? This is weird Blake.

Has he taken all the guns yet?

U.S. is re-entering the Paris Climate Accord.

US is also re engaging with WHO.

Construction of the border wall will cease.

Three black marks from the last four years removed on the first day.

I heard he let in a billion immigrants just an hour ago. Is that true?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I heard he let in a billion immigrants just an hour ago. Is that true?


Total fib.


His immigration policy has a sensible waiting list on it. The man's a centrist through and through.

https://fogknife.com/images/posts/tommy_lee_jones.jpg

Now that Trump is out of the way, the US is so ready for war. Iran? Jordan? Oman?


Let's get the cruise missiles ready just in case.

Originally posted by Scribble
Now that Trump is out of the way, the US is so ready for war. Iran? Jordan? Oman?


Let's get the cruise missiles ready just in case.


You say that as if Trump was anti-war?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You say that as if Trump was anti-war? Name a war that Trump helped to start.


(I mean I get it, USA are crazy imperialists so drone strikes still continued, but nothing compared to Trump's two predecessors)

I don't think Trump was generally opposed to war, I am glad he was less hawkish than many of his advisors and we didn't end up with another war, though.

I hope that Biden won't start another war, I feel like the danger of war with Iran has gone down under a Biden administration, but there may be others that happen.

I do think we have to look at wars on a case by case bases though, there's clearly worse and better (not necessarily good) wars the US is involved in. Like the Bush Jr. war in Iraq and the support of the war in Yemen are monstrous. The wars against ISIS seem to be easier to justify imo.

Depends what the US is offering, just going back to the deal from 4 years ago seems unfair, considering that the US broke its commitment, while Iran didn't.

As for Soleimani, not sure how much impact that will have, Iran is pretty used to their functionaries being assassinated, mainly by Israel and the US, and like the CIA says they are a reasonable actor, so if it would be beneficial to their country they would likely overlook that particular situation.

iran lost support of their people when the ukrainian passenger jet was shot down. I believe that was what prevent a retaliation and war. the timing was such that they could rally zero support

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
making peace with iran will be difficult since trump undid the nuclear treaty, and then assassinated then iranian general in baghdad, when it became clear that his first attempt to provoke a war had failed

Since Iran got to keep their frozen assets the US used as leverage to make the deal after Trump broke the deal, Iran has even less incentive to agree to another no-nuke agreement. Biden has a Herculean task ahead of him here. I have my doubts.

Originally posted by Artol
I don't think Trump was generally opposed to war, I am glad he was less hawkish than many of his advisors and we didn't end up with another war, though.

I hope that Biden won't start another war, I feel like the danger of war with Iran has gone down under a Biden administration, but there may be others that happen.

I do think we have to look at wars on a case by case bases though, there's clearly worse and better (not necessarily good) wars the US is involved in. Like the Bush Jr. war in Iraq and the support of the war in Yemen are monstrous. The wars against ISIS seem to be easier to justify imo. The wars against ISIS are directly caused by the war in Iraq. It leads back to the first Gulf war, and even earlier, with the support for the Iranian revolution. But the Iraq war is really where it started.


Funny how direct opposition to war in the Middle East is being associated with Trump now, lol.

Originally posted by Scribble
The wars against ISIS are directly caused by the war in Iraq. It leads back to the first Gulf war, and even earlier, with the support for the Iranian revolution. But the Iraq war is really where it started.


Funny how direct opposition to war in the Middle East is being associated with Trump now, lol.

Yeah, I mean historically there are a lot of reasons, and all of these things are closely related. What I meant with Bush Jr. Iraq War is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the subsequent war there. And that power vacuum did indeed lead to ISIS, but ISIS does have to be opposed.

Yeah, it is pretty funny, especially given the way he often tried to present himself as being very tough. But I just think that is a popular Republican talking point right now "Trump didn't start any new wars". It's a bit simplistic, but the beauty of it is that it hits at something that Democrats pretend is important to them. It's a good troll, is what I mean. But the reality is that Trump wasn't particularly good for peace either.

trump was pure shit when it came to needlessly provoking a middle east war/conflict, which was previously a right of every republican president since reagan.

he was obviously trying to start shit with iran, twice (that we know of). being a poor and clumsy advocate for war does not make one an excellent advocate for peace.

Three months into Trump's presidency he launched nearly 60 missiles at Syria and his supporters were all "America, f**k ya!" gung ho about it. Weird how they're fearful of this new admin provoking wars now.


Just read that Iran is seemingly open to discussing a new nuclear deal with the Biden admin, which is great. I suspect it will come with a heavier price, considering the US broke the last deal.

Biden rescinds keystone pipeline permit!

Four amazing things so far.

Canada not too happy about that.

Originally posted by truejedi
U.S. is re-entering the Paris Climate Accord.

US is also re engaging with WHO.

Construction of the border wall will cease.

Three black marks from the last four years removed on the first day.

He signed 17 executive orders on his first day, right after the inaguration. Harris went to work immediately too, and swore in the three new Democratic Senators. What a difference having competent, hard-working people in charge makes.

Originally posted by Scribble
I know you're high on Republican tears rn, but you might want to re-evaluate what a 'Trumper' is


https://i.imgur.com/NClHRi9.jpg

Horse shoe theory confirmed. Emotional instability confirmed.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He signed 17 executive orders on his first day, right after the inaguration. Harris went to work immediately too, and swore in the three new Democratic Senators. What a difference having competent, hard-working people in charge makes.

Yeah, I saw that, as well. A lot of good steps in that. I am cautiously optimistic.

Originally posted by Robtard
Three months into Trump's presidency he launched nearly 60 missiles at Syria and his supporters were all "America, f**k ya!" gung ho about it. Weird how they're fearful of this new admin provoking wars now.


Just read that Iran is seemingly open to discussing a new nuclear deal with the Biden admin, which is great. I suspect it will come with a heavier price, considering the US broke the last deal. given the asterisk, this is still good news imo

Originally posted by Scribble
I know you're high on Republican tears rn, but you might want to re-evaluate what a 'Trumper' is


https://i.imgur.com/NClHRi9.jpg DDM's meaningless chart oh dear

oh dear.....

Originally posted by Blakemore
oh dear..... to say Trumpers are on the left is gaslighting at best tbh.

for shame

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
trump was pure shit when it came to needlessly provoking a middle east war/conflict, which was previously a right of every republican president since reagan.

he was obviously trying to start shit with iran, twice (that we know of). being a poor and clumsy advocate for war does not make one an excellent advocate for peace.


Originally posted by Robtard
Three months into Trump's presidency he launched nearly 60 missiles at Syria and his supporters were all "America, f**k ya!" gung ho about it. Weird how they're fearful of this new admin provoking wars now.


Just read that Iran is seemingly open to discussing a new nuclear deal with the Biden admin, which is great. I suspect it will come with a heavier price, considering the US broke the last deal.


And dont forget supporting Saudi to bomb Yemen.

Thats not anti-war. Not in any way shape or form.

He may have made out he was anti-war to get into power. But his record in the White House says very differently.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
And dont forget supporting Saudi to bomb Yemen.

Thats not anti-war. Not in any way shape or form.

He may have made out he was anti-war to get into power. But his record in the White House says very differently. I was actually mear Riyadh Airport when the scuds were being fired back. My compound was 5 minutes away. Sidebar irrelevant fact.

war is bad

Originally posted by Trocity
Canada not too happy about that.

I think you mean Alberta is not too happy about it.
And reading some comments within the Alberta sub-reddit, most of the blame is actually on the premier of Alberta.

Not alot of missiles are being thrown at the Prime Minister aside from the Premier of Alberta blaming him.

Yet...I'm not well ingrained in this topic, my understanding is that the Conserative party removed all initiatives set by the previous government on trying to diversify their economy away from oil...and then made a big bet that Trump would win a second term.

Originally posted by Blakemore
war is bad

what is it good for?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what is it good for? is your Jersey accent like Springsteen's? Because I had his voice pop into my head reading that.

that was an edwin star song, though,

close, but closer to ray liotta's accent.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, sing it again!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that was an edwin star song, though,

close, but closer to ray liotta's accent. it wascbut i like Springsteen's version best. Cool accent mate.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
And dont forget supporting Saudi to bomb Yemen.

Thats not anti-war. Not in any way shape or form.

He may have made out he was anti-war to get into power. But his record in the White House says very differently.

Of course it does.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I think you mean Alberta is not too happy about it.
And reading some comments within the Alberta sub-reddit, most of the blame is actually on the premier of Alberta.

Not alot of missiles are being thrown at the Prime Minister aside from the Premier of Alberta blaming him.

Yet...I'm not well ingrained in this topic, my understanding is that the Conserative party removed all initiatives set by the previous government on trying to diversify their economy away from oil...and then made a big bet that Trump would win a second term.

Alberta is definitely big mad, but I live in Ontario and even people here i know are talking about how it sucks.

Sure...but they knew this was happening and they decided to put all their eggs in that basket.

They had years to transition off an oil economy and haven't done anything. The future is green technology and stomping feet isn't going to change that.

This is such an amazing development. That pipeline was as big a waste as the wall, and environmentally destructive. Not too mention built on stolen land. The fact that Trump authorized that is one of the worst black marks on his presidency.

Stupid Cruz.

Cruz sis an idiot. Trump destroyed america's standing in the world one broken agreement at a time. Why make a deal with America if some orange man just refuses to honor it. Paris Climate Accord is a plus for biden. It won't all be plusses for him- he certainly wasn't my favorite candidate, but this is a good thing.

Biden won

The Keystone Pipeline topic is an interesting one in that I think it's a good thing we aren't going to so heavily invest in something that will only contribute to more reliance on dirty energy

I tried searching for where these 10,000 job loss go (I assume is 10,000 future job loss...not current jobs) but I couldn't really find the specific number and report.

From what I have read and I cannot say this is the truth, some of these numbers being thrown around are from the gas companies/lobbyists themselves...in fact, 1 report says they count job losses by year...so 1 year = 10,000 job loss...the 2nd year would be 10,000 job loss so without a pipeline...it would be 20,000 lost jobs...even though it would still be only 10,000 jobs.

Another one I read was that they were saying it would be 120,000 job loss in terms of support (food, restaurants and etc) during construction...and I thought that was nuts.

Did anyone see the stuff on Twitter about the national guard charged with defending the Capitol having to sleep in parking garages and shit? What the f*** is that about?

Also hilarious how Republicans line up to be on the go ahead and **** the earth over side of history..

It's the priorities. All about that money yanno

Originally posted by Robtard
Thanks for doing the leg work, my dude anytime bud

Is everyone calling each other "comrade" yet?

Joe we love you.

Cup of old Joe

Originally posted by Blakemore
Cup of old Joe

What it was funny you were funny

Poor Joe Biden getting bad press before he even started. I will say this about him, he has dignity. There are people who either have it or don't, throughout all the bad commentary he's received, he has not once gave attention to anyone group looking to destroy him. He just went to work immediately. Especially on his talks about unity.

Originally posted by rudester
What it was funny you were funny teehee

Thr Democrats should drop the unions.


They used to be about protecting jobs. Now, they're about protecting environmentally destructive pork barrel projects, like the Keystone Pipeline.

Biden is presidential. I'm not going to agree with everything he does, but I won't wake up every morning to his insulting train of thought tweets from the night before. I prefer that. Trump was a dick, plain and simple.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55799913


Biden reverses transgender ban in the military. Another bigoted action by Trump off the board.

Good, no reason why a trans person shouldn't be allowed to serve their country just because they're trans.

I remember when transgender people were banned and certain people here defended it...

I give Biden credit for this one, but it was an easy political win. An obvious choice to make, given the hateful nature of it's creation.

Originally posted by Quincy
I give Biden credit for this one, but it was an easy political win


Well Trump has made it easy for him to start on a good note, as he only has to reverse a load of dumb shit Trump introduced.

Agreed. And since Trump never got anything made into law, it's as easy as biden signing an order, and it's gone. Trump was a complete failure.

Really hope the Biden admin keeps its promise for criminal justice reform and to the Black community. Saying is easy for politicians, actually doing is another.

Biden looks to be wanting to make the Covid Economic fallout worse by picking his buddies from Goldman Sachs to head the SEC

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/26/960868526/biden-picks-gary-gensler-to-head-sec

Its going to be a presidency of half-measures, and because Liberals have such shitty political instincts that's all that's going to be required of him. No M4A during a pandemic, you'll just get the same generic "MORE OPTIONS OF COVERAGE" under the ACA, No Lockdown/UBI to stop the Pandemic he'll just make mandatory masks for Federal locations, no massive reforms to stop the climate crisis, he'll just fund more wind and solar project/rejoin the Paris climate accords, no defunding/dismantling ICE/putting Children in cages, he'll just redo DACA/stop Private prison contracts, and most importantly the war machine in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq will keep going. He can do so much better

Originally posted by carthage
Biden looks to be wanting to make the Covid Economic fallout worse by picking his buddies from Goldman Sachs to head the SEC

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/26/960868526/biden-picks-gary-gensler-to-head-sec

Don't know who that is, but says he's a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

So goofy that they went with 1400 dollars. Like, 2000 was EXACTLY what america needed no more no less.

Political dickery

Originally posted by Quincy
So goofy that they went with 1400 dollars. Like, 2000 was EXACTLY what america needed no more no less.

Political dickery


It's considered an addition to the $600.00 doled out under Trump/Republicans to bring the total to $2,000.00. The reason behind the number.

Though I guess they could have aimed for $2,000.00 now, as the initial $600.00 was nothing much.

He promised 2000, and then reneged.
Typical Biden.

I mean those out of work due to the pandemic needed 2k/month. So this late in the game No point dicking around getting all technical over $600. Just give it.

He needs the extra 600$ to blow up people in the Middle East

Originally posted by carthage
He promised 2000, and then reneged.
Typical Biden.

Are you sure about that? I recall it was Schumer who was fighting for the $2,000.00 checks before McConnell shot that down to $600.00. Don't recall Biden saying $2,000.00 on top of the $600.00 already passed if he won. I could be wrong here, crappy move if so.

But why be completely negative. You're scrounging for money and you're likely going to get more than Trump/Republicans gave you in a payment.

I get why the value is now 1400 dollars I can do that basic of math at least.

It's just funny in a way that it was like "Oh no, the american people only need 2000 dollars and then they are fine, and since they got 600 a month ago like, that will still add up yanno it's like hey all copacetic! Plus I'm strapped for government cash we have to bail out the hedge fund guys soon so money aint cheap yanno bootstraps!"

Originally posted by carthage
He needs the extra 600$ to blow up people in the Middle East this account now?

Originally posted by Quincy
I get why the value is now 1400 dollars I can do that basic of math at least.

It's just funny in a way that it was like "Oh no, the american people only need 2000 dollars and then they are fine, and since they got 600 a month ago like, that will still add up yanno it's like hey all copacetic! Plus I'm strapped for government cash we have to bail out the hedge fund guys soon so money aint cheap yanno bootstraps!"
I think the whole method was/is screwed, eg what if you did make over 75K, but lost your job, you're still broke and live in an area where rent is $3,000.00 for a small two room condo? No stimulus money for you. Or say you're someone who makes 16K a year, but you kept your job and you live with someone who covers your bills and nothing's really changed for you during the pandemic.

I've heard of instances of people getting money and using it to splurge because they didn't really need it to cover the essentials. A few of them via social media.

But I get it, you don't punish the majority for something out of their control.

You needed the furlough scheme we had. Where businesses were paid to keep paying employees who were not working (instead of firing them), but that pay was capped to an average salary.

Paying the huge mortgages for People on big salaries who lose their job should not be a priority. However we did also pay banks to give mortgage holidays which would give even those wealthier individuals time to sort out their finances.

What you guys (or Trump) did though, just bailing out the stock market, was just atrocious. Not just morally, but even economically that was just so idiotic.

But hey im sure the Trumps and the Clintons and the Bushs and Obamas are all that much wealthier for it. Screw your average Joe right?

I never really understood the reluctance in giving a per month allowance for affected people.

Wouldn't you want people to have money, to buy things, to keep eating and etc....
It's literally how countries get out of major recessions..by spending money on major infrastructure projects.

Though I understand it was literally a cash bonus but what do you think people would use that cash on.

Soo...we're getting $2000 anyway?...Just in now $600 and $1400..

....Then wtf was the point of denying $2000 to begin with?....What? That makes no sense..

Originally posted by Zenwolf
Soo...we're getting $2000 anyway?...Just in now $600 and $1400..

....Then wtf was the point of denying $2000 to begin with?....What? That makes no sense..


McConnell blocked/reduced and then added bloat to his new proposal: McConnell blocks $2,000 stimulus checks, then ties them to unrelated Trump demands on tech and election

And yet he backed down from his 2k checks regardless of republicans.

Originally posted by Robtard
McConnell blocked/reduced and then added bloat to his new proposal: McConnell blocks $2,000 stimulus checks, then ties them to unrelated Trump demands on tech and election

Remember when tying unrelated crap to the green new deal was terrible and purely so it not passing could be blamed on the other side?

It was terrible then but it'll be perfectly acceptable now.

McConnell was just licking Trump's ass and trying to appease him there. Knew it'd go nowhere, but had a "I tried" excuse.


The Green New Deal might be back in a fashion though.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Green New Deal might be back in a fashion though.

How did you come to this conclusion? Do you believe it's a good answer to where we are as a society?

dp error

See next page

I read that, what are your thoughts on that specifically?

Originally posted by snowdragon
I read that, what are your thoughts on that specifically?

It think it's great and looking towards where the future of energy is heading. As noted, oil and gas will not being going away completely, not anytime soon, but we're going to be replacing those more and more with solar, hydrogen and wind, we need to accept this reality sooner than later.

Pure electric cars account for around 1% (or less) of the cars in the US, that's going to change dramatically in the next decade and beyond, exponentially too. Tesla stock is trading at $850+, sure it's over-evaluated, but it's in part because they're ahead of the curve in electric cars and solar energy/batteries and people are looking forward, banking on the future with Tesla (Musk can still go **** himself in the face though) and similar companies trailblazing. Ford is at $11.00 and they have the best selling truck in the US 39 years running.

Even if Biden's proposal to "stop all climate-damaging emissions from U.S. power plants by 2035" is lofty, it at least sets a goal and tone.


Edit: I forget who said it, but Tesla trades like a tech company, not automotive.

GM is phasing out the internal combustion engine over the next 15 years they said today.

Originally posted by Robtard
It think it's great and looking towards where the future of energy is heading. As noted, oil and gas will not being going away completely, not anytime soon, but we're going to be replacing those more and more with solar, hydrogen and wind, we need to accept this reality sooner than later.

Pure electric cars account for around 1% (or less) of the cars in the US, that's going to change dramatically in the next decade and beyond, exponentially too. Tesla stock is trading at $850+, sure it's over-evaluated, but it's in part because they're ahead of the curve in electric cars and solar energy/batteries and people are looking forward, banking on the future with Tesla (Musk can still go **** himself in the face though) and similar companies trailblazing. Ford is at $11.00 and they have the best selling truck in the US 39 years running.

Even if Biden's proposal to "stop all climate-damaging emissions from U.S. power plants by 2035" is lofty, it at least sets a goal and tone.


Edit: I forget who said it, but Tesla trades like a tech company, not automotive. Ford also own Lincoln and I read somewhere Lincoln are planning the first Electric Rolls Royce level car. Cool as **** if true and will be my retirement gift to myself.

Had not heard, will look it up, I love car stuff. Thanks.

Speaking of though, Rolls Royce will be offering an electric vehicle for the very wealthy. GM resurrected the doomed "Hummer" brand, it's now a 1,000hp all electric monstrosity. Still cool though, turning what was the American posterboy of gas-guzzling-f**k-you-environmentalist into something "green" Honestly, I kinda like it, not sure I'd drive it though.

Originally posted by Robtard
Had not heard, will look it up, I love car stuff. Thanks.

Speaking of though, Rolls Royce will be offering an electric vehicle for the very wealthy. GM resurrected the doomed "Hummer" brand, it's now a 1,000hp all electric monstrosity. Still cool though, turning what was the American posterboy of gas-guzzling-f**k-you-environmentalist into something "green" Honestly, I kinda like it, not sure I'd drive it though. I wouldn't drive it, I'd have my driver, drive it for me. Doubt I could afford an Electric Humvee though. I only drive myself in the UK. I love Cars too, I just never buy cool ones anymore as UK roads don't suit them and out here company 4x4's are de rigour. Would love a Rolls, also out of my price bracket. Lincoln though is not. Hence my dream.

"I wouldn't drive it, I'd have my driver, drive it for me." -Ser Whirly




https://media1.tenor.com/images/33bf3b29bfae4a5b3946f24ee63b1a0e/tenor.gif

Originally posted by Robtard
dp error

See next page she hates it when that happens.

Pot us?

Us will become like a little teapot, short and stout

So is everyone in agreement that Biden's extreme overuse of executive orders is shitty behaviour, terrible leadership and executive overreach? He's already at over 10% of Trump's 4 year total.

context matters. were there any seemingly nefarious orders which should be noted?

It's a shame the original Trump presidency thread mysteriously vanished. I don't recall much talk of context there.

Biden doesn't even have Trump's excuse for using them in that his party controls the legislative branch where as Trump didn't.

Yes there are things which need urgent action. The pandemic, for example.

The MO from now on will be that an incoming president from "the other side" will use executive orders to undo the outgoing president's executive orders. Rather than effecting long lasting legal change.

Rather than see it for the shitty practice it is, excuses will be made for why its "different" when their guy does it.

"Outrageous" is just a matter of perspective. One man's "securing the southern border" is another man's "racist against Mexicans"

Just as allowing men to compete as women in sports has multiple facets dependent upon your political standpoint.

We are in agreement on how it seems things are going to go from now on. Unless Biden plans on cementing all these executive orders with more permanent legislation at a later date and is just using the EO's to get things done quickly. Although that wouldn't really explain some of the issues he's chosen to act on so quickly. Like I'm not sure discrimination against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders is a massively urgent problem.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
"Outrageous" is just a matter of perspective. One man's "securing the southern border" is another man's "racist against Mexicans"

Just as allowing men to compete as women in sports has multiple facets dependent upon your political standpoint.

We are in agreement on how it seems things are going to go from now on. Unless Biden plans on cementing all these executive orders with more permanent legislation at a later date and is just using the EO's to get things done quickly. Although that wouldn't really explain some of the issues he's chosen to act on so quickly. Like I'm not sure discrimination against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders is a massively urgent problem.

You say that as if a.) presidents have not historically understood that their executive actions may be undone by the next president, and b.) that Trump is not an outlier who is more likely to have his executive actions undone than others.

It's going to be an interesting next 4 years

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So is everyone in agreement that Biden's extreme overuse of executive orders is shitty behaviour, terrible leadership and executive overreach? He's already at over 10% of Trump's 4 year total.

It's what Obama did as well. I don't think Biden's use of executive orders is shitty behavior, and I didn't think Trump's was either. It's just how politics works in the US now as the legislative has completely retreated from legislating due to excessive partisanship. The US democratic system needs reform, until then executive orders will be the main tool for presidency to actually implement the politics they were voted in for.

Irrelevant.

I hold information that could turn anyone into me, as does anyone else have the ability to teach what they know only no one else other than me knows how to survive aging.

But you have to send the right skins in to clean up.

Don't judge me on my needs when you don't understand the intricate processes that shaped them either, that does no one any good. This is all, however, simply redundant semantics for my local community by now I don't know why I'm not being gangbanged by Keira Knightley Emma Watson and Daisy Ridley rn

On a set

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You say that as if a.) presidents have not historically understood that their executive actions may be undone by the next president, and b.) that Trump is not an outlier who is more likely to have his executive actions undone than others.

He isn't an outlier. The US is now locked on a path where a Democrat president will undo a previous Republican president's orders regardless of whether were beneficial or not and vice versa. Just because it was "the enemy" that did it.

And as I said, Biden doesn't even have an excuse. Trump did it because he'd never get his plans passed the house.

42 in 2 weeks...

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
He isn't an outlier. The US is now locked on a path where a Democrat president will undo a previous Republican president's orders regardless of whether were beneficial or not and vice versa. Just because it was "the enemy" that did it.

And as I said, Biden doesn't even have an excuse. Trump did it because he'd never get his plans passed the house.

42 in 2 weeks...

Which executive orders do you think did Biden give mostly out of spite because it was Trump that did it?

Originally posted by Artol
Which executive orders do you think did Biden give mostly out of spite because it was Trump that did it?

Executive Order on the Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities.

Proclamation on the Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Southern Border of the United States and Redirection of Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Executive Order on the Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities.

Proclamation on the Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Southern Border of the United States and Redirection of Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction

You don't think that's because both of those have been important campaigning points for Democrats, who believe that a border wall and the excessive policing of "illegal" immigration is both misguided and a waste of money?

One important thing to remember is that I allegedly taught myself how to express three dimensional depth using only coordinates on two dimensional graphing paper. And I allegedly have a shadowed photo of the graphing. paper I did it on. Yet it is worth scrap because priorities are only the ridiculous assertion that I'm some stigmas super deep nonsense word salad

Originally posted by Artol
You don't think that's because both of those have been important campaigning points for Democrats, who believe that a border wall and the excessive policing of "illegal" immigration is both misguided and a waste of money?

It'd be easier to not believe its simply "cuz Trump" if there was an alternative plan to address the issues. But there isn't. Much in the same way that Trump tried to immediately get rid of the Affordable Care Act "cuz Obama" without any alternative.

What is the issue you are referring to? As far as I understand it Democrats do not believe that there is an issue with immigration at all, rather with the policing of immigrant communities. Some parts of the Democratic Party did even go as far as to say ICE should be abolished, which isn't really that outlandish, since it is a relatively new agency only established under George W. Bush, and he has a pretty bad track record in foreign policy, to be honest.

What the Democrats believe doesn't have any bearing on reality. The fact that they think there's no issue with immigration is an issue in itself. By electing to do nothing about it does the opposite of the unity they proclaim to want to pursue as it basically ignores the concerns of a huge proportion of the population particularly in the border states.

There was no way a pointless and expensive border wall that doesn't actually hinder illegal immigrants was going to continue under a democrat. It was always largely unpopular among the general public anyways. Ending funding for that was one of the easiest decisions Biden made, I'm sure.

They're not really ending funding for building it. Presumably they will still have to compensate the private construction companies they entered into contracts with.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
What the Democrats believe doesn't have any bearing on reality. It does have bearing on the assertion that biden's only reason for curtailing the executive action is orange man bad. If the existence of the wall is genuinely anathema to Democrat beliefs then clearly they aren't vetoing it out of pure spite.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It does have bearing on the assertion that biden's only reason for curtailing the executive action is orange man bad. If the existence of the wall is genuinely anathema to Democrat beliefs then clearly they aren't vetoing it out of pure spite.

They built a considerable chunk of fencing and vehicle barriers under Obama. So they clearly acknowledge that the border is an issue.

Originally posted by BackFire
There was no way a pointless and expensive border wall that doesn't actually hinder illegal immigrants was going to continue under a democrat. It was always largely unpopular among the general public anyways. Ending funding for that was one of the easiest decisions Biden made, I'm sure.

I was under the impression that a border wall cause the adverse effect...it keeps people in.

I remember reading articles on the "Trump wall" and how border walls can actually be detrimental to the elimination of illegal immigration. The theory was that people will come over the border for better oppertunites..and once they are in..they work shit jobs, make some coin and then some of immigrates go back to Mexico.

But with a wall, those migrations do not happen..people come over because of the same reason as always...but when here...they do not want to go back because its too much work/risk.

Not sure if this is true but I always thought the best way to combat illegal immigration is to help fix the issue on why it occurs.

Originally posted by Smasandian

Not sure if this is true but I always thought the best way to combat illegal immigration is to help fix the issue on why it occurs.

It is.

There's no plans to do anything beneficial though. Instead you can probably expect the same as from the Obama Administration. Namely supporting military coups like in Honduras or using aid money to fund anti government guerrilla groups like in Bolivia, over turning the election in Haiti. Or supporting the ousting of president of Paraguay. Basically keeping as much of the region in political and economic turmoil as possible so as to enable the exploitation of resources. The same as what happens in Africa and the Middle East. The only difference being where the people who flee those respective areas end up going.

Republicans trying to cut Biden's relief package down to less than a third.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
They're not really ending funding for building it. Presumably they will still have to compensate the private construction companies they entered into contracts with.

You think the American government will actually pay private contractors?

Yes. Particularly if the contracts were awarded via cronyism because the contracts will probably have massive penalties if future governments rescind them. Court action will end up costing a lot more.

Like Trump with hookers.

And by Trump I mean you.

And by you I mean me.

And me.

Biden does have a plan on immigration: https://joebiden.com/immigration/

Now what of that he'll do and what will be effective, we will see.

Trump wasted a shit ton of money on that stupid wall. A metric shit ton. Now biden wants to spend money and now Republicans want to pretend they care about deficits. Remember when Mexico was going to pay for that wall?

Mexico paid for it with their feelings.

Originally posted by Robtard
Biden does have a plan on immigration: https://joebiden.com/immigration/

Now what of that he'll do and what will be effective, we will see.

So continuing Obama era policies which caused massive numbers of people to flee to America

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So continuing Obama era policies which caused massive numbers of people to flee to America immigration isn't a bad thing. That's probably a fundamental difference in the thinking between conservatives and liberals.
There are plenty of resources in our country to help people fleeing unlivable situations in their own countries. (Can you imagine how desperate you would have to be to undertake walking to another country with nothing more than the clothes on your back?)

The allocation of ownership of resources in this country is completely screwed up.

I'm glad we are returning to a more open policy. It's another harmful Trump policy he is reversing. (You can't really be upset that Trump ruled by executive order, and biden is now reversing course in the same way).

It isn't a bad thing if you only view it with a narrow set of parameters. Do you think that the inevitable ghettoisation of different racial groups is beneficial to the social harmony of a city/state/country? Do you think that propagating a perception amongst one population, regardless of whether they are right or wrong in that perception, that they are being "forced out" by an "invasion" of immigrants is good for a country?

Yeah, immigration has helped Canada significantly with their economy. We had a very strict immigration policy in the early 20th century and we had to open up the borders to allow the country to grow.

With birth rates declining significantly, Canada needs immigration to make it up the difference and keep the economy going.