The Biden Presidency

[JoeMorgue]

First, I am not a Trump Supporter.

Apparently nobody is, no matter how much the defend him.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I only recently realized that the Congressional Progressive Caucus overtook the New Democratic Coalition in house seats. Wafer thin at 94 to 93.

This is still dwarfed by the Republican Study Committee at 124. The House Freedom Caucus has 46 (how do they wield so much influence?).

Bernie as budget Chair in the Senate aligned with CPC in the House. He's threatening to go wild with reconciliation.

Biden is setting up a hand-or-fist negotiating position.

"Deal with my moderate ass or Bernie will bang it through our way and I'll use EOs to move whatever money he gets me on whatever we wanted anyways."

ETA: and every time they force a 50-50, we will have Kamala Harris interrupt prime time to explain her tie breaking vote. By the time 2024 comes around, she will have massive national profile.

 

[No Other]

Apparently nobody is, no matter how much the defend him.

... and how am I defending him?

Don't forget I am a Bernie Supporter; people who support Bernie are not friends with Republicans. I just don't ignore history...

 

[No Other]

False. There are a whole load of medical and time regulations issued by not only the states, but also by schools, universities, etc regarding when transgender people can and cannot participate in sports of their non-birth sex. I cited these in an earlier discussion, IIRC, with you.

Title IX is NOT a state issue. Title IX will override any state legislation, so those regulations or qualifications you mention can be overridden in the blink of an eye.

 

[kookbreaker]

... and how am I defending him?

Don't forget I am a Bernie Supporter; people who support Bernie are not friends with Republicans. I just don't ignore history...

You literally put up a list of complaints of Biden's early actions... almost all of which were EOs reversing Trump's EOs.

Of those that weren't, you were posting literal GOP talking points, such as as with the increase of the minimum wage. Which, incidentally, is a major feature of Bernie's platform. Something you must of missed.

I don't think you are fooling anyone.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Also blame the Dems for NOT appointing as many Judges during the Obama Administration. This lack of action provided more than the normal amount of Judges to be appointed by the Republicans. The Dems controlled the Senate, the House and the Executive Branch during Obama's first two years.

Your posts present the veneer of someone who would be interested enough in politics and recent history to know that this is very misleading. To the point of being false.

Am I wrong about your level of knowledge about American politics and recent history or are you being intentionally dishonest?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Title IX is NOT a state issue. Title IX will override any state legislation, so those regulations or qualifications you mention can be overridden in the blink of an eye.

Has any of the various federal departments issued policy based on the EO about trans rights?

I see lots of doomsaying from the usual transphobic sources, but specific consequences from the EO are still to be determined. it is still very much an open question exactly what Biden's EO on this matter is actually going to change.

 

[Steve]

You literally put up a list of complaints of Biden's early actions... almost all of which were EOs reversing Trump's EOs.

Of those that weren't, you were posting literal GOP talking points, such as as with the increase of the minimum wage. Which, incidentally, is a major feature of Bernie's platform. Something you must of missed.

I don't think you are fooling anyone.

Perhaps it is possible to support Bernie, the person, while objecting to his political platform? I dunno.......... US politics is pretty weird.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Perhaps it is possible to support Bernie, the person, while objecting to his political platform? I dunno.......... US politics is pretty weird.

I do not support all of Bernies' political platform, but I am all in on his mitten game.

 

[No Other]

I recall another recent president who issued many executive orders. It appears to be quite an acceptable way of governing in the USA, don't you think?

I am completely against Executive Orders... George Washington could create one and I would disagree. It completely takes out Congress and Congress is the only Representative the people can turn to... btw, Trump elevated the use of EO's and it was despicable.

 

[No Other]

Has any of the various federal departments issued policy based on the EO about trans rights?

I see lots of doomsaying from the usual transphobic sources, but specific consequences from the EO are still to be determined. it is still very much an open question exactly what Biden's EO on this matter is actually going to change.

I have not seen any Federal Department voicing their opinion.

It was a sneaky EO as it speaks to Title VII and Civil Rights and since Title IX is "under" Title VII... it has to follow the EO instructions. Biden spoke directly about his position on Transgender during the campaign and after the campaign... this EO was a natural result of his position.

All EO's have the clause for each Agency to provide their feedback... that will be interesting.

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other but if Transgender is here to stay, then we should be ready to deal with the consequences.

 

[catsmate]

1. Stops deportation of illegal immigrants that committed crimes in the USA.
2. Allows a person who feels they are transgender (versus what the doctor wrote down on the birth certificate) to compete in sports. If you are a person who identifies as a female but were given "male" status at birth... you can compete in women's sports.
3. Pissed off our staunches ally and closest neighbor by canceling the Keystone Pipeline.
4. Reneged on immediately giving $2K stimulus check if Georgia voted for Democrat Senators.
5. Put thousands out of work (see #3 and #13).
6. Put a ban on obtaining permits for oil drilling within Federal lands even though the top companies have permits to last them 4 years. (showcasing)
7. Put Fauci to head the US contingency for WHO.
8. If you travel on Federally controlled transportation, masks are required and if you travel to the USA, you need to show a negative Covid-19 test result.
9. Lays the foundation for $15/hr minimum wage. This will put many entry job levels in the tank...
10. Rejoins the Paris climate accord.
11. Requires non-citizens to be counted in the census and districts reapportioned (gerrymandering).
12. Reverses Trumps restrictions on USA entry from 7 Muslim countries.
13. Halts construction of "The Wall".
14. Directs OMB director to develop recommendations to modernize regulatory review and undoes Trump's regulatory approval process.
15. Undoes Trump's expansion of immigration enforcement within the United States
16. Enhances the nation's collection, production, sharing and analysis of coronavirus data (not sure what this is but it is welcomed)

... and many others. All done by Executive Order.

Sigh. I see you've abandoned any pretense of neutrality or reason and have decided to regurgitate the tired lies of the Trumpettes.

To address a couple of your lies:
1. A distortion at best. A lie at worst.
2. Now everyone shares your noxious transphobia.
3. Most Canadians either don't care or support ending the pipelines. Tar sand oil is unnecessary, filthy and uneconomic.
6. Good.
7. Excellent. Though I hope the good Dr. Fauci isn't being overworked.
8. Excellent. Masks save lives remember. If only it applied more generally less of the 400,000 deaths might have occurred.
9. Excellent. Though your take is, as economists have pointed out, an utter lie.
10. Excellent.
11. This is required by your constitution. And I suggest you stop using terms like "gerrymandering" until you learn what they actually (rather than in Trumpete land) mean.
12. Good.
13. Good.
14. Good,
15, Good.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I have not seen any Federal Department voicing their opinion.

It was a sneaky EO as it speaks to Title VII and Civil Rights and since Title IX is "under" Title VII... it has to follow the EO instructions. Biden spoke directly about his position on Transgender during the campaign and after the campaign... this EO was a natural result of his position.

All EO's have the clause for each Agency to provide their feedback... that will be interesting.

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other but if Transgender is here to stay, then we should be ready to deal with the consequences.

It's hard to see this EO as anything but the logical conclusion of the Bostock decision. Anti-trans crusaders should take the issue up with the SCOTUS that ruled that gender identity and sexual orientation are subsets of "sex", and thus discrimination is already prohibited under existing anti-discrimination law.

The EO is just good governance. Using Bostock as precedent, these issues were going to end up in federal court. Better to just order the change now and save a lot of unnecessary litigation.

 

[No Other]

Your posts present the veneer of someone who would be interested enough in politics and recent history to know that this is very misleading. To the point of being false.

Am I wrong about your level of knowledge about American politics and recent history or are you being intentionally dishonest?

Neither

Your link went to a "fact check" and even though you and I do not necessarily see eye to eye on many issues... I just don't see you relying on "fact check" since they always pose a question to suit their answer and provide answers to suit their needs. Obama's nominations fell off during his last 2 years and that does not explain anything other than not keeping his eye on the ball. The Dems had the majority in the House, the Senate and the Executive Office... his nominations, if they were good, should have sailed through the appointment process but that was not his focus. Your chart does not show how many openings there were during the time span... only how many were nominated and how many were confirmed. Nominating 70 during his last 2 years does not show aggressiveness.

The point I was attempting to convey is that Obama had a lot of potential appointments unfulfilled and that is a fact which is not debatable. Obama appointed 303 in 8 years, Trump appointed 221 in 4 years, only Jimmy Carter appointed a greater amount of Judges in 4 years. Part of the problem was the Republican Party but that does not account for his lack of presenting nominees to a vote.

 

[Aridas]

Neither

Your link went to a "fact check" and even though you and I do not necessarily see eye to eye on many issues... I just don't see you relying on "fact check" since they always pose a question to suit their answer and provide answers to suit their needs. Obama's nominations fell off during his last 2 years and that does not explain anything other than not keeping his eye on the ball. The Dems had the majority in the House, the Senate and the Executive Office... his nominations, if they were good, should have sailed through the appointment process but that was not his focus. Your chart does not show how many openings there were during the time span... only how many were nominated and how many were confirmed. Nominating 70 during his last 2 years does not show aggressiveness.

The point I was attempting to convey is that Obama had a lot of potential appointments unfulfilled and that is a fact which is not debatable. Obama appointed 303 in 8 years, Trump appointed 221 in 4 years, only Jimmy Carter appointed a greater amount of Judges in 4 years. Part of the problem was the Republican Party but that does not account for his lack of presenting nominees to a vote.

Simplified timeline, then.

1. Obama nominates judges.
2. McConnell does nigh everything he can to prevent the nominated judges from even getting hearings, let alone anything past that.
3. Obama eventually nominates fewer judges, because it'd pretty much be a waste of time.
4. No Other - IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT FOR NOT NOMINATING MORE JUDGES!

 

[No Other]

Sigh. I see you've abandoned any pretense of neutrality or reason and have decided to regurgitate the tired lies of the Trumpettes.

To address a couple of your lies:

1. A distortion at best. A lie at worst.

These are the exceptions that allow for deportation under this EO.
1a.Those who the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) finds to be engaged or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or is a danger to national security

1b. Anyone who was not in the United States before November 1, 2020

1c. Individuals who agree to waive their right to stay in the United States, provided they were fully aware of the consequences and had an opportunity to access counsel

1d. Anyone who the Acting Director of ICE determines by law is required to be removed.

Nowhere does this show that I lied but you on the other hand cannot support your comment.

2. Now everyone shares your noxious transphobia.

Your opinion, I have no problem with that but you cannot support your claim about lies.

3. Most Canadians either don't care or support ending the pipelines. Tar sand oil is unnecessary, filthy and uneconomic.

And where is the lie? Let me help you out... nowhere.

6. Good.

I guess we are both "lying" since you agree.

7. Excellent. Though I hope the good Dr. Fauci isn't being overworked.

see #6.

8. Excellent. Masks save lives remember. If only it applied more generally less of the 400,000 deaths might have occurred.

See # 7 and #6.

9. Excellent. Though your take is, as economists have pointed out, an utter lie.

If I lied does that mean you agree?

10. Excellent.

See #6 #7 and #8... possibly #9

11. This is required by your constitution. And I suggest you stop using terms like "gerrymandering" until you learn what they actually (rather than in Trumpete land) mean.

Again, I guess you agree so look at #6 #7 #8 and possibly #9 but for sure #10. As for gerrymandering... please explain what I don't know about gerrymandering. Both parties do this despicable act. Gerrymandering was developed by the Republican-Democratic Party... that later turned into the Democratic Party. Gerrymandering is not one-sided...

12. Good.

See #6 #7 #8 possibly #9 See #10 #11

13. Good.

See #12 this way I don't have to copy and paste

14. Good,

See #13

15, Good.

See #14

Well, I guess you showed me.

Not only are you incorrect about my leanings, you are virtually 100% incorrect in how you showed that I lied.

One thing I did not mention as it was not an EO; Biden has moved some our (I guess not yours since you are Canadian) troops into Syria. Do you agree with that, too?

 

[No Other]

Simplified timeline, then.

1. Obama nominates judges.
2. McConnell does nigh everything he can to prevent the nominated judges from even getting hearings, let alone anything past that.
3. Obama eventually nominates fewer judges, because it'd pretty much be a waste of time.
4. No Other - IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT FOR NOT NOMINATING MORE JUDGES!

Actually, I liked Obama

You mentioned in #3 that Obama gave up nominating Judges yet he did get 303 confirmed which was the 4th most by any President. I disagree, nowhere have I ever read that he gave up nominating Judges.

The point I was making is that he left a lot on the table but not for one second did I think he gave up. Please provide some sort of validation to your assertion that "it'd pretty much be a waste of time." Thanks in advance.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Neither

I'll put my money on dishonest, then. Let's see if I'm right:

Your link went to a "fact check" and even though you and I do not necessarily see eye to eye on many issues... I just don't see you relying on "fact check" since they always pose a question to suit their answer and provide answers to suit their needs. Obama's nominations fell off during his last 2 years and that does not explain anything other than not keeping his eye on the ball. The Dems had the majority in the House, the Senate and the Executive Office... his nominations, if they were good, should have sailed through the appointment process but that was not his focus. Your chart does not show how many openings there were during the time span... only how many were nominated and how many were confirmed. Nominating 70 during his last 2 years does not show aggressiveness.

Look! I was right.

I'll repost the polifact quick summary for our viewers to compare to your dishonesty above:

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
Obama left 105 empty federal judgeships when he left office.

Republicans slowed down Democratic nominees during Obama’s first term.

They virtually shut the process down in Obama’s final two years.

The point I was attempting to convey is that Obama had a lot of potential appointments unfulfilled and that is a fact which is not debatable.

The debate is about why they went unfulfilled. The fact is well documented that the Senate all but stopped considering his nominations. This is highlighted by his final SCOTUS nomination. Pretending that this is not the reason for the lack of appointments is dishonest. Continuing to pretend that facts are not facts after being called out on it is just plain gaslighting.

Obama appointed 303 in 8 years, Trump appointed 221 in 4 years, only Jimmy Carter appointed a greater amount of Judges in 4 years. Part of the problem was the Republican Party but that does not account for his lack of presenting nominees to a vote.

All of the problem was the Republican party. Why waste time on presenting nominees that will not be approved by a Senate who has made it clear that they will not approve? That is literally the definition of insanity.

 

[No Other]

The EO is just good governance.

How can this be good governance if the legislative process is circumvented? It may be expedient but it is certainly not good governance unless you consider legislation from the Oval office is preferable over Congress.

Full disclosure: I am against any Executive Order no matter who signs them.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

How can this be good governance if the legislative process is circumvented? It may be expedient but it is certainly not good governance unless you consider legislation from the Oval office is preferable over Congress.

Full disclosure: I am against any Executive Order no matter who signs them.

The president is ordering the admins of the executive branch to make sure their policies are compliant with existing law as interpreted by the Judicial branch.

The legislation already exists. The SCOTUS ruling is new, but the underlying legislation is already there. There's no need for new legislation.