The Biden Presidency

[No Other]

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



Look! I was right.

You are about as bright as Fact Check

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

The Fact Check does not invalidate my comments as they are not lies.

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.

Moving the goal posts???? What I said was accurate no matter how you try to hijack the point. You can't prove me wrong so you change the debate... this is how people who cannot defend their positions try to act superior but in your case it failed.

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.

You act as if Obama was the only President that did not get nominations confirmed. All Presidents have the identical problem, Obama just elected for some reason to let the Republicans choose the Judges. Do you realize that Trump got more Judges confirmed per year than Obama? That is shameful but then again you find it "ok" because a Republican Senate was being uncooperative.

 

[acbytesla]

... and the Liberals will go to the 9th Circuit Court.

Unfortunately, we are in an era of "Lawfare" whereas at one time justice was rendered (or at least trying to make it look like justice) in the courts. The courts are currently being used for the benefit of retribution and voiding laws that would have been accepted as laws just 10-18 years ago.

We are on a slippery slope with Executive Orders (both parties issue them like candy) and retribution (again, both parties conduct this practice). Executive Orders takes the legislative process out of the picture and that is bad for the citizens... again, this is not limited to any one party, it is rampant within our so-called 2 party system.

I wonder what you said when Trump issued his.

 

[Segnosaur]

You act as if Obama was the only President that did not get nominations confirmed. All Presidents have the identical problem...

No they don't.

Yes, in the past (pre-Obama), some judicial might get rejected, thanks to regular vetting procedures.

What set Obama apart is that for a significant part of his tenure, not only did the republicans control the senate, but the republicans were much more obstructionist than they had been in the past.

Whereas other presidents might get judges rejected because they were unsuitable, Obama was getting his judicial nominees blocked because Moscow Mitch wanted to completely stop anything and everything. This was a situation (senate controlled by opposing party, who are also obstructionist) that simply did not happen prior to that.

Obama just elected for some reason to let the Republicans choose the Judges.

It was not Obama's choice. Moscow Mitch gained control of the senate and was blocking everything.

Do you realize that Trump got more Judges confirmed per year than Obama?

That's because Trump was a republican, and Moscow Mitch (the guy who was obstructionist under Obama) was also a republican.

See the connection?

That is shameful but then again you find it "ok" because a Republican Senate was being uncooperative.

Not sure you are claiming people think it was "OK".

The president does not have absolute authority in nominating judges. They have to get confirmed by the senate. Recognizing that Moscow Mitch was interfering with those confirmations does not make it 'ok', it is recognizing what actually happened.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You are about as bright as Fact Check

Thanks for the compliment, but they have far more patience than I do.

The Fact Check does not invalidate my comments as they are not lies.

Would you like to call them alternative facts? You are blaming Obama for McConnell's obstructionism even though McConnell is on record saying that he intends to obstruct as much as possible. Bravo.

Moving the goal posts???? What I said was accurate no matter how you try to hijack the point. You can't prove me wrong so you change the debate... this is how people who cannot defend their positions try to act superior but in your case it failed.

No, it was my point the whole time: McConnell is to blame for the lack of appointments, not Obama.

You act as if Obama was the only President that did not get nominations confirmed. All Presidents have the identical problem, Obama just elected for some reason to let the Republicans choose the Judges.

Cool, you didn't read the articles attached to the fact check that point out that Obama faced far more resistance in his last two years than any prior president. Well done.

Do you realize that Trump got more Judges confirmed per year than Obama? That is shameful but then again you find it "ok" because a Republican Senate was being uncooperative.

How can Obama get judges confirmed through a GOP senate that has a stated goal of not approving his appointments? Are you really this unfamiliar with how judges are approved by the Senate in the US?

 

[acbytesla]

First, I am not a Trump Supporter.
Second, I made it perfectly clear that both parties do this.

Third, if there was a discussion about this in 2016 I would have said the same thing.

Fourth, undoing EO's is fine with me.

Fifth, I have never liked any EO as it takes it out of the legislative process.

Sixth, JFK put out an EO that built up our Vietnam presence and I totally disagreed with that one... it unfortunately became our legacy.

And yet I'm skeptical. Do you have any idea how many Trump supporters say they're not but praise everything he does and at the same time attack any action taken by a Democrat?

"No, no, really I'm a liberal."

 

[Aridas]

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.

Evidence was provided for you, so moving on.

You act as if Obama was the only President that did not get nominations confirmed. All Presidents have the identical problem, Obama just elected for some reason to let the Republicans choose the Judges. Do you realize that Trump got more Judges confirmed per year than Obama? That is shameful but then again you find it "ok" because a Republican Senate was being uncooperative.

The sheer WTF here is amazing... to the point where it's honestly hard to believe that you're doing anything other than trolling.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

I did not say it was a state issue. However, your initial statement is still not true:

Originally Posted by No Other
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.

Just because a person "feels" they are female but has the body of a male does not mean they can participate in women's sports. A guy can't just claim he identifies as female and join the girls' track team or wrestling team while still having all the biological advantages of being male.

From Snopes:

Claim

U.S. President Joe Biden’s January executive order commits to combatting discrimination that restricts transgender women athletes in schools from participating in women’s sports.

Rating

Mixture

What's True
The order states, “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.” The order also calls for protection against discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

What's False
However, the order does not explicitly address transgender women in sports. Its main clause could be challenged in numerous states where bills are being pushed that restrict the participation of transgender students in athletics.

Given that the order does not explicitly address the issue of transgender women in sports, but does argue that school sports should not discriminate against students on the basis of their gender identity, we rate this claim a “Mixture.”

 

[acbytesla]

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?

I agree with him somewhat on this. I was angry at the time that Obama attempted to work with Republicans despite the fact they wouldn't work with him. Obama should have nominated more judges.

But No Other isn't telling the whole story. He's ignoring that the GOP blocked more than half of Obama's nominees the last 6 years of his administration including not holding a hearing on SCOTUS nominee Garland for a year. Then they eliminated the filibuster on judges for the entire Trump term.

The double standards of the GOP has been brazen.

 

[Mader Levap]

And in other Biden news: Biden's youtube channel "The White House" now clearly the domain of the newly sworn in President, continues to receive massive thumbs down on every video posted. More dislikes than likes.

Strange that this would be an issue for the most popular US President in history.

Absolute stupidity of this statement is breathtaking.

Protip for ya: internet likes/dislikes, polls etc do not mean jack ****. There is gazilion and one reason for those being completely unrelated to actual popularity of given person.

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?

Only if it is done by Republican.

First, I am not a Trump Supporter.

You know that no one believes that, right? If something walks like duck, quacks like duck...
I also see you later doubled down, lying about being Bernie supporter. Tsk, tsk. Naughty.

Second, I made it perfectly clear that both parties do this.

"Both sides are equally bad reee" is quite popular argument of trump (or republican in general) supporters. After all, they support side that has majority of blame, so it is way to dilute said blame.

In fact, if these two sides really had equal blame, trumpistas would all scream about how much more blame should be on democrats.

Third, if there was a discussion about this in 2016 I would have said the same thing.

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

No one believes you.

 

[No Other]

I agree with him somewhat on this. I was angry at the time that Obama attempted to work with Republicans despite the fact they wouldn't work with him. Obama should have nominated more judges.

But No Other isn't telling the whole story. He's ignoring that the GOP blocked more than half of Obama's nominees the last 6 years of his administration including not holding a hearing on SCOTUS nominee Garland for a year. Then they eliminated the filibuster on judges for the entire Trump term.

The double standards of the GOP has been brazen.

I am not countering that Republicans blocked nominees... that happens. What is being ignored is Obama had a friendly Congress his first two years... and HE did get nominees confirmed. What is irritating is the whining about the Republicans prevented it from happening. Isn't that what the Commander in Chief is elected to do... to make it happen?

I do not know the stats on Trump's nominations and I really don't care how he did... he is out, Biden is in and I hope we don't keep spinning our wheels and go nowhere.

How we got to this situation of blocking nominations is beyond my recollection but it appears to have gained momentum. The Dems are in the exact same position they were in 2008... can they take advantage of it? Probably not because they are too busy keeping Trump in the news and the spotlight on him. What's insane is instead of basking in the sun, the Dems are going down a failed path with the impeachment. Unless some deals are tossed to the Republicans, the Dems will hand the power back to the Republicans... and that will be horrible.

My attempt at highlighting the futility of the first week, has turned to a quagmire on Obama. Obama paid more attention to the Intelligence Community than his fellow Democrats and the Public at large and THAT was a key in his lack of Judges being appointed. Why do you think Bernie Sanders had such a following? I, for one, am a Bernie Supporter yet the Democrat machine behind Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz killed his chances in 2016.

So keep on calling me a "Trump" person (for your own self-gratification of sorts) and deny history and what will occur is the fall in the mid-terms... The calling me "Trump" Supporter has nothing to do with the election but it accentuates a prominent and continuing denial.

Biden's first 100 days are counting down and at least the first 20 days will be focused on the impeachment versus his message and accomplishments. The Republicans will take pot shots at him but I think they will be unsuccessful after the impeachment trial, a lot depends on who controls the message. Right now, the Dems are dominating the narrative, if they can keep it up through the first 100 days their chances are excellent due to momentum and the distance between now and the mid-terms.

 

[Steve]

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.

Posts by you in this forum objecting objecting to Trumps use of executive orders when he issued them are lacking.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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.

You MIGHT be believed when you can pull just one quote from the Trump threads where you just once condemned his use of EOs.

Just one.

The more you find the more you may be believed.

 

[No Other]

Absolute stupidity of this statement is breathtaking.

Protip for ya: internet likes/dislikes, polls etc do not mean jack ****. There is gazilion and one reason for those being completely unrelated to actual popularity of given person.



Only if it is done by Republican.


You know that no one believes that, right? If something walks like duck, quacks like duck...
I also see you later doubled down, lying about being Bernie supporter. Tsk, tsk. Naughty.


"Both sides are equally bad reee" is quite popular argument of trump (or republican in general) supporters. After all, they support side that has majority of blame, so it is way to dilute said blame.

In fact, if these two sides really had equal blame, trumpistas would all scream about how much more blame should be on democrats.



No one believes you.

Do you really think I care what you think of me? You are so meek and mild in your argument that you end it with "No one believes you"... you can't even stand alone and have the guts to stand out without including others in your retort to my post... you need to resort to "mob appeal". You don't know me, so don't pretend you do... you are doing a poor job of guessing and that says it all about you and your inability to think beyond Wikipedia.

Your droning on about "quite popular argument of trump"... is a mantra when someone has nothing to counter. It is posted way too many times. You might as well add... "that has been debunked a number of times". You have already used the "nobody believes you" whine but there are additional sayings out there that will attract others, I am sure you know them by heart. So keep on kidding yourself and lap up the accolades of your like-minded "friends", ignore what is in front of you and you will be surprised with your lack of results.

 

[No Other]

You MIGHT be believed when you can pull just one quote from the Trump threads where you just once condemned his use of EOs.

Just one.

The more you find the more you may be believed.

I dislike ALL of his EO's... plain and simple. No need to delineate... pick any of them.

Again, your belief in me or anyone else's is not my goal or desire.

 

[No Other]

Posts by you in this forum objecting objecting to Trumps use of executive orders when he issued them are lacking.

I can't say this enough... Every EO that Trump did... I disagree with and dislike them.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I dislike ALL of his EO's... plain and simple. No need to delineate... pick any of them.

Again, your belief in me or anyone else's is not my goal or desire.

The point is you are here decrying Biden's use in his first 8 days.

Not once did you do it during Trumps 4 years.

You are being dishonest.

Again.

 

[kookbreaker]

Easy enough to pretend you have that opinion now. But I believe TGF and Steve were asking for evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

I am not countering that Republicans blocked nominees... that happens. What is being ignored is Obama had a friendly Congress his first two years... and HE did get nominees confirmed. What is irritating is the whining about the Republicans prevented it from happening. Isn't that what the Commander in Chief is elected to do... to make it happen?

It's a lot more complex than that. But I don't disagree with you on this. My issue has always been the brazen stonewalling, double standards, unqualified judges in the Trump era. Not to mention the hypocrisy. Now a lot of this was McConnell and the GOP Senate and less Trump.

I agreed with that. Obama should have forced through more judges his first two years. In fact there are a lot of things Obama should have done during that period.

How we got to this situation of blocking nominations is beyond my recollection but it appears to have gained momentum. The Dems are in the exact same position they were in 2008... can they take advantage of it? Probably not because they are too busy keeping Trump in the news and the spotlight on him. What's insane is instead of basking in the sun, the Dems are going down a failed path with the impeachment. Unless some deals are tossed to the Republicans, the Dems will hand the power back to the Republicans... and that will be horrible.

My attempt at highlighting the futility of the first week, has turned to a quagmire on Obama. Obama paid more attention to the Intelligence Community than his fellow Democrats and the Public at large and THAT was a key in his lack of Judges being appointed. Why do you think Bernie Sanders had such a following? I, for one, am a Bernie Supporter yet the Democrat machine behind Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz killed his chances in 2016.

So keep on calling me a "Trump" person (for your own self-gratification of sorts) and deny history and what will occur is the fall in the mid-terms... The calling me "Trump" Supporter has nothing to do with the election but it accentuates a prominent and continuing denial.

Biden's first 100 days are counting down and at least the first 20 days will be focused on the impeachment versus his message and accomplishments. The Republicans will take pot shots at him but I think they will be unsuccessful after the impeachment trial, a lot depends on who controls the message. Right now, the Dems are dominating the narrative, if they can keep it up through the first 100 days their chances are excellent due to momentum and the distance between now and the mid-terms.

So much BS. You pretend that the Senate cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. The business of the Senate can go forward while still addressing the big turd Trump left by inciting an insurrection. Failing to address the attack on democracy would be a disaster as it would just lay the ground for future attacks.

 

[Steve]

I can't say this enough... Every EO that Trump did... I disagree with and dislike them.

And yet the only executive orders you are on prior record here disagreeing with are Biden's.

 

[Segnosaur]

I am not countering that Republicans blocked nominees... that happens. What is being ignored is Obama had a friendly Congress his first two years... and HE did get nominees confirmed. What is irritating is the whining about the Republicans prevented it from happening. Isn't that what the Commander in Chief is elected to do... to make it happen?

The president is expected to make judicial nominations, in the best interest of the country. Senators are expected to evaluate those nominations, again in the best interest of the country.

Obama was keeping up his side of the equation. The republicans, under Moscow Mitch, were not. They were acting in their own best interests.

Really not sure what you think Obama should have done. Do you think he has some sort of telepathic ability to force republicans to actually do their job? Some sort of mind control ray?

How we got to this situation of blocking nominations is beyond my recollection...

Its already been explained to you. Multiple times. So you have no excuse now for not understanding why Obama had limited opportunities to get Judges placed.

but it appears to have gained momentum. The Dems are in the exact same position they were in 2008...

NO, they are not in the exact same position. Thanks to Stubby McBonespurs and Moscow Mitch, there are fewer judicial vacancies.

Can't place a judge on the bench if the courts are already full.

can they take advantage of it? Probably not because they are too busy keeping Trump in the news and the spotlight on him.

In case you didn't realize it, unlike Stubby McBonespurs, Democrats are able to do more than 1 thing concurrently.

My attempt at highlighting the futility of the first week, has turned to a quagmire on Obama. Obama paid more attention to the Intelligence Community than his fellow Democrats and the Public at large

Not sure what exactly you are referring to.

and THAT was a key in his lack of Judges being appointed.

Nope it wasn't. Not at all. Played absolutely no role in his lack of ability to appoint judges. Its all on Moscow Mitch.

How many more times does that have to be explained to you?

Why do you think Bernie Sanders had such a following?

People seeking simple answers to complex questions?

I, for one, am a Bernie Supporter yet the Democrat machine behind Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz killed his chances in 2016.

Again, not really. Sanders supporters like to make up all sorts of excuses, but the simple fact is, when you spend your time running as the 'outsider', you can't always expect the 'insiders' to flock behind you.