The Biden-Harris Administration

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,783
We
It was a serious question. I don't expect an answer, but it would be nice to know if one of his policies had an unintended effect.
Well, the TPS for Haiti was just extended for 18 months by Secretary Mayorkas. However, since that edict only applies to Haitians already in the US, I don't see how that affects new immigrants at all.

 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923
Everyone in the whole world knows all democrats now support giving all undocumented people citizenship, asylum for anything, and no longer believe in treating undocumented people differently than legal immigrants! Democrats do believe in asylum for bad economies. The whole world knows that now. They also know democrats have reinstated what is best described as catch and release. Democrats and all pro legalization people seriously do not seem to understand legalization of all undocumented and expansion of asylum to cover anything becomes a pull factor! There is nothing that democrats and Biden are doing that doesn’t “pull”

We
Well, the TPS for Haiti was just extended for 18 months by Secretary Mayorkas. However, since that edict only applies to Haitians already in the US, I don't see how that affects new immigrants at all.


But once they arrive it’s not like democrats won’t treat them well and try to make them legal and eventually citizens
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
44,499

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923
Strange decision. Wonder why they are doing this. Maybe there are just too many at the moment. They want to pass their legalization of all dreamers, undocumented essential workers, and expand TPS and feel all these hurt that? Surely it’s only temporary. All the people still know democrats plans.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,783
🤷 There is a reason that Obama was called the Deporter in Chief, and it wasn't because Democrats are for unlimited immigration.


It cost us a lot of lawyer money to keep the ICE in the Obama era from deporting the spouse of a family member (who fortunately is now a citizen).
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923
Obama gave undocumented people permission to live legally. That was a pull factor. It was totally phony and for show. Obama policy like now Biden policy is all about giving undocumented people legal status. So people flock to America because they believe rightly that no matter how they arrive democrats will treat them well. The only problem is escaping the border patrol for a safe amount of time. Because if you get a job or enroll your kid or kids in a school no democrat in America will support deporting you.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923
It’s just so weird these totally arbitrary “legalize all these undocumented” or “expand tps for all the people from country y” but deporting all these Haitians! I mean what is the philosophy behind such things? Doesn’t seem to be one. That it’s all political. Biden needs ro deport these Haitians so that legalizing all the undocumented dreamers and essential worker undocumented isn’t a part of an “open borders” philosophy
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923
Biden administration is encouraging parents to send their kids into America alone now rather than be with them.

Unaccompanied children and some families will be allowed to stay in the U.S. and given dates for asylum hearings,

 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,338

Homeland security officials will investigate after images show agents on horseback grabbing migrants, Mayorkas says​


If this is anything other than fake photography on social media, I feel strongly that some people need to be fired. I felt strongly that the administration needed to clean house from the very beginning with immigration control, and this sure as _____ looks like it hasn't been done yet.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,102
Veterans who were discharged from the military under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy may be eligible for full benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs under new guidance issued on Monday.

The announcement comes on the 10th anniversary of the policy’s repeal by President Barack Obama.
It might have come sooner, but well done, the Biden Administration! (y)
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,204
Jamelle Bouie has a very good column today. Its not the left that's causing Biden problems. (NY Times)

The shorter version is Biden crafted a deal and process that gives both moderates and progressives much of what they want, if they go along with the others. Progressives have. Moderates are upending Biden's strategy.

In the House last week, a group of moderate Democrats successfully opposed a measure that would allow direct government negotiation of drug prices and help pay for the bill. One of the most popular items in the entire Democratic agenda — and a key campaign promise in the 2018 and 2020 elections — federal prescription drug negotiation was supposed to be a slam dunk. But the moderates say it would hurt innovation from drug makers. Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has likewise announced her opposition to direct government negotiation of the price of prescription drugs.

Is it because they are doing the deeds demanded by their big donors? Or is it because they kneel in fealty at the alter of "bipartisanship?"

It doesn't matter. The moderates have dug themselves into a hole that likely the Democrats as a whole can't get out of.

Voters don't care about process. Voters will be turned off if Democrats don't get anything done. So we're on track to not pickup seats in 2022, and possibly lose the slim control Democrats have. Granted Dems needed to win stronger majorities in 2020 to get things done because moderates will be moderates I guess. But they ought to have been able to build on the slim successes of 2020, and Biden is still going all out to make that happen. But I don't see it. I think the moderates are enthralled with their own image of themselves as the saviors of an imagined bipartisan governance.

Jamelle Bouie has some comments on that:

The most charitable explanation is that they believe that their constituents value displays of bipartisanship more than any new law or benefit. A less charitable explanation is that they see bipartisanship as a way to clip the wings of Democratic Party ambition and save themselves from taking votes that might put them in conflict with either voters or donors.

What is true of both explanations is that they show the extent to which moderate Democrats have made a fetish of bipartisan displays and anti-partisan feeling. And in doing so, they reveal that they are most assuredly not the adults in the room of American politics.

There is nothing serious about an obsession with the most superficial aspects of process over actual policy and nothing savvy about leaving real problems unaddressed in order to score points with some imagined referee.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,336
It is all so frustrating and maddening. 😢😡

Unfortunately, I think our only hope now in 2022 will be to go negative and try to scare voters by showing how extreme Republicans have become. This approach might be helped along by the upcoming SC abortion case.

But my own enthusiasm is seriously lagging & I know many others feel the same.

And I won’t lift one finger or spend one cent or make one call to help “moderates” get elected again.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,204
I think abortion can be an issue that drives some Democrats to the polls.

I'm not very sanguine about generally negative tie Republicans to extremism messages. It just doesn't seem to work. People resolutely go on thinking that there are two reasonable parties and they don't get that voting for someone with Republican after their name enables the extremists. After Trump and *********, if they don't get it, I just don't see how they are going to.

As for "moderates" there is nothing moderate about blocking serious action on climate change for the sake of "moderation" or "bipartisanship." There is nothing moderate about blocking for the umpteenth time any resolution of the situation for undocumented immigrants (no matter what the Senate parliamentarian says). There is nothing moderate about blocking tax reform that shifts some of the burden for society onto the wealthiest and at the same time torpedoing common sense programs that benefit all Americans like support for child care.

These people are not moderates, they are the extremists. But in US politics with the underlying belief system that favors plutocracy, they have the upper hand. Too many people, even when they vote for Democrats, buy into the shibboleths about limiting government programs and keeping taxes on high incomes down because having wealth is the sign of having done something for society and is earned, whereas not having wealth means you have made lesser efforts and you should just keep pulling yourself up and if you can't its only your own actions that left you that way.
 
Last edited:

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,336
As for "moderates" there is nothing moderate about blocking serious action on climate change for the sake of "moderation" or "bipartisanship." There is nothing moderate about blocking for the umpteenth time any resolution of the situation for undocumented immigrants (no matter what the Senate parliamentarian says). There is nothing moderate about blocking tax reform that shifts some of the burden for society onto the wealthiest and at the same time torpedoing common sense programs that benefit all Americans like support for child care.

Agree, and this is why I call them "moderates" in quotes. I don't see Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema as moderates any more. Not when they are resisting pretty basic Democratic policies such as lower prescription drug prices (via Medicare negotiations) and the desire to provide greater universal preschool or daycare opportunities for young kids.

I view Manchin, Sinema, and their ilk as conservatives. Both of them have strong ties to corporate business interests and/or are actively benefiting from them (in Manchin's case). They're essentially defenders of the plutocracy. Just like Republicans.


These people are not moderates, they are the extremists. But in US politics with the underlying belief system that favors plutocracy, they have the upper hand. Too many people, even when they vote for Democrats, buy into the shibboleths about limiting government programs and keeping taxes down because having wealth is the sign of having done something for society and is earned, whereas not having wealth means you have made lesser efforts and you should just keep pulling yourself up and if you can't its only your own actions that left you that way.

This is such an enormous issue in our politics. I don't see Manchin/Sinema being invested in bipartisanship so much as feeling the need to endorse, in various ways, this societal belief construct. They feel the need to constantly signal that, even though they're Democrats, they don't really support social programs, and that what they really support is helping business.

I'm not sure that negativity as a campaign approach can't work for Democrats. It appears to have worked in California for Newsom. The trouble is that Democrats usually aren't disciplined enough about their messaging. They may say some negative things about Republicans, but then they switch the focus back toward ideals and promises of what they'll do if elected (none of which is now happening). I think maybe we just need to be more focused and consistent in the messaging. And although nobody likes the idea of negative campaigning, the fact is, it would basically be a public service to the country to really pound home how insane, undemocratic, and extreme the Republican party now is.
 
Last edited:

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,204
I'm not sure that negativity as a campaign approach can't work for Democrats. It appears to have worked in California for Newsom. The trouble is that Democrats usually aren't disciplined enough about their messaging. They may say some negative things about Republicans, but then they switch the focus back toward ideals and promises of what they'll do if elected (none of which is now happening). I think maybe we just need to be more focused and consistent in the messaging. And although nobody likes the idea of negative campaigning, the fact is, it would basically be a public service to the country to really pound home how insane, undemocratic, and extreme the Republican party now is.

Democrats can be disciplined in messaging. We saw them accomplish this with the health care focus in 2018.

I think they absolutely have to talk constantly about the Republican Party being fully captured by extremism. I have to admit being really dismayed by the poll in the VA governor's race that showed Dem McAuliffe only ahead by a few points. The Republican is the essence of a slimy politician--he makes McAuliffe look palatable--he started off pandering to Trumpists with talk about "election integrity" to win the Republican nomination and then switched gears and is trying to hide that, yet people just see "oh he's new, let's try a new guy" with no understanding of his having totally played ball with the extremists to get the nomination. McAuliffe is doing all he can to tie the guy (I have a mental block on his name) to Trump and I think McAuliffe will pull it out but its enough to make one gnash one's teeth to the nubs that people aren't better informed.

And I do think the underlying problem is that people in the US see social democracy (essentially New Deal policies in the US) as something foreign and traditional pro-business, anti-social program conservatism as American, even if they vote Dem.

This is what has to change, and if we need to throw up some reckless candidates like Beto O'Rourke to try to break through, I think that's what we need to do. Tip-toeing has not worked.
 

ЭPiKUilyam

Banned Member
Messages
1,333

It might have come sooner, but well done, the Biden Administration! (y)
I was just about to post this! AFAIC, this is ten years overdue. An ex of mine spent thousands, maybe over a 100K at the time, to avoid a dishonorable discharge for being gay. Another friend was d/c'd during DADT and did get a dishonorable d/c. I didn't really contemplate or understand how bad having a DD was for your future. Job applications, license applications, everything. I'm glad the VA is finally correcting this injustice. Thank you, Democratic Party!
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,783
I am so glad to see this!

While many things are still screwed up, some things are getting better.

When I am impatient with the Biden administration, I think how many horrible things Trump would have done with four more years, and try to be patient.

I don't always make it though...
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,204
What are the Republicans up to with regard to the debt ceiling? Do they really think they will get a political benefit if they force Dems to raise it with only Dem votes? That seems bizarre to me, as no one outside Washington has a clue about this necessary function.

Or maybe they will actually push us over the cliff of not raising it because they figure the havoc that would cause would all be blamed on Biden?

Or are they just addicted to game playing?


The United States could plunge into an immediate recession if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling and the U.S. defaults on its payment obligations this fall, according to one analysis set to be released Tuesday.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, found that a prolonged impasse over the debt ceiling would cost the U.S. economy up to 6 million jobs, wipe out as much as $15 trillion in household wealth, and send the unemployment rate surging to roughly 9 percent from around 5 percent.

Lawmakers in both parties agree that the debt ceiling must be raised to avoid economic calamity, but their standoff over how to do so has intensified. Despite increasing the national debt by close to $8 trillion under President Donald Trump, Republicans have been adamant that they will refuse to help Democrats increase the debt ceiling in opposition to President Biden’s spending plans. The Department of Treasury has said it will exhaust its “extraordinary measures” to pay the U.S. obligations sometime in October, giving lawmakers little time to act to head off calamity.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923
Why don’t they all be adults and abolish the debt ceiling. If something exists to be raised why does it exist at all? Or how about a 500 quintillion dollar debt ceiling. Would that be good?

Of course no time ever in the whole history of the debt ceiling has it ever ever happened that someone in DC was like “we can’t pass this spending! We Weill break the debt ceiling!!!” Not once ever has that happened
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923

Homeland security officials will investigate after images show agents on horseback grabbing migrants, Mayorkas says​


If this is anything other than fake photography on social media, I feel strongly that some people need to be fired. I felt strongly that the administration needed to clean house from the very beginning with immigration control, and this sure as _____ looks like it hasn't been done yet.
So they are going to abolish using reins with horse riding? Lol or abolish using horses when sometimes terrain Is best with horses? Dumb dumb dumb
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,783

Trump dropped the immigration cap to 15,000 per year. The current administration just raised it to 125,000.

CBS News reports a notification sent to Congress said the administration “plans to distribute 40,000 refugee spots for Africa, 35,000 for the Near East and South Asia, 15,000 for East Asia, 15,000 for Latin America and the Caribbean, 10,000 for Europe and Central Asia and 10,000 unallocated spots

We have to work to make sure all those slots are filled, since allocating them does not actually move people here

The Afghans recently evacuated do not count against this allocation btw.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,204
This is pretty cool:

The horrible treatment of these innocent Haitian people—who have come to the border fleeing violence and natural disaster—must stop immediately. The Admin must stop these expulsions and end this Title 42 policy at our southern border.

Who said it? Chuck Schumer.

So much for the Dems not criticizing Biden for things they would have criticized Trump for.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923
So he seems ready to give every single person who crosses the border and wants asylum what they want. Excellent policy! Not open borders at all lol
 

Judy

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,388

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923
For the longest time all Republican leaders agreed to be pro life but never actually do anything on abortion because pro choice was majority! Reagan and bush 1 never passed any actual abortion restrictions ever. Bush 2 never restricted any abortions but so called “partial birth abortion” bans gathered too much momentum. But the point is all DC establishment republicans agreed that they would be “pro life” but never restrict access to abortion. And this is why! America is pro choice
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,880
They said on the German news today that the EU has asked Biden to explain himself about the submarine deal. I had only be aware that France wasn't amused but read up on it now. I think it's between France, Australia and the US and none of the EU's business anyway but that aside, why is France upset with the US? From the bits and pieces I'd seen and heard, I was under the impression that the US took something away from France and gave it to Australia instead. However, the NPR article I read says that Australia raised the issue that they had with the French submarines with France and that they pulled out of the deal. So what is France's problem? Was the US supposed to not accept the deal so that France's feelings wouldn't get hurt?

It was the FBI's responsibilty, not Dept of Justice, to fire their own FBI agent and they just did it recently after a Dept of Justice investigation and review.
The FBI agents should have been fired years ago before Garland's time. That doesn't mean that he can't do something now since the FBI is part of DOJ and he's basically the FBI director's boss.

But, Barbara McQuade speculated when it came to the weird Durham announcement, Garland could be so determined not to look political that he'll stay out of things that he should pursue and that is the impression I have of him. Kind of like the MSM; they're so determined not to look like they're taking sides that their reporting can become imbalanced.

So they are going to abolish using reins with horse riding? Lol or abolish using horses when sometimes terrain Is best with horses? Dumb dumb dumb
Pretty sure you can ride a horse without using the reins as a whip.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,923
They said on the German news today that the EU has asked Biden to explain himself about the submarine deal. I had only be aware that France wasn't amused but read up on it now. I think it's between France, Australia and the US and none of the EU's business anyway but that aside, why is France upset with the US? From the bits and pieces I'd seen and heard, I was under the impression that the US took something away from France and gave it to Australia instead. However, the NPR article I read says that Australia raised the issue that they had with the French submarines with France and that they pulled out of the deal. So what is France's problem? Was the US supposed to not accept the deal so that France's feelings wouldn't get hurt?


The FBI agents should have been fired years ago before Garland's time. That doesn't mean that he can't do something now since the FBI is part of DOJ and he's basically the FBI director's boss.

But, Barbara McQuade speculated when it came to the weird Durham announcement, Garland could be so determined not to look political that he'll stay out of things that he should pursue and that is the impression I have of him. Kind of like the MSM; they're so determined not to look like they're taking sides that their reporting can become imbalanced.


Pretty sure you can ride a horse without using the reins as a whip.
There was no use of reins as whips
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Top
    Do Not Sell My Personal Information