The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Which US law is that?

Assume if there is no citing of source analysis or quote, it's the twitter or tiktok law.

[GrantDawg]

They are attacking ships that have no weapons or have anything to do with Israel.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Flasch186]

I’m noticing a trend


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Reminder that Israel went into international waters in 2010 and murdered 9 people on humanitarian ships, including an American citizen. Biden publicly supported those actions at the time.

Food for thought if you really think this is about "shipping freedom".

https://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/amer...ry?id=10814848

Except this is not what the Houthi rebels are doing at all, and has no bearing in this.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Nice, ahead of schedule. Now the fun begins with the unruly kids.

Nvm.

Jan 19 is the day. Hopefully they can work out some sort of deal over this long weekend.

Congress is staring down yet another government shutdown deadline, and a deal is looking further and further out of reach.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday it’s “crystal clear” that Congress won’t be able to pass the regular spending bills by the Jan. 19 deadline, and he announced that senators will instead vote next week on a short-term funding measure to avoid a government shutdown (The Hill).
:
The procedural move would buy congressional leaders some time to hammer out a deal, a task that’s looking increasingly complicated as hard-line House conservatives balk at the proposed spending numbers. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was among four bipartisan congressional leaders who endorsed an agreement Sunday establishing the top-line numbers dictating the funding for federal agencies through the remainder of fiscal 2024, which ends on Oct. 1. The White House is also on board.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Foreign Assistance Act

Quick googling suggests that there's been several laws with that name. Can you give a specific one?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

U.S. law forbids the sale of weapons and providing military aid to Israel.

The U.S. has been providing military equipment and other aid to Israel since 1950. Has it been violating this law that entire time?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The U.S. has been providing military equipment and other aid to Israel since 1950. Has it been violating this law that entire time?

No, just since 1976. Countries with nuclear weapons must conform to IAEA regulations and have regular inspections.

Symington Amendment - Wikipedia

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Except this is not what the Houthi rebels are doing at all, and has no bearing in this.

Correct, they did not kill innocent civilians and an American in international waters.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Correct, they did not kill innocent civilians and an American in international waters.

Houithi's did launch attacks on American service men, which the United States will never allow without retaliation.

[GrantDawg]

And straight up, any President that wouldn't retaliate against a terrorist attack on our service members should be impeached.

[bronconick]

The US Navy beating on pirates and slavers like the Houthis is a 200+ year old tradition. I'm not losing any sleep.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bronconick

The US Navy beating on pirates and slavers like the Houthis is a 200+ year old tradition. I'm not losing any sleep.

Let me know when they get around to the Saudis.

[bronconick]

Probably when the oil runs out and the Saudis switch from financial piracy to the real version.

[JPhillips]

Hard to argue both that Biden can do whatever he wants regarding domestic policy but is dictatorial when he adheres to the War Powers Act.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Probably when the oil runs out and the Saudis switch from financial piracy to the real version.

Where does flying commercial jet liners through buildings fall?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Hard to argue both that Biden can do whatever he wants regarding domestic policy but is dictatorial when he adheres to the War Powers Act.

I think that's the point. When it comes to Ukraine's unwinnable war or getting more weapons for the Gaza genocide, he is willing to skirt the law, find loopholes, and give major concessions. When it comes to student loans, homelessness, school lunches, reproductive rights, and so on, it's a shrug of the shoulders.

He has made it clear what his priorities are and what areas he's willing to be aggressive.

[flere-imsaho]

The Executive has long had considerably more leeway over foreign affairs than domestic ones, both through the nature of the laws that bind (or don't) and the interest (or lack thereof) of Congress.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think that's the point. When it comes to Ukraine's unwinnable war or getting more weapons for the Gaza genocide, he is willing to skirt the law, find loopholes, and give major concessions. When it comes to student loans, homelessness, school lunches, reproductive rights, and so on, it's a shrug of the shoulders.

He has made it clear what his priorities are and what areas he's willing to be aggressive.

I mean, if you ignore the nearly 1.5 billion in student debt he's forgiven, the free school lunch program states can opt into for districts that qualify, the recently announced program that provides money for food during the summer for families of kids that qualify for free lunches, and so on.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I mean, if you ignore the nearly 1.5 billion in student debt he's forgiven

I think you forgot some zeros.

From Dec 6, 2023.

Biden-Harris Administration Announces Nearly $5 Billion in Additional Student Debt Relief | U.S. Department of Education

“Before President Biden took office, it was virtually impossible for eligible borrowers to access the student debt relief they rightfully earned,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. “The data released today once again make clear that the Biden-Harris Administration’s relentless efforts to fix the broken student loan system are paying off in a big way, with more than 3.6 million borrowers now approved for nearly $132 billion in loan forgiveness. This level of debt relief is unparalleled and we have no intention of slowing down.”

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think you forgot some zeros.

From Dec 6, 2023.

Biden-Harris Administration Announces Nearly $5 Billion in Additional Student Debt Relief | U.S. Department of Education

I did, I meant nearly 150 billion. Thank you for the correction.

That's about 10% of all student debt that was out there despite the supreme court ruling.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I mean, if you ignore the nearly 1.5 billion in student debt he's forgiven, the free school lunch program states can opt into for districts that qualify, the recently announced program that provides money for food during the summer for families of kids that qualify for free lunches, and so on.

The school lunch program you're touting is actually worse than the previous one. It was literally free at the end of Trump's term. Insane that you would use that as a positive for him.

Remember when everyone was getting $10,000 or $20,000 during the campaign? That new plan forgives debts of less than $12,000 only after you've paid in for 10+ years with interest.

And lets not forget that Biden is arguably the person most responsible for the student debt crisis. None of this shit would be necessary if it wasn't for him. Like setting a house on fire and leaving a bucket of water behind.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I did, I meant nearly 150 billion. Thank you for the correction.

That's about 10% of all student debt that was out there despite the supreme court ruling.

This is incredibly misleading. PSLF already existed. The government was just really shitty about following through and made people jump through tons of hoops to get it (and not tracking the years properly). Props to Joe for simplifying the process, but to count this as money he personally forgave is wrong. He's just forgiving loans that were supposed to be forgiven under a Bush era law.

The rest is for people who have been paying over 20 years. That's really good but it's also a lot of loans that were never being fully repaid anyway. The government already got its pound of flesh off them. Still better than nothing I guess.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The school lunch program you're touting is actually worse than the previous one. It was literally free at the end of Trump's term. Insane that you would use that as a positive for him.

Remember when everyone was getting $10,000 or $20,000 during the campaign? That new plan forgives debts of less than $12,000 only after you've paid in for 10+ years with interest.

And lets not forget that Biden is arguably the person most responsible for the student debt crisis. None of this shit would be necessary if it wasn't for him. Like setting a house on fire and leaving a bucket of water behind.

Free at the end of Trump's term because it was included as part of the pandemic relief. Not out of any goodwill by Trump or other republicans. They're the ones forcing students to pay for lunches because they don't want to put kids on the entitlement path from an early age. Extension of the free school lunch plan would have required an act of congress, which wasn't happening. I know you think Biden can force Sinema, Manchin, etc to vote for things but it isn't the way it actually works.

You hate Biden and refuse to give his administration credit for anything, I think that's clear to everyone in the thread by now. The fact that you keep trying to boost Trump to tear Biden down shows the weaknesses in your arguments though. Every time you try to claim he's done nothing, the things his administration has accomplished have been pointed out to you and you move the goal posts in dig in on another position.

[RainMaker]

It's not propping up Trump. Just pointing out how quickly Democrats have become OK with his policies now that a Democrat is in office. Same for how all the anti-war libs under Bush morphed into neocons the minute he left office.

[RainMaker]

And yeah, I don't like Biden. He has had a remarkably bad record over his career. Wrong on nearly every single foreign policy issue of the past few decades. Some of the most disastrous bills to come out of Congress were spearheaded by him.

Most of you would hate these policies if it was being done by a politician with an R next to their name.

[JPhillips]

A majority of GOP governors are refusing to take free money from the feds to feed needy kids over the summer. The problem is not primarily with Dems.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And yeah, I don't like Biden. He has had a remarkably bad record over his career. Wrong on nearly every single foreign policy issue of the past few decades. Some of the most disastrous bills to come out of Congress were spearheaded by him.

Most of you would hate these policies if it was being done by a politician with an R next to their name.

Nope. I think most of us here are not blindly following any ideology. I have no problem agreeing with someone with a "R" beside their name the once in the blue moon they are right on something. Being anti anything just because of the party member that suggests it is stupid. Further, I think most here recognizes that most change come incrementally. "My way or the Highway" "All or nothing" politics gets you no where in a system made for compromise. I do think the system is nearly broken at this point, but I do not think the fix will be to allow dictatorial level control of either party. The best change would weaken the party system all together and make politicians more accountable directly to the people they represent, and not the party and the major donors.
All that said, Biden is not king or God. He is not infallible, and he has definitely made mistakes. But he has done some good things, tried and failed to more and I would rather have him than Trump 100%

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A majority of GOP governors are refusing to take free money from the feds to feed needy kids over the summer. The problem is not primarily with Dems.

It is amazing that people don't see that Republicans will happily take Federal money if it goes directly into corporation pockets, but anything that might help the poor they will do anything to block.

[miked]

Right, GA took a ton of federal money to pay for things, then touted how great they were that they had a surplus and gave everyone $300.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Nope. I think most of us here are not blindly following any ideology. I have no problem agreeing with someone with a "R" beside their name the once in the blue moon they are right on something. Being anti anything just because of the party member that suggests it is stupid. Further, I think most here recognizes that most change come incrementally. "My way or the Highway" "All or nothing" politics gets you no where in a system made for compromise. I do think the system is nearly broken at this point, but I do not think the fix will be to allow dictatorial level control of either party. The best change would weaken the party system all together and make politicians more accountable directly to the people they represent, and not the party and the major donors.
All that said, Biden is not king or God. He is not infallible, and he has definitely made mistakes. But he has done some good things, tried and failed to more and I would rather have him than Trump 100%

This..

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Nope. I think most of us here are not blindly following any ideology. I have no problem agreeing with someone with a "R" beside their name the once in the blue moon they are right on something. Being anti anything just because of the party member that suggests it is stupid. Further, I think most here recognizes that most change come incrementally. "My way or the Highway" "All or nothing" politics gets you no where in a system made for compromise. I do think the system is nearly broken at this point, but I do not think the fix will be to allow dictatorial level control of either party. The best change would weaken the party system all together and make politicians more accountable directly to the people they represent, and not the party and the major donors.
All that said, Biden is not king or God. He is not infallible, and he has definitely made mistakes. But he has done some good things, tried and failed to more and I would rather have him than Trump 100%

This as well, hard to see why anyone would risk the alternative by holding a singularly narrow perspective.

[JPhillips]

I would have preferred if Biden didn't run, but that's not the way things went. Now that the choice is Biden or Trump, I have every reason to vote Biden.

[flere-imsaho]

"Coach, we can start Mac Jones or Bailey Zappe at QB tomorrow."

"I reject your false choices, we're going to start Tom Brady."

"Coach, Tom Brady a) doesn't play for us anymore and b) is retired."

"Well, that's not my fault, is it? Anyway, things won't get better for us until we have Tom Brady starting for us."

[Atocep]

I stated several days ago in this thread that Biden isn't my first choice and probably wouldn't be my 10th choice as a dem. However, I'm also not going to ignore the good things he's done and the challenges he's faced. The guy is a lifelong moderate that ran as a moderate and bi-partisan option opposite Trump and he's governed considerably to the left of where's traditionally been on most issues.

This thread, and the Israel/Palestine one, have been MBBF'd to the point that there isn't any nuance. We've seen that when that happens in threads both sides come off as uncompromising and as blind followers. So if people come off as blindly loyal to their party or whatever, that's likely why.

Trump was probably the biggest setback to the progressive movement since it really picked up with Bernie's jump into the mainstream, but rather than see and understand that as the problem progressives still see other dems as the enemy. I'm a borderline socialist and largely agree with progressive policies, but I also understand you take your wins where you can get them to build toward something bigger. All or nothing doesn't do anything but turn people away from your movement and the progressive movement isn't big enough on its own. It needs help from both Dems and Independents, but most seem like they'd rather walk away from that help because their beliefs don't line up perfectly. How do you expect to be anything other than persistently pissed off with that approach?

3+ years ago Biden ran a moderate campaign against Trump and got 81+ million votes that were more about keeping Trump out of office than a testament to Biden. We now sit less than a year away from the possibility of Trump returning to office because people are disappointed that Biden has mostly been a generic Dem President, which is what people seemed to be more than ok with when he was elected. It makes absolutely zero sense to me.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm sympathetic with progressives on the idea that mainstream Democrats are the (or part of the) problem, indeed I've cast aspersions for decades here on the idiots empowered by the Clinton administration and how they mismanaged the party for ages.

But the idea that if only Bernie & Co were to replace the Democratic Party that everything would be better is the most naive hokum I hear. Sure, if you want this new party to be a permanent minority while Republicans do everything they want, sure, but I'm pretty sure no one really wants that.

America's electoral system is FPTP and two-party. That's reality. Work within that to affect change.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

"Coach, we can start Mac Jones or Bailey Zappe at QB tomorrow."

Is Bailey Zappe actively committing genocide? Is he getting us involved in another regional war that will cost trillions and countless innocent lives?

This isn't refusing to raise the minimum wage $0.50 or giving a bailout to some banker who donated to your campaign. It's replaying one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in this country's history. This isn't a "moderate" decision, it's being a neocon. The fact that W Bush and Romney's image have been restored among liberals, despite those two being far more destructive to America than Trump, is telling.

If we're doing goofy comparisons, this is more like voting for Goebbels or Hitler. Yeah, I'm sure one is worse. I don't have to participate in that though. Don't have anything against people who vote the lesser evil though. Do what you gotta do.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm sympathetic with progressives on the idea that mainstream Democrats are the (or part of the) problem, indeed I've cast aspersions for decades here on the idiots empowered by the Clinton administration and how they mismanaged the party for ages.

But the idea that if only Bernie & Co were to replace the Democratic Party that everything would be better is the most naive hokum I hear. Sure, if you want this new party to be a permanent minority while Republicans do everything they want, sure, but I'm pretty sure no one really wants that.

America's electoral system is FPTP and two-party. That's reality. Work within that to affect change.

Being opposed to genocide isn't some progressive issue. It should be an issue for anyone with basic human empathy for others. Defining this as some ask from the far-left is ludicrous considering most Dems were screaming about Bush's endless wars and Trump's vapid racism against Muslims.

Regardless, if you are a true Biden supporter who wants him to win, you should be furious that he is signing this suicide pact with Israel, a country that wants him to lose the election. He is setting himself up to lose next year because of all of this.

[JPhillips]

It's a bad issue for Dems because they absolutely can't lose the Jewish vote. I don't see how there's an obvious political answer.

[RainMaker]

Do you really want voters who are advocating genocide on your side?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you really want voters who are advocating genocide on your side?

Nope. I don't want the Palestinian supporters that have been calling for a Jewish genocide for decades, any more than I advocate for the Houthis supporters whose flag literally says "death to the United States, Death To Israel, Curse All Jews". Nor do I want the Jewish supporters that want to kill all Palestinians and don't recognize a need for a Palestinian state.

I'm not for any extremist that calls for the death of all of any race, creed, religion or national origin. Since you support the Houthi, you cannot say the same thing. Heck, the Houthis are for the genocide of Muslims that are not of their beliefs. Your supposed moral high ground doesn't exist.

[RainMaker]

Do you think maybe they hate America because we've been indiscriminately bombing them for decades? Or that now we've gone full neocon, are we pretending they "hate our freedoms" again?

Regardless, the only genocide taking place is being done by Israel. It is being done with our weapons, guidance, and tax dollars. Your hypothetical genocides are not happening and those groups do not have the capabilities to do it. A bunch of whataboutism doesn't change your support for genocide.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm not for any extremist that calls for the death of all of any race, creed, religion or national origin.

This is not true. I haven't heard you say a single negative thing about Israel committing genocide.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Since you support the Houthi, you cannot say the same thing. Heck, the Houthis are for the genocide of Muslims that are not of their beliefs. Your supposed moral high ground doesn't exist.

I don't support the Houthis. They're a group in a tiny country that is 10,000 miles away from me. I would prefer our focus be on this country and not theirs (or Saudi Arabia/Israel). But I would be vehemently opposed with our tax dollars being given to them to commit genocide

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you think maybe they hate America because we've been indiscriminately bombing them for decades? Or that now we've gone full neocon, are we pretending they "hate our freedoms" again?

Regardless, the only genocide taking place is being done by Israel. It is being done with our weapons, guidance, and tax dollars. Your hypothetical genocides are not happening and those groups do not have the capabilities to do it. A bunch of whataboutism doesn't change your support for genocide.

I think they have hated America from their existence. Mostly because they have been funded to hate America from Iran from their existence. I do think it is funny we are supposed to ignore the call for genocide from groups that the far left supports, as long as that genocide is Jews. Everything you post is Whataboutisms and moving goalposts. No one is fooled by you.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is not true. I haven't heard you say a single negative thing about Israel committing genocide.

Really? I have been against the war since the beginning. I just also condemn the killing of innocent Jewish Israelis, and recognize the need for a Jewish state. I am against the killing of anyone because of their race, creed or religion.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't support the Houthis. They're a group in a tiny country that is 10,000 miles away from me. I would prefer our focus be on this country and not theirs (or Saudi Arabia/Israel). But I would be vehemently opposed with our tax dollars being given to them to commit genocide

But you seem to be fine with it right now. You buy their attacks are for Gaza, when it is really for support of conquering Yemen and the genocide of Sunni Muslims within those boarders. They are attacking ships that have nothing to do with Israel by the order of their Iranian masters. Meanwhile, they have used the exact same tactics in Yemen that you claim as "genocide" in Israel. Starving out cities, cutting power and water, indiscriminate murder of innocent women and children.
Why is it genocide in Israel and not genocide in Yemen? Why aren't you condemning both equally?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think they have hated America from their existence. Mostly because they have been funded to hate America from Iran from their existence. I do think it is funny we are supposed to ignore the call for genocide from groups that the far left supports, as long as that genocide is Jews. Everything you post is Whataboutisms and moving goalposts. No one is fooled by you.

I think they hate America because we've been meddling in their politics and bombing them for decades. Also oil companies coming in, taking their resources, and destroying their lands seemed to be a big complaint. Not to mention our continued support of Saudi Arabia's attacks on civilians.


You don't have to make things more complex than they are. People hate those who are killing them.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think they hate America because we've been meddling in their politics and bombing them for decades. Also oil companies coming in, taking their resources, and destroying their lands seemed to be a big complaint. Not to mention our continued support of Saudi Arabia's attacks on civilians.


You don't have to make things more complex than they are. People hate those who are killing them.

As long as you ignore actual history, sure. But there was no US bombing in Yemen when they were formed, and they have hated the US long before there was any conflict in Yemen which they created. But tell yourself what you need to support genocidal terrorist.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But you seem to be fine with it right now. You buy their attacks are for Gaza, when it is really for support of conquering Yemen and the genocide of Sunni Muslims within those boarders. They are attacking ships that have nothing to do with Israel by the order of their Iranian masters. Meanwhile, they have used the exact same tactics in Yemen that you claim as "genocide" in Israel. Starving out cities, cutting power and water, indiscriminate murder of innocent women and children.

I don't care about Yemen. It's a tiny nation comprised of mostly desert halfway around the globe. Their civil war should not involve US intervention.

I also think you're confusing sides here. The Saudi coalition has killed most of the civilians in Yemen. Houthis work with Sunnis too. It's what caused such a conflict with many Zaydis that used to support them. It's more a nationalist movement than a ideological or religious movement. And if you're concerned with terrorism, the side the United States supports is the side that harbored Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The Houthis are less a threat to the United States although they won't let us gut their resources.

Regardless, Yemen is a proxy war between the Saudis/UAE and Iran. The only reason we're involved is because after the Iran deal pissed off the Saudis, Obama had to make it up to them by bombing the shit out of Yemen. Then providing weapons for the Saudis so they could bomb the shit out of Yemen too. We're just the Saudis puppet in the conflict (although now I guess we're doing this to protect Israeli commerce).

Why is it genocide in Israel and not genocide in Yemen? Why aren't you condemning both equally?

One is using my tax dollars. The other is not. The United States should have nothing to do with this regional conflict.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't care about Yemen. It's a tiny nation comprised of mostly desert halfway around the globe. Their civil war should not involve US intervention.

I also think you're confusing sides here. The Saudi coalition has killed most of the civilians in Yemen. Houthis work with Sunnis too. It's what caused such a conflict with many Zaydis that used to support them. It's more a nationalist movement than a ideological or religious movement. And if you're concerned with terrorism, the side the United States supports is the side that harbored Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The Houthis are less a threat to the United States although they won't let us gut their resources.

Regardless, Yemen is a proxy war between the Saudis/UAE and Iran. The only reason we're involved is because after the Iran deal pissed off the Saudis, Obama had to make it up to them by bombing the shit out of Yemen. Then providing weapons for the Saudis so they could bomb the shit out of Yemen too. We're just the Saudis puppet in the conflict (although now I guess we're doing this to protect Israeli commerce).



One is using my tax dollars. The other is not. The United States should have nothing to do with this regional conflict.

Your view works great as long as no one reads the actual history of the region. Enjoy the terrorists support.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

As long as you ignore actual history, sure. But there was no US bombing in Yemen when they were formed, and they have hated the US long before there was any conflict in Yemen which they created. But tell yourself what you need to support genocidal terrorist.

No they haven't. We were on great terms with them up until the Six-Day War. It went to further shit when Carter sided with the military dictator and providing weaponry in North Yemen during their second civil war.

They hate us because we meddle in their politics and bomb them (or provide bombs for their enemies). Are you sure you're talking about the same country?