The Biden Presidency

[xfire]

Depends. How is it used?
Is it used in a reflective analysis? If so, it would be exploratory and exactly the opposite. Consideration before making a decision or judgement. It encourages discussion. it acknowledges others thoughts.

Now compare that to exactly how you used the phrase. It appears without context and is somewhat a vague indictment. That adds nothing to an open and honest discussion. It is accusatory without evidence or without even the backbone of a direct challenge. It shows frustration, potential anger, and is the very definition of weasel. Your use is vague and by not directly quoting or replying to the source looks to evade obligation.

The latter being exactly how you used it, nice indictment of yourself.

 

[mikexmoran]

The latter being exactly how you used it, nice indictment of yourself.

Hey x, I know you've been pissed off at me for some time and I have no idea why.
I'm aggressively centrist and this conflicts with your belief system is my guess, but that is as much energy as I'm going to put into it.

You claimed to have put me on ignore quite a while ago. I guess you weren't being honest.

Your rebuttal here is at the level of "No I'm not, you are"

I have no intention of arguing with you further. You haven't shown any value.

 

[xfire]

Hey x, I know you've been pissed off at me for some time and I have no idea why.
I'm aggressively centrist and this conflicts with your belief system is my guess, but that is as much energy as I'm going to put into it.

You claimed to have put me on ignore quite a while ago. I guess you weren't being honest.

Your rebuttal here is at the level of "No I'm not, you are"

I have no intention of arguing with you further. You haven't shown any value.

Assumptions, guesses, having the audacity to think you have any say in who gets added to or taken off ignore lists, assessing other people's value... I am truly perplexed why anyone would find your posts objectionable. But you do you, boo. Have a nice day.

 

[mikexmoran]

France recalled its ambassador to the United States Friday because it "is justified by the exceptional seriousness of the announcements made by Australia and the United States. He said Australia's decision to scrap a big French conventional submarine purchase in favor of nuclear subs built with US technology is unacceptable behavior between allies and partners"

https://apnews.com/article/france-r...a-submarines-0322cefb3783f9e90ee8f0c3a738717e

This was a preventable problem. The administration should have known about this and addressed it up front or at a minimum, addressed it when France complained.

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/09/18/furious-france-withdraws-their-american-ambassadors-n416720

The US left several French citizens behind in Afghanistan, plus the US taking its time to get back to the IRA nuclear deal add to the climate.

Interesting opinion article - Is Europe really a priority for the US and is the Biden administration really a break from the Trump administration:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/france-says-australian-submarine-deal-u-s-u-k-slap-ncna1279456

Bottom line is that in a very good move by the Biden Administration with the Australians, this fumble is a mistake on the details. If the alliances are that important in keeping China in check, this is a mistake that did not need to happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ors-indicates-extent-of-anger-over-aukus-rift

 

[Luxman]

Hopefully we won't see terms like Freedom fries, Freedom toast, Freedom dressing, Freedom kiss, etc. being used again.
I'm sure they can still make a deal where the French supply some of the weapons to Australia.

 

[gmase]

Are the French wanting Biden’s predecessor back? At least the governments are being open about the influence of the military-industrial complex on policy.

Buy American!

 

[mikexmoran]

Buy American!

Yes.....said the Honda owner (built in Ohio...tougher to say what is American....but Yes!)

"Are the French wanting Biden’s predecessor back?"

Who said they did?

"At least the governments are being open about the influence of the military-industrial complex on policy."

It has always been big business. Eisenhower famously pointed that out.

 

[gmase]

"Are the French wanting Biden’s predecessor back?"

Who said they did?

No one. I was just asking a question. After the years of acrimony between Trump and Macron, the French recall their ambassador after Biden snubs them. It makes me wonder if they felt better with Trump in office.

 

[mikexmoran]

No one. I was just asking a question. After the years of acrimony between Trump and Macron, the French recall their ambassador after Biden snubs them. It makes me wonder if they felt better with Trump in office.

I suspect it is apples and oranges.
The comparison between the two administrations is clearly a shot. Can you think of anything worse that the Biden Administration would like to be compared to? (rhetorical)

My suspicion is that this is two things; 1.The French are feeling left out and a loss of face and power. 2. The money

I'm not sure if that is in the right order.

 

[Luxman]

IMy suspicion is that this is two things; 1.The French are feeling left out and a loss of face and power. 2. The money

I'm not sure if that is in the right order.

They won't admit it, but the money is the only reason they recalled their ambassadors.
Greed rules the world economy in every country.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

They won't admit it, but the money is the only reason they recalled their ambassadors.
Greed rules the world economy in every country.

And most households as well to some extent or another

 

[mikexmoran]

Some reading over morning coffee today...

More than 6,000 Haitians and other migrants were removed from a Texas border town. They were blocked by horse patrols from moving into a nearby town. They will be deported back to their impoverished country.

https://apnews.com/article/health-m...-immigration-56f1f0093039e2a43e128b7ef0015485

This is a bit of an inconsistency of message and it was stated earlier that this was inhumane. The US is able to quickly expel migrants without giving them a chance to file their asylum claim because of a Trump Administration CDC rule called “Title 42”. The directive which was established in March 2020 and overrides all other federal law, uses an obscure 1944 public-health statue to justify indefinitely closing the border to nonessential travel, even though the statute has never been used to regulate immigration before.

Last year VP Karmala Harris was one of the sentators who signed an open letter criticizing the policy. “A public health crisis does not give the Executive Branch a free pass to violate constitutional rights” the senators wrote to then Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf. President Biden’s Administration has kept the rule – even after repealing other Trump Administration anti-immigration policies that they deemed harmful.

https://www.thecut.com/2021/09/us-begins-mass-deportation-of-haitian-asylum-seekers.html

Haiti was designated clearly as an unsafe place:

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/20/biden-haiti-deportations-texas-del-rio/

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/haitian-refugee-crisis-texas-border-biden-20210919.html

It does seem like a erratic move. I’m pro-immigration, but I wouldn’t stigmatize efforts to enforce immigration law. Other reformers have tried and failed to build support for their agendas through immigration crackdowns. Bush and Obama both send National Guard troops to the border. Bush also wanted to create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants. Obama hoped to give “DREAMers” a permanent status in the US. In every case Congress blocked the reform.

I think the polls have generally positive view on immigration as well and have increased.

 

[gmase]

… into the arms of America.

New president, same border shenanigans. We can blame the agents who by-and-large supported Trump. They haven’t morphed into the gentler, kindler agency yet.

Our favorite redhead, quoted in the AP article Mr. Moran posted, said: “I don’t think anyone seeing that footage would think it acceptable or appropriate.” She deemed the footage “horrific” and said the matter would be investigated.


Maybe the French should recall the statue they gave us. Their ambassador to can pick it up on his way home.

 

[mikexmoran]

Our favorite redhead, quoted in the AP article Mr. Moran posted, said: “I don’t think anyone seeing that footage would think it acceptable or appropriate.” She deemed the footage “horrific” and said the matter would be investigated.


Maybe the French should recall the statue they gave us. Their ambassador to can pick it up on his way home.

To each their own, but my favorite redhead who I didn't marry is Julianne Moore. Far be it from me to judge your tastes or color perception.

Also, I like Lady Liberty right where she is.

 

[gmase]

Also, I like Lady Liberty right where she is.

As do I, but a response from another thread is applicable:

Nice slogan [Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free]. Maybe we should adopt it? America has been running from it since (and prior to) the Statue of Liberty was dedicated in the mid-1880s. The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882 and repealed in 1942. America has never been accepting of newcomers.

 

[mikexmoran]

As do I, but a response from another thread is applicable:

ahhh....well...nobody's perfect.

 

[tvstrip]

Some reading over morning coffee today...

More than 6,000 Haitians and other migrants were removed from a Texas border town. They were blocked by horse patrols from moving into a nearby town. They will be deported back to their impoverished country.

https://apnews.com/article/health-m...-immigration-56f1f0093039e2a43e128b7ef0015485

This is a bit of an inconsistency of message and it was stated earlier that this was inhumane. The US is able to quickly expel migrants without giving them a chance to file their asylum claim because of a Trump Administration CDC rule called “Title 42”. The directive which was established in March 2020 and overrides all other federal law, uses an obscure 1944 public-health statue to justify indefinitely closing the border to nonessential travel, even though the statute has never been used to regulate immigration before.

Last year VP Karmala Harris was one of the sentators who signed an open letter criticizing the policy. “A public health crisis does not give the Executive Branch a free pass to violate constitutional rights” the senators wrote to then Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf. President Biden’s Administration has kept the rule – even after repealing other Trump Administration anti-immigration policies that they deemed harmful.

https://www.thecut.com/2021/09/us-begins-mass-deportation-of-haitian-asylum-seekers.html

Haiti was designated clearly as an unsafe place:

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/20/biden-haiti-deportations-texas-del-rio/

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/haitian-refugee-crisis-texas-border-biden-20210919.html

It does seem like a erratic move. I’m pro-immigration, but I wouldn’t stigmatize efforts to enforce immigration law. Other reformers have tried and failed to build support for their agendas through immigration crackdowns. Bush and Obama both send National Guard troops to the border. Bush also wanted to create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants. Obama hoped to give “DREAMers” a permanent status in the US. In every case Congress blocked the reform.

I think the polls have generally positive view on immigration as well and have increased.

Mexico’s foreign minister, said about 15% of the Haitian migrants in Mexico have accepted refuge there. So far this year, about 19,000 Haitian migrants have requested asylum in Mexico.

To me, those 15% are the only true refugees.
A true refugee is someone who is facing the prospect of death if they are returned to their CoO.
It's not about finding a better way of life.
It's about finding a life. Period.

Mexico may not be the US, but it's certainly better off than most of the nations these people are coming from. At the very least, they aren't facing the prospect of certain death if they settle there. And Mexico is willing and able to hand out refugee status for anyone who wants it. So for the 85% who don't take that offer, you have to ask, how desperate is their situation? If you're in a position to hold out for something better, are you truly a refugee?

The only people who wouldn't qualify for refugee status in Mexico are those who would be inadmissible by their laws. These would be same standards any other country uses, i.e. criminality, security risk, etc. And people like that will have 0% chance of legitimately getting into the US anyways.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

tvstrip you are right in principle but there are certainly parts of Mexico that are seriously dangerious.

https://www.jtgtravel.com/north-america/mexico/most-dangerous-places-in-mexico/

 

[gmase]

Boebert wants to:

 

[tvstrip]

Boebert wants to:


View attachment 912443

They really need to stop throwing that word around. It didn't work twice on trump, or on the other two presidents. It's basically meaningless at this point.