I agree with you, but I think a "not Biden, not Trump" campaign by an established political player would have amazing appeal.
Last edited:
Joe Biden ruled as too incompetent to face charges
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
[/QUOTE]
Interesting comment: They are very careful when they roll out Biden imagine the care they have in exposing him.......and when they expose him it's terrible.
Hmm.........Michigan. He's right. It will be interesting to see how the large Muslim community in the Detroit area votes Tuesday.
Interesting comment: They are very careful when they roll out Biden imagine the care they have in exposing him.......and when they expose him it's terrible.
One House seat flipped back. Massive.
Since you are gleaning, this is what you need to glean.
Why incumbents should hope for bad weather on Election Day
Depressing weather leads to bad moods, and those bad moods lead us to prefer safer, more predictable candidates
theweek.com
Per PBS: "The victory marks a return to Washington for Suozzi, who represented the district for three terms before giving it up to run, unsuccessfully, for governor."
Suozzi defeated Santos by 12 points in 2020.
Obama was also criticized by the immigrant rights groups for his Administration's more stringent control of immigration. He was called the Deporter-in-Chief by some on the Left. I haven't heard anyone call Biden that from any direction.
More concretely, I'm not sure what you want to call the pivot the last several months on immigration. I would say it was a move to the center on the issue in an election year. That's great, but compromise or no compromise it indicates the Biden Administration wasn't in the center on immigration the first three years.
Quoting President Obama regarding Biden: the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history
Here are some details in support of this view:
During a robust economy not a recession, Biden significantly expanded federal spending as a percentage of the economy over the final years of the Obama Presidency. The Biden Administration spending number would have been even higher if the Republican House didn't force cuts in federal spending. It would have also been much higher if he got his initial legislation through Congress. Federal spending is certainly a metric for the left-right political spectrum.
I will give you that Obama had a Republican House for last six of his eight years. It's hard to determine where he would have taken the budget with a Democratic Congress.
There is always the issue of the creeping expansion of Federal regulation. Government regulation can be very subjective in nature. Beyond arguing the merits for specific regulation, the number of pages in the Federal Register has been used as a gauge for measuring the reach of the government. The Obama Administration increased regulation. Trump reduced it with the exception of the Covid year. Biden increased it more and with a second term his Administration will likely surpass Obama era regulation.
These matters of left, center and right are always matters of opinion. U.S. Presidents also tend to not universally follow rigid ideology on every matter. They might be liberal or conservative on most issues and centrist on some others. Every four years, we have these debates that my candidate is more centrist and label the other party as extreme. It's just what happens. Then we will have an election and we will still argue about what it means.
That's Obama, not Biden.
And I applaud increased involvement of the government in the economy. Sounds like Biden would make a damn good right-of-centre Canadian leader. Well done, Joe!
Congratulations on taking a couple of inconsequential and random whoopee-shits and trying to turn them into an argument.
The president has to execute the policies enacted by Congress in legislation. Biden was slapped down for trying to exceed his powers and toughen up immigration policies with executive orders. Biden is working with 60 year old Immigration legislation which was enacted at a time when there was no pressure on the southern border. So that legislation facilitates extensive illegal entry for the purpose of claiming asylum. Perfectly reasonable in 1965. Not so much 60 years later.
GOP wants tougher border enforcement, then it should pass tougher legislation. The Dems invited the GOP to do just that and the GOP balked. So whose fault is that??!!
Biden's deportation numbers are in fact far higher than Trump's and probably also far higher than Obama's. The fact that you personally haven't heard Biden called "the deporter-in-chief" is a sad excuse for a facile manipulative argument that's completely detached from the facts and anchored only in bullshit.
Why has Biden moved towards a tougher stance?..... Probably because of the sheer, incessant magnitude of the border problem.
There was but one special election, Earp. If there were more, the Dems triumph would have been all the greater. As it was, the % voter swing in that 1 special election was most impressive.
You would think that the GOP - having won the seat - could have held it a little longer than a year and a half. But they couldn't. And didn't.Since you are gleaning, this is what you need to glean.
Why incumbents should hope for bad weather on Election Day
Depressing weather leads to bad moods, and those bad moods lead us to prefer safer, more predictable candidates
Per PBS: "The victory marks a return to Washington for Suozzi, who represented the district for three terms before giving it up to run, unsuccessfully, for governor."
Suozzi defeated Santos by 12 points in 2020.
Unlike fox cnn fact checks everyone and does not simply shill for the stable genius. Every one including Joe and all dems should be subject to the same scrutiny.
Add to that that trump has now endorsed Biden.One House seat flipped back. Massive.
Since you are gleaning, this is what you need to glean.
Why incumbents should hope for bad weather on Election Day
Depressing weather leads to bad moods, and those bad moods lead us to prefer safer, more predictable candidates
Per PBS: "The victory marks a return to Washington for Suozzi, who represented the district for three terms before giving it up to run, unsuccessfully, for governor."
Suozzi defeated Santos by 12 points in 2020.
It wasn't that long ago you were saying the Mexican border wasn't a problem. Then after that, I distinctly remember your opinion morphing into Biden is doing everything he can. Shortly thereafter, Biden's Homeland Security started adopting some of Trump's border policies.
You can sometimes be lost in your agitating to see none of the progressives or liberals here other than the resident radical jumped into these arguments on U.S. immigration with you.
I personally don't trust Biden and Mayorkas to enforce border laws under any immigration regime. That's my opinion. We're still allowed to have opinions, yes?
I said I thought the immigration deal was a good compromise.
The circumstances of tying the Southern border to funding other foreign crises was not a good idea. In an election year, the Republicans should have made the Biden Administration come to them. That's just smart political negotiating in my opinion.
Do I think Biden and Mayorkas would enforce the border laws under a new immigration program? No, I do not. The last immigration deal decades ago is jokingly called the "amnesty bill" by Republicans. We got amnesty and lax border enforcement. Of course, I am aware Republican Presidents (Bush I and II) put no teeth into enforcing the border.
The WSJ Editorial Board had a good take in support of the compromise. It would have given a Republican President the tools to enforce the border.
Let me ask you a question since you and I can have honest political talks without undo campaigning and criticism. Do you think the border deal falling apart will hurt Republicans in November?
My opinion is that any time Biden and his surrogates are talking about the border it's a bad thing for the campaign. So at best, you might have some House races where moderate Democrats can try to leverage the issue. It's still a tricky talking point for the Dems though. Most voters find immigration laws arcane. I think the take from some media that Suozzi was able to leverage the issue to win back his vacated seat is overstated.
Last edited:
That was when I - and probably Biden and the Dems - thought the tap would turn itself off and the illegals might stop coming in their current numbers.
I also said that the current laws - which provide for generous asylum entitlement - have to be honoured until replaced. Of course, I assumed that both parties would do a workmanlike job of enacting replacement legislation. But one of those parties is fucking around, isn't it?
Earp, that is not a coherent sentence.
Yep. Not when you have a dynamite administrator like Trump to take over. BTW Earp, did you see his latest legal fiasco of the $300k costs sanction he has to pay to the NYT????.... I don't seem to remember Biden fucking up in that sort of way.
But you think Trump would do a better job and that's your right. I guess.
Earp, go look up arrest and removal statistics under Biden and explain why you think he's so lax. I'll wait.
So in your opinion there's no problem at the border? And the Biden Administration is doing a good job based on the circumstances?
mandrill, I'm not trading in idealism. I am reacting to the realities of what's happening on the ground in the U.S. where I live. I interact with Americans who have their own sentiments on this matter.
You're arguing with the choir on the matter of the Southern border (sort of speak).
Earp, try and read what I write, not what you want to tilt at.
You said that you wouldn't trust Biden to administer the border. I said his arrest and removal figures are high compared to other administrations by way of counter-point. How do you jump from that to accusing me of claiming that there is no problem at the border?
You're starting to take posting lessons from Frankie.
I think the border is a political issue and is overblown. I also think the "border crisis" is cyclical. Illegal entries go up and down. Lots of stats to show this, Earp. On the other hand, the asylum legislation was written in the 1950's on the assumption that asylum claimants would be a few tortured intellectuals from Russia. It was never intended to handle mass entries from Guatemala and ES via Mexico.
I have always said that if the US wants to cut down on asylum claims, they should re write the legislation. It means telling the world that they are not an asylum-open country, but maybe that's no longer a big deal diplomatically and politically.
So why aren't our Congressional leaders like Marge Greene and Michael Johnson drafting well-considered amendments to the Immigration legislation?
(The answer is that they're corrupt, posturing idiots.......... )
