Elon Musk spent 40+ Billion to turn Twitter into a right wing firehose...
I would agree with the gerrymandering, flooding the zone, and some voter suppression, but funding was certainly not the problem for the Dems. Harris spent around 1.5B to run a campaign that lost voters in almost every demographic.
Maybe he should have, but simply limiting border crossings does not alleviate the vast majority of the problems, problems the proposed bill addressed.Except Biden did eventually sign an executive order to limit border crossings, as I have pointed out over and over, yet the fact seems to be ignored. So yes, there was something he could have, and in fact did, do. Would it have effectively solved the problem if implemented earlier? Who knows, but at least it would have showed some kind of response.
Interestingly enough now that some of the most egregious gerrymanders have been struck down the percentage of house seats won by each party very closely reflected the national popular vote so gerrymandering (at least federally) was not a cause this time.I would agree with the gerrymandering, flooding the zone, and some voter suppression, but funding was certainly not the problem for the Dems. Harris spent around 1.5B to run a campaign that lost voters in almost every demographic.
The majority of undocumented people entered the country legally and overstayed their visas focusing on border crossings makes for great propaganda tv but is really pretty shit for actually addressing undocumented migration.Except Biden did eventually sign an executive order to limit border crossings, as I have pointed out over and over, yet the fact seems to be ignored. So yes, there was something he could have, and in fact did, do. Would it have effectively solved the problem if implemented earlier? Who knows, but at least it would have showed some kind of response.
ondma prefers that Biden would have ignored our existing asylum law, and flexed Title 42 or some equivalent. Perhaps executive action was the "better" electoral play, but I prefer that at least one of the two major parties has some integrity and faithfully honors the laws of our land. And we know it's not gonna be Trump's party...The majority of undocumented people entered the country legally and overstayed their visas focusing on border crossings makes for great propaganda tv but is really pretty shit for actually addressing undocumented migration.
The immigration bill he tried to pass did none of those things. He did not do anything to normalize the millions awaiting hearings. He did not staff for it, he did not declare it a strategy, he did not sign executive orders to prioritize it, he did not rebuild ICE or Homeland Security to make them about protecting the country rather than kicking brown people out.It seems important to note that he tried to do all the things you're saying he should have done (except the emergency) but Republicans refused to bring the bill up for a vote out of fears that it would pass and become law and Republicans desperately did not want that to happen.
Plus the bill he did try to pass was an atrocity. The opposite of what needed to be done.Except Biden did eventually sign an executive order to limit border crossings, as I have pointed out over and over, yet the fact seems to be ignored. So yes, there was something he could have, and in fact did, do. Would it have effectively solved the problem if implemented earlier? Who knows, but at least it would have showed some kind of response.
I have not seen a president in this country in my lifetime ever say "yes, these are good people who deserve a chance, lets give it to them and solve both our problems."
I've mentioned this in other threads but this is the failure of the Democratic party. By giving in on certain topics we have abandoned any alternative messaging on them. We let the far right chip away at the humanity of others based on what we believe is the popular point of view and abandoning our role in defining what the popular point of view is or could be.This unfortunately is not good politics in this country. Proof of that is who we just put in the oval office.
This is very clearly false. Where did you get this misinformation from?The immigration bill he tried to pass did none of those things. He did not do anything to normalize the millions awaiting hearings. He did not staff for it, he did not declare it a strategy, he did not sign executive orders to prioritize it, he did not rebuild ICE or Homeland Security to make them about protecting the country rather than kicking brown people out.
He continued the Obama era policies of delay, detention and deportation. I have not seen a president in this country in my lifetime ever say "yes, these are good people who deserve a chance, lets give it to them and solve both our problems."
Btw, Portugal did this in 2011 and the result was an economic boom. Of course the far right is trying to undermine that story now, but the point is they did it and it worked.
I don't know if you are trolling or what, but this bill greatly expanded presidential power and would have been weaponized by Trump worse than what we are seeing today.This is very clearly false. Where did you get this misinformation from?
If you’re interested in what the bill actually did it was a bunch of the things you wanted, for example additional staff to process claims. Armed with this knowledge does this change your opinion in the slightest? Let me guess - no. New information rarely does.
I read what you said and you made multiple false statements. All I did was note that, and I would hope you would appreciate this.I don't know if you are trolling or what, but this bill greatly expanded presidential power and would have been weaponized by Trump worse than what we are seeing today.
In order from the article -
1: This gives the president broad powers to expel immigrants at will, without due process. The exceptions are broad and vague. The president ironically is stripped of their ability to *not* expel migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, etc if levels are above a certain number, such as in a time of crisis. It also does not require sending people back to country of origin, simply designates Mexico as the dumping ground. Each provision reads worse than the last.
2: The summary on the link you gave was "Although these provisions will speed up the processing of asylum screenings for people arriving at the border, they will also make it more difficult for eligible asylum seekers to qualify and would likely increase denials of humanitarian protection to many who are in need." Need I say more?
3: This is status quo with current law, no change in either direction
4: Very minor increases for very specific circumstances, would not make any dent in the 7.6m people waiting.
5: This funding is weighted heavily towards investigation, detention and expulsion and is likely to reduce the ability of people to attain resident status rather than increase it. Plus funding an ineffective border wall.
In short, this proposal is mostly a giveaway to the president and law enforcement to increase their power to block migrants. By contrast my proposal was to rapidly process the 7.6 million people waiting, and when there was no criminal record to permit entry, residency and green cards while creating a class of immediately beneficial jobs for them to occupy. My target was to process all 7.6m within one year, and then maintain the new process for all others who arrive.
Did you not read my proposal? I'm unclear how you felt it at all was what Biden tried to get passed. Any bill that reduces the human right to claim asylum, refugee status or a better life is a violation of human rights and dignity.
This is pretty much the best response to the thread topic short and concise...Biden moved left? At all?
It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”
Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
You stated that he tried to pass a bill that did most of what I suggested. It did not. In fact it does the opposite of most of what I suggested. Unclear what your confusion is here.I read what you said and you made multiple false statements. All I did was note that, and I would hope you would appreciate this.
If you don’t like the bill that’s fine but it doesn’t change what was in it.
Can you explain? Be as specific as possible.You stated that he tried to pass a bill that did most of what I suggested. It did not. In fact it does the opposite of most of what I suggested. Unclear what your confusion is here.
Yeah, you are trolling. I listed it all here: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ut-of-the-tariff-thread.2629747/post-41447790Can you explain? Be as specific as possible.
Right but that was bullshit. You claimed the bill did nothing to, for example, speed processing. That was false.Yeah, you are trolling. I listed it all here: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ut-of-the-tariff-thread.2629747/post-41447790
As I listed in my rebuttal, it did so only in very specific circumstances and overall actually reduces the chances of migrants being granted a visa or residency. You stated "If you’re interested in what the bill actually did it was a bunch of the things you wanted" which is categorically false. That you can find one section that very slightly increased processing in a way that was actually detrimental to most migrants (ie: overall it's a reduction not the massive increase I called for) does not disprove my assertion. The very site you linked was extremely negative on it while maintaining a neutral tone.Right but that was bullshit. You claimed the bill did nothing to, for example, speed processing. That was false.
Can you admit what you said about that was false? If you can, does that knowledge change your opinion at all? Again, unsurprisingly that seems to be no, haha.
I would be overjoyed of AOC wins in 28, but given Hillary's and Kamala's losses I have to steel myself. My great prayer is for the Republican party to whither and die and quickly. Again, "prayers plow not." But AOC winning would mean the country has turned on the Republicans bigtime.I can dream. But throughout history when the pendulum swings to far one direction, we usually get an over correct and swing far the other way. Bernie is too old to probably run. AOC makes the most sense on the correct left