President O'Biden

[RLENT]

The difference would be 1. The huge amount signed by him Instead of using the legislature.

Let me know how it stacks up in a year's time.

Then we can check back in three years after that.

And 2. He specifically said just prior to the election that it's not something to do because that would be a dictatorship . (Paraphrasing)

That characterization/"paraphrasing" leaves just a little something to be desired.

Here's what he actually said ... with the relevant context which shows what it was in relation to:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1354035368211984390

So it was an outright lie, something I thought those that opposed Orange man bad had a serious problem with.

No, it actually wasn't.

Now those same people don't mind it and are now like: more, more. Yes!

A time and a place for everything, including executive action.

 

[muttly]

Let me know how it stacks up in a year's time.

Then we can check back in three years after that.



That characterization/"paraphrasing" leaves just a little something to be desired.

Here's what he actually said ... with the relevant context which shows what it was in relation to:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1354035368211984390

No, it actually wasn't.



A time and a place for everything, including executive action.

Did he get the votes? Consensus?
That would be a NO.
Thanks for playing though.

 

[RLENT]

Did he get the votes? Consensus?

LOL ... he doesn't need either of those for those things that are constitutionally within his power to do ... right ?

After all, he isn't changing tax policy - which was the context of his comments which seems to be being referenced here:

Fact-check: Did Biden admit that he's governing like a 'dictator'?

Charlie Kirk: Says that "Joe Biden admits he is governing like a 'dictator.'"

PolitiFact's ruling: False

Kirk’s claim — that Biden "admits he is governing like a 'dictator’" — is not literally true. The post misconstrues the president’s past comments on using executive orders to change federal tax policy, which Biden has not tried to do.

Clip of Biden using term ‘dictator’ to describe executive orders lacks context

CLAIM: President Joe Biden admitted he is governing like a “dictator” in an interview with ABC News host George Stephanopoulos.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. Biden said that he doesn’t believe tax increases should be passed by executive order. The executive orders Biden has signed so far in his presidency have not addressed tax policy.

FWIW, if one is going to parrot someone, there's probably better choices available than Charlie Kirk.

That would be a NO.

Correct ... since it wasn't, and isn't, needed on things he can do through EO's and executive actions.

FYI - I think folks may want to prepare themselves, in terms of how the Dems are going to proceed from here on out.

I suspect the days of letting the Reps endlessly stonewall and sabotage their agenda are coming to a fairly quick end.

 

[muttly]

LOL ... he doesn't need either of those for those things that are constitutionally within his power to do ... right ?

After all, he isn't changing tax policy - which was the context of his comments which seems to be being referenced here:

Fact-check: Did Biden admit that he's governing like a 'dictator'?





Clip of Biden using term ‘dictator’ to describe executive orders lacks context



FWIW, if one is going to parrot someone, there's probably better choices available than Charlie Kirk.



Correct ... since it wasn't, and isn't, needed on things he can do through EO's and executive actions.

FYI - I think folks may want to prepare themselves, in terms of how the Dems are going to proceed from here on out.

I suspect the days of letting the Reps endlessly stonewall and sabotage their agenda are coming to a fairly quick end.

Context was more than tax policy.

 

[RLENT]

Context was more than tax policy.

Well, that was the context of the question Biden was replying to.

But in at least one sense that would be correct: Consensus and votes are required where legislation is required for action - which is what I think Biden was alluding to in his reply.

That (consensus and votes) is not the case however with executive action within the framework of the inherent powers of the Presidency.

 

[RLENT]

Biden to start process of raising refugee cap to 125,000

Well, it's a start anyways.

And we'll certainly need them ... to start taking the place of all the clueless lunatics who haven't a clue of what America is actually about ...

 

[danthewolf00]

Well we can't replace the Democrats fast enough.

 

[skyraider]

I suppose Obiden is going to make up for the almost 500K dead Americans, many who were tax payers, homeowners, moms ,dads, grandmothers, aunts,uncles, preachers,doctors, electricians, drivers of freight,managers of companies, waste collectors,ships company,airliine pilots,,,well you get the jest of it....yep all those migrants are really gonna help, imho..

 

[RLENT]

Well we can't replace the Democrats fast enough.

Pro tip:

When what the Republicans have done over the last four years have resulted in the loss of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, it might be time to consider a change in tactics and/or strategy.

Preferrably one that does not include sedition, rebellion, or violent insurrection.

Jus' sayin' ...

 

[skyraider]

They could have a bake sale.....

 

[danthewolf00]

Pro tip:

When what the Republicans have done over the last four years have resulted in the loss of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, it might be time to consider a change in tactics and/or strategy.

Preferrably one that does not include sedition, rebellion, or violent insurrection.

Jus' sayin' ...

this is sedation.....this is what the claimed trump said.

 

[RLENT]

this is sedation.....this is what the claimed trump said.

No, it isn't,

BTW - What is "sedation" anyway ?

I was under the general impression that it was what I got when I underwent surgery but I could be wrong ...

 

[danthewolf00]

How about willingly inciting violence with their speech.

 

[Turtle]

How about willingly inciting violence with their speech.

According to SCOTUS, any explicit call to specific actions is an incitement to violence, which the 4 ladies pictured above did, and which Trump did not do. No one had yet provided a quote from Trump that called for specific actions or even general violence.

 

[muttly]

There is even "news" operations that have edited out the "peacefully and patriotically" from his speech or don't play it at all.
If there was a quote of his that was incitement, they all would be playing it on an endless loop on their newscasts.

 

[muttly]

Biden to start process of raising refugee cap to 125,000

Well, it's a start anyways.

And we'll certainly need them ... to start taking the place of all the clueless lunatics who haven't a clue of what America is actually about ...

This will affect minorities more than anyone because the influx will compete
mostly with them for jobs,(which has already taken a hit by the shut downs due to the Pandemic) and acserbate cheap labor.
A dirt cheap job market for them is not what America should be about.

 

[RLENT]

How about willingly inciting violence with their speech.

The "speech" in those memes, specifically ?

Just because their words happen to majorly #trigger misogynistic racists of the white variety to attack these ladies, it doesn't necessarily mean that those words are an incitement to violence.

 

[RLENT]

This will affect minorities more than anyone because the influx will compete mostly with them for jobs, (which has already taken a hit by the shut downs due to the Pandemic) and acserbate cheap labor. A dirt cheap job market for them is not what America should be about.

Well, it's sure good to know someone is thinking about, and looking out for, those poor minorities.

You know: the ones that just recently experienced historically-low unemployment before the Orange Guy screwed it all up.

Aside from that, I am under the understanding that there may be some relief on the way as far as low-paying jobs are concerned.

The reality of the matter however, is Biden's actions in this regard are not exactly immediate and are only slated to take place in his first full fiscal year in office, which would run from Oct. 1, 2021, through Sept. 30, 2022.

So we've got a little bit of time before we need to get all hysterical about the hordes of "furriners" knocking at the door.

 

[muttly]

Well, it's sure good to know someone is thinking about, and looking out for, those poor minorities.

You know: the ones that just recently experienced historically-low unemployment before the Orange Guy screwed it all up.

Aside from that, I am under the understanding that there may be some relief on the way as far as low-paying jobs are concerned.

The reality of the matter however, is Biden's actions in this regard are not exactly immediate and are only slated to take place in his first full fiscal year in office, which would run from Oct. 1, 2021, through Sept. 30, 2022.

So we've got a little bit of time before we need to get all hysterical about the hordes of "furriers" knocking at the door.

Nice revisionist history, but no it was not Orangeman bad.
It's just ignorant to think that a large increase of people into this country is necessary when you have businesses that have been decimated due to State lockdowns. Many won't be coming back either. Now, some want to create a glut of people looking for fewer jobs and driving down wages. Not smart.

 

[RLENT]

Nice revisionist history, but no it was not Orangeman bad.

Not revisionist ... due to Cheeto-lini's incompetence in handling the pandemic, minority communities have been the hardest hit in terms of employment.

Not only that, but they are also hardest hit health-wise - due to systemic reasons he failed to solve while in office.

So it's at least a twofer:

The coronavirus pandemic is hitting black and brown Americans especially hard on all fronts

It's just ignorant to think that a large increase of people into this country is necessary when you have businesses that have been decimated due to State lockdowns.

Ok just stop right there.

The US labor force is around 160 to 165 million people (includes both employed and unemployed)

Should I do the math of what percentage 125,000 constitutes of 165 million ?

Drop the first two zeros to the right of the decimal point and that's the percentage: 0.000759416767922

IOW: less than 1/10th of 1 percent.

And that doesn't even begin to take into account the fact that of that 125,000 not all would be labor force participants - some are children or the elderly.

Many won't be coming back either.

So ... an optimist then ?

Now, some want to create a glut of people looking for fewer jobs and driving down wages. Not smart.

What would be smart would be to look at the demographic trends in the US, and how the US labor force participation rate is shrinking ... as the labor force ages (people get old and they retire ... but they don't necessarily die off immediately - which means they continue to need and want all sorts of goods and services, often for many years)

The implications from that should be pretty obvious ... but there are other labor factors as well which will play a crucial role in whether the US is able to restore it's economy.