United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

Reader mode
ShadowArxxy said:
How many of Trump's campaign promises were actually delivered on?
Click to expand...
  1. He kept us out of war.
  2. He built up the military.
  3. He renegotiated NAFTA.
  4. He started work on the wall and would have seen it finished were it not for Democrats obstructing him and Bidens recent victory.
  5. He appointed conservative supreme court justices.
  6. He ended the TPP and the Paris Accords.
  7. He imposed tariffs on the Chinese.
I could go on further.
 
Fallout-Man101 said:
  1. He kept us out of war.
  2. He built up the military.
  3. He renegotiated NAFTA.
  4. He started work on the wall and would have seen it finished were it not for Democrats obstructing him and Bidens recent victory.
  5. He appointed conservative supreme court justices.
  6. He ended the TPP and the Paris Accords.
  7. He imposed tariffs on the Chinese.
I could go on further.
Click to expand...
He moved the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem too.
 
Captain X said:
I also didn't care for his bump-stock ban or his support of red flag laws. Also really wished he had followed through with the idea of CCW permit reciprocity, such that any permit from any state is good enough in any other state, much the way driver's licenses are treated.
Click to expand...

Trump was consistently weak on gun rights, and I think Biden's hostility on that issue is more an assumption that he's going to be hard left than anything he's actually said. As with Obama, it's an issue that he's largely been silent on, certainly not a major campaign point.

I found his 2018 comment in response to the Parkland school shooting deeply alarming: "Take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early." I think it says quite a bit that there were widespread viral memes during the election cycle which misattributed this Trump quote to Kamala Harris. It's definitely the sort of authoritarian position that people assign to the anti-gun left.
 
ShadowArxxy said:
Trump was consistently weak on gun rights, and I think Biden's hostility on that issue is more an assumption that he's going to be hard left than anything he's actually said. As with Obama, it's an issue that he's largely been silent on, certainly not a major campaign point.

I found his 2018 comment in response to the Parkland school shooting deeply alarming: "Take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early." I think it says quite a bit that there were widespread viral memes during the election cycle which misattributed this Trump quote to Kamala Harris. It's definitely the sort of authoritarian position that people assign to the anti-gun left.
Click to expand...
Should we point out EVERY single one if the left anti-gun quotes?
 
Zachowon said:
Should we point out EVERY single one if the left anti-gun quotes?
Click to expand...

I largely *expect* the left to be anti-gun; I'm generally progressive and pro-gun, but I *already know* I'm a minority opinion. It's much more unusual for the right to be, especially when Trump was billed as the anti-elitist populist.

Rocinante said:
That was a bad moment for Trump and it's fine to criticize it. He never acted on it, though, and that's what really matters in the end.
Click to expand...

For the most part, "not acting" was everything we got on gun rights during the Trump Administration. He threatened a couple of vetoes but didn't go through with them because those bills were ultimately defeated in Congress, and he reversed a couple of Obama's executive decisions that hadn't actually gone into effect yet; as far as I'm aware, he didn't do anything to actually advance gun ownership, proactively or even just reactively.

The last President to significantly advance gun rights at all was Bush's with federal concealed carry with full preemption, but that was only for law enforcement, so it's debatable whether or not it counts. It would be truly spectacular to see that idea carried forward to all citizens. . .
 
Last edited:
ShadowArxxy said:
I largely *expect* the left to be anti-gun; I'm generally progressive and pro-gun, but I *already know* I'm a minority opinion. It's much more unusual for the right to be, especially when Trump was billed as the anti-elitist populist.



For the most part, "not acting" was everything we got on gun rights during the Trump Administration. He threatened a couple of vetoes but didn't go through with them because those bills were ultimately defeated in Congress, and he reversed a couple of Obama's executive decisions that hadn't actually gone into effect yet; as far as I'm aware, he didn't do anything to actually advance gun ownership, proactively or even just reactively.

The last President to significantly advance gun rights at all was Bush's with federal concealed carry with full preemption, but that was only for law enforcement, so it's debatable whether or not it counts. It would be truly spectacular to see that idea carried forward to all citizens. . .
Click to expand...
That is something I would absolutely love to see happen for all citizens
 
ShadowArxxy said:
Trump was consistently weak on gun rights, and I think Biden's hostility on that issue is more an assumption that he's going to be hard left than anything he's actually said. As with Obama, it's an issue that he's largely been silent on, certainly not a major campaign point.
Click to expand...
No, he brought it up in his campaign. He said he's got Beto O'Rourke on board to push his assault weapons ban, which is something you can see in his agenda on his website. Also keep in mind that the definition of "assault weapon" according to Democrats has shifted to include anything that's semi-automatic.
 
Trump's weakness on gun rights amounted to what, the bump stock ban? If we factor in comments as well, tepid and retracted comments in favor of red flag laws (which is the context of the quote @ShadowArxxy mentioned) and restrictions on silencers? Yeah, they were shit takes, but not worse than many Republican congressmen.

In contrast, during an August 2019 interview, Biden in response to a question about whether or not the Biden administration would "come for [people's] guns" said "Bingo, you're right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is they should be illegal. Period."
 
Last edited:
LindyAF said:
Trump's weakness on gun rights amounted to what, the bump stock ban? If we factor in comments as well, tepid and retracted comments in favor of red flag laws (which is the context of the quote @ShadowArxxy mentioned) and restrictions on silencers? Yeah, they were shit takes, but not worse than many Republican congressmen.

In contrast, during an August 2019 interview, Biden in response to a question about whether or not the Biden administration would "come for [people's] guns" said "Bingo, you're right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is they should be illegal. Period."
Click to expand...

Five months of rioting proved that the cops simply will not give a fuck about you when the chips are down and you absolutely need a gun to protect yourself.
 
Cherico said:
Five months of rioting proved that the cops politicans simply will not give a fuck about you when the chips are down and you absolutely need a gun to protect yourself.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you, blaming the cops for the riots is the same logic that saw vets being blamed for 'losing' Vietnam, the politician's are to blame for the riots continuing, not the police.
 
Last edited:
Doomsought said:
But the cops will be "Just following orders", so the substantive difference is minimal.
Click to expand...
Don't compare the two, ultimately cops exist to enforce the law that coincidently politicians decide and if they don't they will be fired, ostracized or blacklisted as 'dissenters' if they don't.

Politicians are bounds more despicable, because unlike the police who just want this junk to end, they are whiling to do anything to get attention, including bending the law and pardoning those who break the law.

I can forgive cops because for all the talk from people who want them to 'resist' they refuse to do so actively themselves by refusing to pay taxes, protesting or similarly go on a mass work strike until something is done.
 
LindyAF said:
@strunkenwhite

I was assuming that a reasonable reader would be following the news and be somewhat familiar with what I was referring to. The wording was intended to capture both King and Greene and strike the balance between what happened to each of them, in order avoid making a long post even longer.

I think you were also continually ignoring large parts of what I was saying to focus on one detail. First about Greene, and then when I clarified. I did misremember what McCarthy's statements were, but even after reviewing them I think your characterizing my use of censure as synonymous with scold relies upon your hyperfocus on McCarthy's statement and ignoring McConnell's.
Regardless, I don't have any special knowledge or information that isn't available to you as well. I think my broader argument holds up with or without Greene and certainly with only McConnell's statements on the matter.
Click to expand...
Part of my point is that equating King's and Greene's outcomes is wrong, because their treatment by the GOP was so different. Which IMO undercuts your general argument. But with this amount of trouble over a simple question of basic fact, I think I was right to start off with a narrow focus.

I object to your claim that I "characterized" your use of censure as synonymous with a mere scolding. I gave that as one possibility, and gave a response conditioned on that being the case, in which case you could "never mind" the above part of the post (i.e. the entire post). If that is not the case, if you consider your unspecified "lay" usage of censure to be considerably more serious than a mere scolding, then the above part of the post stands and I deny your claim that Greene was censured by the GOP at large and particularly the House which has actual authority over her unlike McConnell. McConnell, who I specifically acknowledged "denounced" her which I assume meets your lay definition of censure, so your claim that I ignored that is also ridiculous.

If I had taken the actual position that you considered censure synonymous with scold, the post would have been very differently written.
 
Random Username said:


Bullshit. We don't live in old America anymore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that seems pretty optimistic, so I went and looked for the Morning Consult article, and here's what they state:

"A $1,400 check would allow 22.6 million adults to pay their expenses for at least four and a half months without incurring additional debt or eating further into their depleted savings, assuming that they maintain income from work and unemployment benefits."


So they're assuming that those 22.6 million people are either still working or getting unemployment benefits.

Edit:
Looking through the twitter replies, it looks like pretty much none of the people who saw the tweet actually spent 2 minutes to go look at the original article. I'll admit that I didn't read through the whole article, but it's weird that people didn't get curious as to why the Morning Consult would make such a claim.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top