Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Cody montana

WrenBoy wrote: »

That market is flooded.

So you can post negative or positive news stories about Biden.
Glad we got there in the end.

WrenBoy

Cody montana wrote: »

So you can post negative or positive news stories about Biden.
Glad we got there in the end.

?? Not sure what point your trying to make, you might have to keep going

Overheal

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There's an excellent op ed here on Biden's mandate and the complexity of the whole area of transgender sport. From the article:

The mandate, while not explicitly addressing athletics in detail, said that "children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports." So while it set no specific guidelines governing the participation of transgender athletes, agencies are to review their policies within 100 days to ensure transgender kids do not face discrimination within their educational experience.
Biden's heart is in the right place. But his head is not. This amounts to federal buck-passing, dumping the responsibility to govern a divisive, enigmatic issue on individual states. This is precarious, especially now in a culture whose inhabitants can't agree that NBA players are tall.

And:

A study in New York of men and women who had undergone hormone treatment for a year concluded, "Despite the robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM (transgender men), the TW (transgender women) were still stronger and had more muscle mass following 12 months of treatment. These findings add new knowledge that could be relevant when evaluating transwomen's eligibility to compete in the women's category of athletic competitions."

Very nuanced topic with competing rights among people involved. I don't envy anyone trying to navigate that muddled mess.

Professor Moriarty

Overheal wrote: »

Very nuanced topic with competing rights among people involved. I don't envy anyone trying to navigate that muddled mess.

Absolutely. Biden's mandate is far too simplistic. It ignores the complexities and nuances. It's just a virtue signal to the progressives.

Overheal

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Absolutely. Biden's mandate is far too simplistic. It ignores the complexities and nuances. It's just a virtue signal to the progressives.

Yeah it's a weak start, that has the high potential to be used against him, and already has been the focus of outrage on the right. Maybe it's a baby step; until an agency decides to make a more sweeping policy changed based off the mandate in the EO it amounts to little yet besides acknowledging that the entire matter is a cluster****.

Carfacemandog

WrenBoy wrote: »

I talked about the Covid relief cheques, how is that conspiracy or a bad faith argument ?

What did you have to say about covid relief cheques?

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Absolutely. Biden's mandate is far too simplistic. It ignores the complexities and nuances. It's just a virtue signal to the progressives.

I mean what % of people do sports apply to? Getting people in the door and ensuring there is no discrimination in education is a great and needed step. The man has been in for two weeks and is presiding over an incredibly divided nation.

Better to take a half step forward than stay where we are and complain about not taking a step forward.

Baggly

Fog Hat wrote: »

Ha unbelievable. The mods are seriously demanding we respect Biden? Why exactly?

Fog Hat wrote: »

Can I not even ask why we have to be respectful to Biden?

Fog Hat wrote: »

Who cares? He's a foreign politician! People are allowed insult Trump!

I'll probably be banned for even asking this but whatever.

Fog Hat wrote: »

Yeah I don't like hypocrisy, what's wrong with that?

Fog Hat wrote: »

Yes.

I see no reason to show respect to a foreign politician, or a native one.

Perhaps Boards is afraid of offendeding the American Embassy? It's bit sad that we're not allowed be irreverent about the American president. But you know, he's a big boy. I'm sure he can handle a bit of slagging from the Micks.

Fog Hat wrote: »

That's because I saw another user get banned for calling Biden 'sleepy'.

Mod

You are done in this thread. Any issues with that, my PM inbox is open.

ohnonotgmail

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Absolutely. Biden's mandate is far too simplistic. It ignores the complexities and nuances. It's just a virtue signal to the progressives.

Bidens executive order only applies to federal agencies. I'm not sure it has the reach you think it does.

WrenBoy

Carfacemandog wrote: »

What did you have to say about covid relief cheques?

WrenBoy wrote: »

$600 + $2000 =$2600 was what was expected, not playing shell games with people during a pandemic.

Now, what about that is "conspiracy theory bad faith arguments or outright misrepresentations" ?

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

I mean what % of people do sports apply to? Getting people in the door and ensuring there is no discrimination in education is a great and needed step. The man has been in for two weeks and is presiding over an incredibly divided nation.

Better to take a half step forward than stay where we are and complain about not taking a step forward.

Yes but if Biden is going to do that, then he should address the complexities. It's not good enough to just hand wave away issues such as trans women competing in women's sport.

Professor Moriarty

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Bidens executive order only applies to federal agencies. I'm not sure it has the reach you think it does.

What power do these federal agencies have?

Overheal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Bidens executive order only applies to federal agencies. I'm not sure it has the reach you think it does.

Well you could Title IX or whatever (IANAL with Title IX or whatever, much more fluent in other matters) to regard what is and what isn't discriminatory, regarding access to gender sports.

Really this boils down to differences in sport between the sexes. If we're gender-neutralizing the military, and we've gender-neutralized government and industries, aren't sports the last thing to gender-neutralize? Sports, Sororities and Fraternities, Boys/Girl Scouts etc, the list of gender-specific organization is dwindling by the year.

WrenBoy

On the Women's sports issue, I don't think there is any solutions to that particular can of worms that will please everyone. Best case scenario is everyone is as put out as each other. Perhaps best if Biden was to give the decision to the sports bodies representing the sports themselves, if such bodies exist at all. Tactically a bit of a boo-boo to make this a week 1 issue.

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

At its simplest because many States are doing a terrible job at it, causing people to live below the poverty line even when they have one or two jobs - many times these people end up receiving federal money to fill this gap.

Isn’t that the States problem to figure out? It seems to me they have already figured it out. Just accept money from “enlightened” fools from out of state. Genius!

This seems like the standard cry of most conservatives - wanting things left to the states right until it serves their interests to say the opposite and then they want the federal government or courts interfere to support their beliefs.

That’s fair. It’s also a standard cry of most Democrats. If you don’t think both sides are being hypocritical in this, you are missing a big part of American politics. It also doesn’t make the original position wrong, even if they are being unfaithful to it.

I'll reverse it to you and ask why should my federal taxes be going to support people in red states that are in employment but their states aren't ensuring that they are receiving a living wage for their work?

They shouldn’t. Why did your representatives vote for it?
Get rid of it. Then let the locals figure it out as best suits their situation. I’m sure Republicans would be in favor of a reduction in Federal expenditures. (Well, supposedly. These days, even that policy tends to depend on who is making the advocation)

The argument goes just as far the other way as well. The California State budget is almost twice as reliant, in dollars per capita, on Federal aid than Texas’. Both are huge economies the size of typical countries. Why do they both have about a third of their state budgets paid for by the Feds? Some aid, I can see, particularly for infrastructure, but a third?

ohnonotgmail

Overheal wrote: »

Well you could Title IX or whatever (IANAL with Title IX or whatever, much more fluent in other matters) to regard what is and what isn't discriminatory, regarding access to gender sports.

Really this boils down to differences in sport between the sexes. If we're gender-neutralizing the military, and we've gender-neutralized government and industries, aren't sports the last thing to gender-neutralize? Sports, Sororities and Fraternities, Boys/Girl Scouts etc, the list of gender-specific organization is dwindling by the year.

what federal agencies govern sports?

Overheal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what federal agencies govern sports?

Sports in education. The wellspring of professional sports, really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

nolivesmatter

WrenBoy wrote: »

On the Women's sports issue, I don't think there is any solutions to that particular can of worms that will please everyone.Best case scenario is everyone is as put out as each other. Perhaps best if Biden was to give the decision to the sports bodies representing the sports themselves, if such bodies exist at all. Tactically a bit of a boo-boo to make this a week 1 issue.

Agreed. But in this case I think it's better to go with the option that puts out as few people as possible. Leave it up to individual sports bodies to figure out how to integrate as many people as possible without putting anyone at risk or destroying the legitimacy of competition.

Leroy42

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Agreed. But in this case I think it's better to go with the option that puts out as few people as possible. Leave it up to individual sports bodies to figure out how to integrate as many people as possible without putting anyone at risk or destroying the legitimacy of competition.

The problem with the approach is that the individual sports bodies have shown themselves either unwilling or unable to deal with the issue. We also know that sports bodies are subject to the same discriminations and prejudices in the people that run them than society in general.

That option sounds very like self-regulation, which we have seen in nearly every other sphere is a recipe for disaster.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

Isn’t that the States problem to figure out? It seems to me they have already figured it out. Just accept money from “enlightened” fools from out of state. Genius!

Not when the federal level is covering for their utter incompetence/corruption.

That’s fair. It’s also a standard cry of most Democrats. If you don’t think both sides are being hypocritical in this, you are missing a big part of American politics. It also doesn’t make the original position wrong, even if they are being unfaithful to it.

Happy to take your examples but I really don't see nearly as much from Democrats. In general they are for more federal governance and programs for everything. They might want to do more at the state level but topping up more than the federal level is very different than undercutting the GOP when it suits them.

They shouldn’t. Why did your representatives vote for it?
Get rid of it. Then let the locals figure it out as best suits their situation. I’m sure Republicans would be in favor of a reduction in Federal expenditures. (Well, supposedly. These days, even that policy tends to depend on who is making the advocation)

I'm glad you don't appear to be hypocritical on this topic like the majority of those politicians claiming 'state's rights'. I've the complete opposite perspective but we can agree to disagree.

My problem are the same politicians in GOP states that are against federal minimum wage increases don't similarly run on refusing federal assistance for their states. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

The argument goes just as far the other way as well. The California State budget is almost twice as reliant, in dollars per capita, on Federal aid than Texas’. Both are huge economies the size of typical countries. Why do they both have about a third of their state budgets paid for by the Feds? Some aid, I can see, particularly for infrastructure, but a third?

Where are you getting those numbers? From a quick google the two top sources I'm getting show that California has a slightly less reliance than Texas on federal money compared to what they put into the federal level. Both are net contributors to other states so I don't see the problem.

https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
https://taxfoundation.org/state-federal-aid-reliance-2020/

The biggest take away is that 9 of the top 10 states that are reliant on the federal government are deep Red states, most controlled by the GOP for decades. They are the guy that has spent his whole life on the dole but then call others 'welfare queens'.

The GOP have been running their states into the ground for decades and want the federal government to bail them out but have no input in their incompetent actions.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Isn’t that the States problem to figure out? It seems to me they have already figured it out. Just accept money from “enlightened” fools from out of state. Genius!



That’s fair. It’s also a standard cry of most Democrats. If you don’t think both sides are being hypocritical in this, you are missing a big part of American politics. It also doesn’t make the original position wrong, even if they are being unfaithful to it.



They shouldn’t. Why did your representatives vote for it?
Get rid of it. Then let the locals figure it out as best suits their situation. I’m sure Republicans would be in favor of a reduction in Federal expenditures. (Well, supposedly. These days, even that policy tends to depend on who is making the advocation)

The argument goes just as far the other way as well. The California State budget is almost twice as reliant, in dollars per capita, on Federal aid than Texas’. Both are huge economies the size of typical countries. Why do they both have about a third of their state budgets paid for by the Feds? Some aid, I can see, particularly for infrastructure, but a third?

Given California is a net contributer it seems to make the aid it receives irrelevant. It could simply hold back the aid it gives back out to cover the shortfall.

Not a hope in the world Republicans would be against state aid to their states. Like 0% chance. Republicans are massive, massive proponents for socialism (when it suits them) and have been for a while.

Even more than anything else such a move would be considered a direct attack on Republican states these days as well.

Northernlily

Absolutely mighty the lack of drama around this presidency so far. The Biden Administration focusing on the job at hand.

Hoping the odious Trumps dissappear into obscurity. History will be far from kind to them, that's for sure.

Carfacemandog

WrenBoy wrote: »

Now, what about that is "conspiracy theory bad faith arguments or outright misrepresentations" ?

I wouldn't necessarily call that either of those three things on your end at this point; just misinformed.

Because nobody was talking about $2,600. They were talking about $2,000 total.

Here is what a search for "$2,600 stimulus" prior to Nov 1st, 2020 will yield you: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEB_enIE922IE922&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A8%2F1%2F2020%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F1%2F2020&ei=wZ4RYM6hIZPpxgPyzq3oDg&q=%242600+stimulus+&oq=%242600+stimulus+&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzICCAAyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeSgUICBIBMVC5D1i5D2CyEmgBcAB4AIABVogBnQGSAQEymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpesABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiOhrPlzbzuAhWTtHEKHXJnC-0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5

Here is what a search for "$1,400 stimulus" prior to Nov 1st, 2020 will yield you: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEB_enIE922IE922&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A8%2F1%2F2020%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F1%2F2020&ei=xJ4RYL-oHpjS1fAPyp27wA8&q=%241400+stimulus&oq=%241400+stimulus&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECAAQQzICCAAyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAA6BggAEAcQHjoGCAAQBRAeOgYIABAIEB5KBQgEEgExSgUIBRIBMUoFCAYSATFKBQgHEgExSgUICRIBMUoGCAoSAjUxUNTLAVjzzQFg784BaABwAHgAgAFriAGOA5IBAzQuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi_mufmzbzuAhUYaRUIHcrODvgQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

Note how nothing in the first set appears to mention $2,600 as the total stimulus, while the second has plenty of links about $1,400 being added to the $600 existing stimulus of the time, to bring it to a total of $2,000.

You have now been informed.

Fog Hat

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

You are done in this thread. Any issues with that, my PM inbox is open.

Lol ok your modship, message received

Mod: See you in a week - forum banned for breach of your threadban

Water John

Great to see Champ and Major in the WH. A tradition of over years only broken by Trump.

Overheal

Water John wrote: »

Great to see Champ and Major in the WH. A tradition of over years only broken by Trump.

We're excited to hear about the first cat. Imagine it might be a minute though, or god forbid someone will be losing their **** that the President isn't wringing his hands every minute of the day about XYZ issue and out with the family adopting a cat.

mcsean2163

I was actually expecting Biden to continue the terrifying war but this seems great news.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/houthis-yemen-joe-biden-us-financial-transactions-humanitarian-aid-terrorist-designation/

More of this please.

SexBobomb

Carfacemandog wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily call that either of those three things on your end at this point; just misinformed.

Because nobody was talking about $2,600. They were talking about $2,000 total.

Here is what a search for "$2,600 stimulus" prior to Nov 1st, 2020 will yield you: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEB_enIE922IE922&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A8%2F1%2F2020%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F1%2F2020&ei=wZ4RYM6hIZPpxgPyzq3oDg&q=%242600+stimulus+&oq=%242600+stimulus+&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzICCAAyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeSgUICBIBMVC5D1i5D2CyEmgBcAB4AIABVogBnQGSAQEymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpesABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiOhrPlzbzuAhWTtHEKHXJnC-0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5

Here is what a search for "$1,400 stimulus" prior to Nov 1st, 2020 will yield you: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEB_enIE922IE922&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A8%2F1%2F2020%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F1%2F2020&ei=xJ4RYL-oHpjS1fAPyp27wA8&q=%241400+stimulus&oq=%241400+stimulus&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECAAQQzICCAAyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAA6BggAEAcQHjoGCAAQBRAeOgYIABAIEB5KBQgEEgExSgUIBRIBMUoFCAYSATFKBQgHEgExSgUICRIBMUoGCAoSAjUxUNTLAVjzzQFg784BaABwAHgAgAFriAGOA5IBAzQuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi_mufmzbzuAhUYaRUIHcrODvgQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

Note how nothing in the first set appears to mention $2,600 as the total stimulus, while the second has plenty of links about $1,400 being added to the $600 existing stimulus of the time, to bring it to a total of $2,000.

You have now been informed.

You have now been informed,, snide enough in fairness.

duploelabs

Biden freezes sales of F-35s to the UAE and munitions sales to Saudi Arabia

hotmail.com

Water John wrote: »

Great to see Champ and Major in the WH. A tradition of over years only broken by Trump.

Some of the presidents that had dogs at the White House had virtually no interaction with the dogs and only did it for publicity.