President Biden


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 368
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

From the WDYTWGTH file....

Standing by for: Kremlin says there will be consequences if one more Black dies in police shooting

Looks like the stars are aligning for you Deicer and your life long dreams might soon be realized. Enjoy my friend! I will be disappearing into our beautiful northern wilderness as nothing I think abo

Posted Images

On 3/30/2021 at 11:15 AM, seeker said:

Twice as many children are in Border Patrol custody under Biden than Trump peak in 2019

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/twice-as-many-children-border-patrol-custody-biden-trump-peak-2019

MCALLEN, Texas — The number of migrant children being held in Border Patrol facilities is more than double the record that was set in June 2019 during the Trump administration, the Washington Examiner has learned.

As of Sunday, 5,767 unaccompanied minors were being detained inside cells at Border Patrol facilities near the U.S.-Mexico border. In comparison, only 2,600 children were documented in custody at the height of the 2019 border crisis, according to federal data exclusively obtained Monday evening.

Spoiler alert - it's Trump's fault:

The administration has blamed the emergency on Trump policies. "We are digging out of a broken system over the past four years — not just the inhumane policies, but the fact that there were never efforts put in place to look for and seek shelters where these children could be safely and humanely housed," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday.

 

But at least now they are contained in "jail like structures" not cages.🤦‍♂️

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Georgia and Colorado have very similar voting rules so none of this makes a lot of sense. It also seems that Biden's home state is more restrictive than either.... it's hard to track it all down though because none of the discussion is rational and no one seems interested in actual facts.

I can't think of a single reason that showing ID and having your name checked against the voting rolls is a bad thing.

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these words will come back to haunt the President. Tides turn and corporate action like this will be just as wrong when it's eventually directed at Democrats as it is right now...the only difference will be the level of hypocrisy when they change their tune.

Any time a tactical liaison is based on short term self interest with nothing more than a mutual enemy to sustain it, well, good luck with that.

Biden said he supports however businesses decide to protest the law.

"I think it's a very tough decision for a corporation to make or group to make, I respect them when they make that judgment, I support whatever judgment they make"

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

I think these words will come back to haunt the President. Tides turn and corporate action like this will be just as wrong when it's eventually directed at Democrats as it is right now...the only difference will be the level of hypocrisy when they change their tune.

Any time a tactical liaison is based on short term self interest with nothing more than a mutual enemy to sustain it, well, good luck with that.

Biden said he supports however businesses decide to protest the law.

"I think it's a very tough decision for a corporation to make or group to make, I respect them when they make that judgment, I support whatever judgment they make"

 

Texas Gov. Abbott on why he declined to throw first pitch at home opener: MLB pushed 'false narrative'

Texas Gov. Abbott did not throw first pitch over MLB stance on Georgia voting law

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-gov-abbott-on-why-declined-throw-first-pitch-home-opener-mlb-pushed-false-narrative

53115ACA-3F21-4540-9D61-52E558A77B8C.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/u-s-jobs-come-roaring-back-surprising-employers-and-economists-1.1586741

U.S. jobs come roaring back, surprising employers and economists

A resurgent job market is creating more opportunities at a faster clip than many economists and employers expected.

What’s more, too few people are applying for positions that are reopening, and that’s setting up a battle for talent. Restaurants and hotels are raising wages, offering bonuses for worker referrals or luring people from other states to cope with the shortage.

Many data watchers have been caught off guard as improving weather, stimulus and a surge in vaccinations converge to boost the economy. Nonfarm payrolls rose by 916,000 last month, blowing away economists’ median estimate of a 660,000-job gain. Meanwhile, a measure of service-industry activity released this week saw the fastest growth on record in March, exceeding the highest estimate in a Bloomberg survey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

Many data watchers have been caught off guard as improving weather, stimulus and a surge in vaccinations converge to boost the economy. Nonfarm payrolls rose by 916,000 last month, blowing away economists’ median estimate of a 660,000-job gain. Meanwhile, a measure of service-industry activity released this week saw the fastest growth on record in March, exceeding the highest estimate in a Bloomberg survey.

Certainly good news as we all need the economy to be spooled up.  I do find the breathless reports of the fastest March growth on record to be a little disengenuous however.  Yeah, fastest growth because we just finished a year in lockdown.  Spoke to my financial advisor today - he says, "amazing 10% growth in GDP!"  I had to remind him that it's a comparison to last April and is therefore essentially meaningless.  I expect the May numbers will show a huge increase since last May, and June, and July.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

And cumulatively it paints a better picture that the first 100 days of the last administration in the U.S. and in lockstep, Canada.

D'uh.  Only because it's compared to last year.  If there was a pandemic during Obama's last year would you credit Trump with all the glory for simply being in place during the upswing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, seeker said:

D'uh.  Only because it's compared to last year.  If there was a pandemic during Obama's last year would you credit Trump with all the glory for simply being in place during the upswing?

D'uh.  

Didn't trump inherit a growing economy and take credit for it?  Oh ya, he did.

Things have maintained an even keel in Canada because of our government, and now the upswing is coming back.

The last president in the U.S. took a successful economy and gave his rich buddies a tax cut and nothing to anyone else. (Unless you count racism)

My portfolio is doing better now than over the last four years, thank you.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/data-show-trump-didn-t-build-great-economy-he-inherited-n1237793

Data show Trump didn't 'build' a great economy. He inherited it.

 

the numbers show that average quarterly economic growth under Trump, 2.5 percent, was almost exactly what it was under Obama in the second term, 2.4 percent.

Other than the overall similarity, two things jump out of those numbers. First, Trump didn’t get near his 4 percent figure. Second, the growth that began in Obama’s second term and essentially continued under Trump was enough to create an economy that even Trump believes was great. In other words, there might be something to be said for slow-steady growth over a prolonged period of time.

Obama saw a much steeper drop in unemployment in his second term, a 3.3 drop in the rate, than Trump did in his first three years, a decline of 1.2 points.

 

On average, the country created 215,000 new jobs a month in Obama’s second term. In Trump’s first three years, the figure was 182,000. They are both good numbers and if you look at the jobs data plotted on a graph, the rise since 2011 actually looks pretty consistent.

But that’s the point. Since the recovery from the last recession the numbers look like a slow, steady build. There is no sudden change when Trump takes office in 2017. There was nothing dramatic in the post-2011 job figures until the pandemic hit this spring.

https://www.statista.com/chart/22727/seasonally-adjusted-real-gdp-in-the-us/

 

 

22727.jpeg

Edited by deicer
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, deicer said:

D'uh.  

Didn't trump inherit a growing economy and take credit for it?  Oh ya, he did.

Of course he did.  This is what leaders have done since the beginning of time - doesn't mean we accept it.  If Trump doesn't get credit for what he inherited, Biden doesn't get credit for the "amazing recovery" - fair is fair.

Things have maintained an even keel in Canada because of our government, and now the upswing is coming back.

If you think our government maintained an even keel you're in for a big surprise when the mitigation for the 1.2  trillion dollar debt kicks in.

My portfolio is doing better now than over the last four years, thank you.

I did 12.61% on my mutual funds last year which is pretty good.  Of course we haven't seen the bill yet.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Didn't trump inherit a growing economy and take credit for it?  Oh ya, he did.

Didn’t Trudeau inherit a growing economy and take credit for it? Oh ya, he did.

Dont think things will be so rosy in Canada when, as Seeker says, the effects of our trillion $ debt kicks in. Not to mention the economies of AB, Sask and NFLD that have been neutered. We will see how Ontario fares from the latest lockdown.

Dont think things will “come roaring back”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking credit for something that predates those who seek it is the domain of fools (and their acolytes).

it makes them smaller in the eyes of opponents now and smaller yet  in the eyes of allies later. 

Do the work.... earn the win. I's so much easier.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, st27 said:

Dont think things will “come roaring back”.

I've worked with Greek officers on deployment and found them to be among the most optimistic of people. 

Yesterday I stood in front of the mirror and said "I'm rich, I'm rich" a hundred times. The bank doesn't believe it though so tomorrow I'll do it again and take a video to prove that I am.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, st27 said:

Didn’t Trudeau inherit a growing economy and take credit for it? Oh ya, he did.

Dont think things will be so rosy in Canada when, as Seeker says, the effects of our trillion $ debt kicks in. Not to mention the economies of AB, Sask and NFLD that have been neutered. We will see how Ontario fares from the latest lockdown.

Dont think things will “come roaring back”.

While you may not 'think' things will come roaring back, reality is painting another picture.

In the travel industry, demand is exploding, cruise bookings for 2022 are higher than pre-pandemic.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/07/carnival-says-bookings-are-rising-at-record-pace-watching-us-rules-closely.html

Most importantly though, history is on my side with this one. 

Economies historically have done better under democrats than republicans and we're seeing history repeat once again.

https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2020/09/08/republicans-or-democrats-who-is-better-for-the-economy/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/?sh=38df16346786

Trump Is Right About One Thing: 'The Economy Does Better Under The Democrats'

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-united-airlines-equity-initiative-pilot-ability

We have talked about this in the past. Equality of access (and opportunity) is significantly different than equality of outcome. Confusing the two with vague references to "equity" that leave equity itself undefined is a bad idea on any level. 

As soon as equality of outcome becomes governing (driven by quota) competence suffers. At this moment, how many people actually care what colour/gender their surgeon is.... anybody? I can certainly tell you that I don't. 

 Perversely, the quickest way to change that is putting a premium on quotas in lieu of competence. 

The NBA is a perfect example IMO and I would invite anyone to show that quality of play would be enhanced by establishing racial and gender quotas.  

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't these people just defund police across the country?

Biden announces slate of gun control actions, claims 'public health crisis'

It's a virtual orgy of shootings in the large Democratically controlled cities that have defunded. 

Like, was there some other outcome you like expected like?

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Second amendment sanctuary areas now being declared, Utah has joined the club.

This blight started with ignoring federal immigration law. Regardless of how anyone feels about either topic, the US is now on the road to being ungovernable as individual fiefdoms seek autonomy. 

Have we seen this anywhere else? At least it makes predicting the future easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bradyunited.org/act/second-amendment-sanctuaries

SO-CALLED “SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARIES” ARE TROUBLING ATTACKS ON GUN SAFETY LAWS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

In a backlash to newly passed gun safety laws, gun rights extremists in some localities across the country are declaring that state gun safety laws don't apply in their communities. Calling themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries," some localities are going so far as to pass resolutions declaring that they will refuse to enforce and dedicate tax-funded resources to the implementation of state gun safety measures.

Ultimately, "Second Amendment sanctuary" resolutions are purely symbolic and have no legal weight — and many state officials are making this clear.

“Second Amendment sanctuaries" are built entirely upon a tightly held and inaccurate belief that common-sense gun safety laws are unconstitutional. This movement is a clear backlash orchestrated by the gun lobby in response to recent wins in gun reform. Over recent years, voters across the country have elected lawmakers committed to preventing gun violence by passing common-sense and evidence-based measures like universal background checks, safe storage laws, and extreme risk laws. The extreme gun rights advocates behind so-called “Second Amendment sanctuaries” want to stop these laws before they can go into effect.

THE TRUTH? THESE GUN SAFETY LAWS DON'T INFRINGE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

According to these gun rights extremists, common-sense gun safety laws infringe on their Second Amendment rights. But the truth is that the Second Amendment is not under threat — and coordinated efforts to purposefully mislead the public or refuse to enforce public safety laws are dangerous. The gun safety measures that are being denounced by extreme gun rights advocates were passed by democratically elected legislators and were signed into law by state governors. Common-sense gun safety laws do not interfere with the rights of gun owners — but they do keep guns out of the hands of those who cannot or should not possess them.

"These resolutions have no legal force, and they’re just part of an effort by the gun lobby to stoke fear."

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring

State officials are calling out these bluffs, which are fueling fears and misunderstandings about gun safety laws. In Virginia, Attorney General Mark Herring confirmed that the many "Second Amendment sanctuary" resolutions being passed in counties and areas throughout Virginia "have no legal effects," and that the localities must follow gun violence prevention measures passed by the Virginia General Assembly. New Mexico officials have a similar response. The New Mexico governor's office underscored that — despite arguments by the gun lobby — the state's new gun safety laws do not infringe on New Mexicans’ constitutional rights. This much we know — law enforcement and local governments can't categorically refuse to enforce public safety laws based on an extremist ideology.

“These [Second Amendment sanctuary] resolutions mark an expression of opinion, and that’s fine. [But] state law will be followed."

Office of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham

WHERE ARE “SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARIES” APPEARING?

Disturbing so-called “Second Amendment sanctuaries” are a coordinated effort supported by politically motivated, national groups. Since 2018, more than 270 counties have passed resolutions declaring themselves as “Second Amendment sanctuaries,” and this number continues to rise. While the reasoning for these resolutions vary, they are growing in rural and suburban areas alike. States with jurisdictions that have declared themselves as so-called “Second Amendment sanctuaries” include:

 

 
 
 

An asterisk (*) indicates where local Brady Chapters have engaged in opposition to so-called “Second Amendment sanctuaries."


“We are not talking about a grassroots movement. We are talking about a dangerous push from the gun lobby to remain relevant.”

— Christian Heyne, Brady Vice President of Policy

WHO’S BEHIND THE MOVEMENT FOR “SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARIES?” THE GUN LOBBY

We discovered that the NRA was pulling the strings behind so-called “Second Amendment sanctuaries” in New Mexico. New Mexicans were among the wave of voters who elected a gun safety majority to their state legislature in the 2018 midterm elections. But when elected officials passed legislation to address New Mexico’s gun violence epidemic, the backlash was swift. Twenty-five counties passed so-called “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolutions opposing the new laws.

We submitted public records requests to determine the source of this troubling effort, and we confirmed that the National Rifle Association (NRA) was at the helm, closely coordinating with and influencing the New Mexico sheriffs’ refusals to enforce gun safety legislation.

WHY IMMIGRATION SANCTUARY CITIES ARE DIFFERENT THAN “SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARIES"

Extreme gun rights groups are co-opting “sanctuary” language from the immigration reform movement, branding themselves like sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants. But the similarities between these two movements are purely semantic. When it comes to immigration, the Constitution is clear that local governments aren't obligated to enforce federal immigration policies unless state or federal law says so. But when it comes to so-called “Second Amendment sanctuaries,” sheriffs and localities are refusing to enforce state — not federal — policies, meaning that they are ignoring the rule of law in their own state.

Generally, localities cannot ignore state public safety laws or enact any local laws that conflict with state law. It's the responsibility of state legislators to pass legislation, for the governor to sign them into law, and — if challenged — for the court system to rule on their constitutionality. It's improper and dangerous for a local government to try to circumvent state law and to falsely imply that these townships, and the people residing in these townships, are not subject to the law.

BOTTOM LINE: “SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARIES” ARE A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY

It is unfortunate and ironic that the areas across the U.S. passing resolutions in opposition to common-sense gun safety laws are those that would benefit the most from such laws, particularly with respect to suicide prevention. For example, Colorado has one of the highest suicide rates in the U.S., and half of the state's suicides are carried out with a firearm. Yet Colorado sheriffs are refusing to enforce the state's new extreme risk law — also known as a "red flag law" — which is a proven tool to prevent gun suicides. In fact, 9 of the 10 Colorado counties with the highest suicide rate over the past 10 years have declared themselves as so-called “Second Amendment sanctuaries.” Ironically, 22 out of the 24 sanctuary counties where data is available — or 92% — have suicide rates above the state average.

In reality, Colorado's new extreme risk law appears to have helped save a life almost immediately. The day after it went into effect, Denver police invoked the law in regard to a domestic violence situation in which they temporarily removed access to guns from a man who allegedly abused his wife and made suicidal statements. The man repeatedly told police he was “contemplating doing something bad to myself” and that it was a “good thing they stopped me."

This example in Colorado illustrates how “Second Amendment sanctuaries” ultimately put constituents at risk by threatening to block gun safety laws designed to save lives. What's more, they're undermining the very oath sworn to by law enforcement — to protect and serve the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A rational opinion article on the matter:

https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/2020/01/5-reasons-to-be-concerned-about-second-amendment-sanctuaries-commentary.html

5 reasons to be concerned about ‘Second Amendment sanctuaries’

Robert J. Spitzer is distinguished service professor of political science at SUNY Cortland and the author of five books on gun policy, including “The Politics of Gun Control” and “Guns Across America.” He is a panelist on WCNY’s “Ivory Tower.”

 

By Robert J. Spitzer | Special to Syracuse.com

 

“Sanctuary! Sanctuary!” These words were famously shouted by the deformed bell-ringer Quasimodo as he dramatically rescued the young, beautiful and innocent Esmeralda from public hanging by scooping her up and retrieving her to Notre Dame cathedral in the 1939 movie “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.” The moment embodies the idea of a religious haven where people might seek immunity from the hand of the state.

While America of today bears no relationship to Victor Hugo’s 19th century novel, set in 15th century Paris, new cries of “sanctuary” resonate in our politics. About two years ago, local governments in Western states began to enact so-called “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolutions in which they asserted their refusal to enforce any federal or state gun laws they believed violated Second Amendment rights. These actions came in response to new state gun law proposals, following a rising tide of public demand for such measures.

 
 

Sanctuary advocates claimed that they were following an earlier immigration sanctuary movement, in recent years encompassing at least five states and hundreds of localities, in which local authorities pledged to not voluntarily cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. These resolutions often barred the use of local personnel and financial resources, except for cases of serious criminality.

 
 

But Second Amendment sanctuary claims by localities are different in two important ways. For one thing, local cooperation with federal immigration authorities is voluntary, so non-cooperation poses no violation of federal law. Second Amendment sanctuary advocates assert the desire or intention to not enforce state gun laws to which they are lawfully bound.

 
 

In addition, Second Amendment sanctuary adherents reserve to themselves the right to judge which laws or possible laws violate their view of Second Amendment rights. In 2018, for example, a county in Illinois enacted a resolution vowing not to enforce “unconstitutional” gun measures then before the state legislature, including proposals to ban bump stocks, assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds). A Virginia county recently enacted a resolution that “would oppose unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.” Over 70 local governments in Illinois have enacted similar measures; in Virginia, where the state legislature is now on the verge of enacting several new gun laws, more than 120 municipalities have approved sanctuary provisions. In all, local governments in 20 states have done the same,

Now this movement has, it seems, come to New York. Last week, the Solon Town Board, located in my home county of Cortland, announced that it was going to consider such a resolution. According to a board member, “We’ll abide by the state’s [gun] laws they have set now,” but “if they try any overreach. . . we’re not going to abide by that.”

 
 

Despite the inherently lawless nature of this and other declarations, apparently no locality has yet to expressly carry out its non-enforcement pledge. But if these resolutions are mostly sound and fury, with no actual law-breaking by a local government, what’s the problem? There are at least five.

 
 

First, given the spread of this movement and the intensity of feeling held by some of its most zealous (and armed) adherents, the day of open inter-government conflict may well come. If, say, state law enforcement officials confront armed local officials, and perhaps sympathetic armed civilians, who could confidently predict the outcome?

 
 

Second, even if no such confrontation actually occurs, local governments are still on record proclaiming the right to ignore state laws that they simply don’t like — a position that has no legal basis. And all state public officers take an oath to “support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of New York,” and to “faithfully discharge” their positions under those laws.

Third, and more to the point, the gun laws that have provoked such ire — red flag laws, uniform background checks, restrictions on assault weapons and large capacity magazines — have existed for years, are widely popular, and have withstood past legal challenges.

 
 

Fourth, sanctuary supporters claiming to know the line where Second Amendment rights are unforgivably violated don’t. In its 2008 gun rights ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court declared a citizen right to own a handgun for self-protection in the home. It also qualified that right by noting a variety of gun laws that would pass constitutional muster, encompassing pretty much every measure that states have passed or are considering passing. Federal courts have almost uniformly upheld these laws’ constitutionality.

 
 

Finally, lawmakers who so openly flout the law subvert the idea of law. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote nearly a century ago, “If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

As the Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said recently, any local sheriffs refusing to enforce new gun laws “should resign.” Sounds like good advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.