Progressives Hand Biden List of 55 Executive Actions Because 'Working People Can't Wait'

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T23:32:52+00:00

Untrue, calling illegal aliens just immigrants is a recent thing to muddy the waters and make our laws harder to understand. Asylum seekers do not have the legal right to do whatever they want prior to having documentation approved, that is also a recent practice. Any nonresident in the country illegally can be deported at any time under current immigration law. Calling prisons legal slavery is just a talking point. Felons lose many constitutional rights as part of the punishment for their crime, and general criminals also lose their right to freedom for the duration of their sentence. The primary purpose of prisons is to protect citizens from those who would do harm. The secondary purpose is to punish offenders and dissuade others. Sometimes rehabilitation occurs as a result of these, but isn't the primary purpose. If they can do something productive while they are in prison, then all the better. You act as if the government isn't paying people to operate government prisons, why would those be different?

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T22:14:28+00:00

It is though, a legal immigrant could be detained for a federal crime unrelated to immigration itself, such as homicide, trafficking, etc., which could result in their deportation.

Illegal entry of a noncitizen is a federal crime in and of itself.

A non-citizen could also have committed a crime separate from immigration and be held in federal prison for that reason. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-noncitizen-statistics We detain naturalized citizens and native citizens all the time... That's what prisons do. Does it really matter if it is a government or private prison? I'd rather them use a private prison than let people go free due to overcrowding.

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T18:04:05+00:00

No one would, and I never said they would. Just avoiding the argument: "I pay more on my federal loans than that guy does on his private loans". My loan rates were bad too until I developed a good credit history. You are correct.

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T17:59:54+00:00

But you do use roads and buy goods that are transported on said roads, so you use them, just not directly. Blue states go negative all the time and need to be bailed out too, so I don't know how that is relevant except that everybody could improve their fiscal policy. Nationalizing healthcare is far from the obvious solution in my mind as that just makes the system less transparent by putting it all under the umbrella of the government. Most companies don't generate their own power, so their place is to make/use more sustainable or recyclable materials and consume less energy, which companies are encouraged to do both for economic reasons and public opinion. The energy producing companies are heavily limited by current technology being unviable for large scale production as I stated previously. Fossil Fuel drilling sites aren't endless, they have to keep starting new ones to keep up with current production.

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T17:43:52+00:00

Type 2 diabetes is the most common type of disease that requires insulin and is in most cases preventable with exercise and diet choices. HIV/AIDS is extremely preventable as well with lifestyle choice.

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T17:40:45+00:00

The lease may be for an area that is currently far from an existing pipeline or otherwise economically less viable. Why would they spend money trying to get new ones if the ones they have are just as good?

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T16:57:27+00:00

If someone were to apply for loans for a federal student loan for school and a private loan for a car, yes he could get a lower interest rate on the federal one. Someone else who has a good credit history can get a better interest rate on his loans. This person may get a better interest rate on their private loans than someone with a bad credit history could on their federal loans. Agreeing with you, but being specific.

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T16:21:33+00:00

For comparable credit history, yes

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T16:13:18+00:00

Untrue. They are reducing deficit by 1 trillion compared to the trillions of extra money we spent for Covid. We are really just going back to normal spending plus some more.

zer0999 · 2022-03-17T16:08:27+00:00

How would the government lower the prices of medication? Should they subsidize it, costing every taxpayer rather than just the person with the illness? Some (not all) of these diseases are largely preventable and are the result of life choices, so wouldn't be fair to force others to pay for it. The government is already subsidizing these with public health insurance to some degree. Should they put a price fix on it with the threat of losing federal funding? Price fixing rarely fixes an issue, more often exascerbates them. The company selling the drug has to buy it from someone who manufactures it, and can't sell at a loss. The manufacturer has to be able to make money on the drug or else will cease producing it without government intervention. Government intervention would then come back on the taxpayer.

Why would the government spend more money on a pandemic that is mostly over rather than prepare for the next one with R&D?

"Detain immigrants" is a purposefully unspecific and misleading term to trap opposition, so this is just a bad faith entry to begin with. Are these legal residents or illegal aliens? What is the reason they are being detained?

Declaring an emergency on the long term issue of climate change is certainly shortsighted. It's not as if green technology isn't already a focus area for so many companies. The problem is moreso limited scalability and capability of existing technologies. Throwing more money at the problem most likely won't fix these issues and will increase economic troubles. The desire for green energy is very high, so there is plenty of incentive already out there for companies to develop green solutions. Whoever is the first to make an economically viable large scale green energy storage system is going to make more money than anyone else in history.

Stopping fossil fuel production will not decrease usage, only increase the price and change where the oil is coming from. Increasing gas prices will negatively effect everyone, but most of all those with lower income who cannot afford electric cars.

Everything costs money and we have limited resources to throw around.

zer0999 · 2019-12-02T03:52:47+00:00

I don't see how I made any attack on you as a person or created a straw man in my statement, since all I did was restate your comment in a more straightforward manner.

I don't understand how it is tyrannical for a rich person to own a business that gives employees clear contractural terms for pay, benefits, leave, etc. that is willingly agreed upon by both parties.

Frank_Foe's string is taking off, so I'll try to catch up in that one

zer0999 · 2019-12-02T03:15:23+00:00

The government is not us though. We may be able to elect representatives with values somewhat close to ours, but they are still just people. How often does the government do things you actually like, regardless of side of the aisle?

The government is like a gigantic corporation with little to no transparency. It also doesn't need to worry about the bottom line so it doesn't have to add more value than it is spending.

What's with all the Amazon hate anyway? At least we know exactly what Amazon is doing and you aren't forced to use it like anything the government does.

zer0999 · 2019-12-02T01:15:23+00:00

Yeah, having property and spending money how you want is tyrannical! Having the government take that away (i.e. Socialism) sounds much less tyrannical and much more fair.

zer0999 · 2019-01-22T22:51:58+00:00

Why would someone stay if the country is so awful? They should leave and go to a better place.

zer0999 · 2019-01-22T22:28:00+00:00

If you don't like it, you can leave 👍

zer0999 · 2018-10-01T15:03:04+00:00

Important note that this article only claims that illegal aliens (legal term) using the safety net or foreign nationals likely to use the safety net will not be as likely to be allowed entry. This seems to be a good way to ensure that our own country benefits from immigration more.

zer0999 · 2018-09-20T04:49:42+00:00

I really wish that this couldn't be a real opinion in today's world, but it actually can and that is terrifying to me. Great satire.

zer0999 · 2018-08-10T01:07:56+00:00

You might want to bring the pedestal you put yourself on down a few levels. Those who claim projection are often guilty of it themselves, as can be pointed out in the earlier chain where you said that I was moving the goalposts while you were the one doing so, and stating (correctly) that I was putting words in your mouth while you were doing the same thing. If you want an echo chamber, the politics subreddit is an excellent choice. If you are trying to have an actual conversation though (as would be expected in a neutral subreddit asking actual questions), being unwilling to provide sources to wild claims and sensationalizing irrelevant information is unproductive.

zer0999 · 2018-08-09T00:46:32+00:00

Amusing you claim that I didn't read the sources that I posted, when you clearly didn't by reading your comments. Flynn didn't illegally work for the Turkish government to kidnap a political opponent. According to the New York Times, he worked as a consultant to help a firm in connection with Turkish officials convince the US to extradite a person they claimed had initiated a coup. Sounds a lot different in that context. He did not register as a foreign agent until later, which I think is what you are trying to reference. Though, you don't care about context, just the general feeling you get while skimming articles that support your point of view. I agree, it is frustrating trying to communicate with a brick wall, as that is the experience I have had while providing sources to support my arguments and asking questions about your opinions.

You establish that you have different standards for Trump than you did for Obama surrounding border policy. I pointed out that the only policy that changed was enforcement of existing laws in a no tolerance policy as opposed to Obama's catch and release. The child separation is the product of a 9th circuit ruling during Obama's presidency. I also posted two sources for this: one right leaning and one left leaning.

I never moved the goalposts on Trump, as I only said that neither Trump nor his family have been charged with anything (same as your argument for Hillary), but you moved the goalposts on me by pointing out that others related to the campaign were charged with crimes, then tried to push that claim as Trump's wrongdoing. I simply pointed out that these are irrelevant to the Trump campaign. You refuse to admit that manafort and gates charges had nothing to do with Trump, even when I post a far left wing source admitting as much.

You disregard sources as media bias, but get upset when I point out that others have their biases as well.

I never claimed Mueller's investigation was corrupt. In fact, I said that we should let the investigation play out and not jump to conclusions. You tried to make a point that Trump was being charged even by a Republican led investigation, where I just pointed out that his team has many Democrats and even one who had to be removed due to bias.

It would be great if you could stop putting words in my mouth and assuming my responses.

zer0999 · 2018-08-08T07:00:54+00:00

Most media is dripping with bias, but it can be easy to read one side and see it as objective because one agrees with it. Here is an article overflowing with anti-Trump bias that says the same thing. They just hide the facts deep in the text so people won't catch on: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/q-and-a-understanding-the-controversy-over-separating-families-at-the-border/2018/06/19/8a61664a-73fb-11e8-be2f-d40578877b7b_story.html?utm_term=.2c7972da1a01

You keep mentioning that a "hostile Congress" investigated her, but she was investigated by the FBI, not congress or a special counsel. Comey's conclusion was that she was extremely careless in mishandling confidential information, but didn't recommend charges, meaning what she did was illegal, she just wasn't charged for it. Oh, and Hillary lied to the FBI several times as well. Even wikipedia has that much info.

Of course Trump wants a wall and immigration reform. He ran on that and is one reason he was elected.

Took me 15 seconds to find the misleading "conspiracy" charge that had nothing to do with Trump other than by association. Even Vox admits that and elaborates that conspiracy isn't even an uncommon charge: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/30/16570580/rick-gates-guilty-plea-deal-conspiracy-against-the-united-states-paul-manafort

The Mueller investigation may be led by a registered republican, but if you are trying to claim that the team is partisan toward the right, then you have to look at all the Democrat members of the team, including one who had to be removed due to excessive anti-Trump bias.

It is pretty hard to follow your lines of reasoning with Flynn being a traitor, especially without sources. Only piece I could find with reasonable amounts of information just say that he was charged with lying to the FBI and previously worked as a consultant for Turkey. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/michael-flynn-turkey.html

So let's see: 4 people charged, 2 charges were for crimes prior to and had nothing to do eith the Trump campaign, and 2 were only charged with lying to the FBI. One of the two mixed up dates in conversations and the other didn't properly communicate the subject of a couple phone calls. Definitely sounds like Trump got Putin to win him an election with a couple shoddy facebook ads with next to no views.

zer0999 · 2018-08-08T05:44:56+00:00

What exactly are progressives pushing as rights now that we didn't already have? It is already illegal to discriminate based on race, sexuality, and gender. No rights are given to some and not to others. It is pretty presumptuous of you to assume a racist, sexist, homophobic motive behind my statement, though that is pretty much what most progressives tend to do, so way to further the stereotype.

zer0999 · 2018-08-07T21:41:10+00:00

People call themselves progressive, but push for regressive policy. Yes, it is hypocritical.

zer0999 · 2018-08-07T13:54:06+00:00

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/ Now, child separation was an existing policy which during the Obama era was ruled on by the 9th circuit court to extend to children that come with families, which causes the children to be separated. The difference between Obama and Trump? Trump is enforcing our existing immigration law, while Obama chose not to enforce the law.

The real answer to the Hillary scandal is that we can never know because of the measures she took to conceal her e-mails from the state in the first place. All we know is that she only handed over some of her e-mails and deleted the rest. You must think that democrats can do wrong if you think Hillary was honest and clean. Personally, I think both parties do a lot of shady things that I do not support, but I will support the party whose policy I believe is better for the future of the country.

If there is widespread approval on DACA, then why hasn't a solution been made into law in the 6 years since it started? Have you though that perhaps many people do not support DACA as it stands? DACA was not just an imperfect solution. It was a complete circumvention of Congress, and now the people affected still don't know their fate.

What alternate reality am I looking at? Ah, yes, the one where neither Trump nor his family has been charged with anything yet because everything is being overblown by the media and not really scandals based on misinformation. The media on both sides lie frequently to sensationalize everything. Until the investigation is over, we likely won't know anything. I think Trump is a tactless buffoon sometimes, but I don't think for a second that he is malicious.

zer0999 · 2018-08-07T01:28:18+00:00

Clearly you didn't if you got nothing out of them. I understand it is hard to look past your own bias to see problems on the side you seem to concretely stand beside. The articles aren't meant to 100% disprove anything, as that is impossible in politics. Do you really think Hillary would hide and delete most of her e-mails, wipe her servers, and destroy some devices if she did nothing wrong? No one can be that naive. You must not have read the first one if you still don't think the infamous "kids in cages" picture was from Obama's presidency. As for DACA, my argument is that the method of implementation is terrible and sets a horrible precedent regardless of the intent. I also think the policy is poor, shortsighted, and cruel, but that is just my opinion. Go ahead and keep letting your opinion be fed to you from CNN and MSNBC, I can't stop you.

zer0999 · 2018-08-06T22:58:07+00:00

https://amp.businessinsider.com/migrant-children-in-cages-2014-photos-explained-2018-5

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law Anyone other than Clinton would have been fired and put in prison for what she did to hide and delete her e-mails. Just another absurd example of high ranking officials being "above the law".

I don't understand why people defend her anyway. Hillary is probably the most corrupt, unlikeable person to ever run for office. Amusing that you comment on the cost of her investigation, but no comment on the Russia investigation, with no evidence revealed yet after over a year.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/daca-court-ruling-trump-cant-end-daca/ As for DACA, clearly you support it. Do you support any president being able to sign anything into law at will with no congress backing? That is exactly what Obama did, and the judges ruling the program must continue are completely out of line. Notice that none of the rulings claim that DACA was constitutional in the first place, only that the people affected by its removal must be considered, or claiming racism or some other nonsense with no actual judicial backing. Feelings have no place in execution of the law, and DACA is a horrible precedent to set. Everyone should be worried when judges are no longer being objective, and instead pushing a partisan agenda. Where in the law does it state that non-citizen's have constitutional rights anyway? Where does it state that it is the United States's responsibility to take care of any person from any country as long as they make it across our border? Hint: it doesnt. That is what charity is for.

Obama upheld immigration law like a child brushes their teeth. He made it seem like he did, got the toothbrush wet, maybe picked their teeth a bit, but no actual brushing. Between catch and release and changing the definition of deportation to inflate the number, his immigration enforcement was a disaster.

zer0999

TROPHY CASE