There are things you can do in the Senate with a simple majority, but to pass new laws you effectively need 60 votes (technically not, but practically this is true due to the modern filibuster). That means to pass a new law through the senate you either need bipartisan support or a supermajority of 60+ seats allowing you to pass through along party lines. Biden has never had a senate supermajority so all his legislative efforts have required some Republican support to get through the Senate. And that is without even considering the impact of losing the house in 2022.
So, no. To get anything on imigration through the senate it needs 60 votes. Biden has never had that and so now, just as during his first two years, he would have always needed Republican votes. There was a period where this bipartisan effort thought it might win enough Republicans to get there, but once Trump aired opposition to it, McConnel killed it, such is his power as long as the Dems donât have a super majority and the filibuster is still a thing.
Amazing really, seeing as sheâs been in the public eye for quite a while now. Theyâll surely make up some more scare stories, but pretty lame so far.
So lets assume Trump gets in, and republicans get the senate as well, then he is in the same boat as Biden, he cant do anything significant without the 60 senate. Iâm assuming the house just needs a simple majority.
I also assume the âstay in placeâ thing Trump had with Mexico was done without the need of Senate and House (irregardless if you think it worked or not).
Yes, Trump will be similarly hamstrung from fixing the issue by the challenge of passing new laws. So we can say that we cannot criticize an administration just because the situation at the border is a problem. We can though criticize them for the specific decisions they made in dealing with the situations they find themselves in (which is I think where you are trying to go - absolving Trump of criticism)
A good illustration is âkids in cagesâ. Obama built them because his administration was faced with unprecedent wave of unaccompanied children arriving. The courts donât allow the government to hold children in the same facilities as adults and the system was just not equipped to house that many children and so they built a series of temporary detention centers (the cages) to house them until they could be released to family members.
Trump did not have the same issue with unaccompanied children. But he created one with his child separation policy in which he separated families who arrived together, send the adults back and kept the kids but did so without any record of who they were or who they belonged to. The cry was âkids in cagesâ but the criticism was the inhumane child separation policy that was intentionally cruel by design as a way to disincentive people from coming.
If you want to criticize Harris for her role in the administrationâs border policy then go ahead, but it is not a valid criticism to say âthere is a problem at the border therefore she has done poorlyâ. Nor is it valid to just make something up like âopen border policyâ given we have demonstrated over and over again that there is just no such thing.
Weâve gone over this before, but the Steele Dossier was not a significant part of the 2016 election cycle. Prior to the election only fringe outlets reported on its existence (Mother Jones). No one in the Clinton campaign new what was being referenced in those fringe reports was what they had commissioned, and neither used any details of it or its existence in general in any part of their campaign. The FBI even misled the public by allowing main stream outlets to report on the eve of the election there was no active investigation into Trump world.
The details of the dossier were not then reported until after the election. Interest in Trump-Russia had risen again due to the Flynn phone calls and so one other fringe outlet (buzzfeed) decided to publish details of the dossier feeling it was now of sufficient public interest, but did so to considerable criticism from the rest of the main stream press. Interest in Trump-Russia continued thereafter, but that was because there was by that time lots of threads unravelling and none of them were related to the steele dossierâs existence or the details it contained.
Not trying at all, I just find it strange that most of the voting population say the border is an important issue, and also say they have more confidence that Trump is better suited to solving the issue (vs Biden). The numbers are skewed enough that it cannot be considered a republican/democrat bias (in other words there are people out there that consider themselves Democrats, yet think Trump would be better at this particular issue). This is of course only relevant if you believe polls.
But that would also imply there are lots of people who donât vote based on issues.
If there are Democrats out there, and they vote Democrat, yet their main issue is the border and they think Trump is the better solutions there then it shows the issue isnât all that important in deciding their vote.
I have said somewhere earlier that I do think Trump has the right idea to further clamp down on illegal immigration but yet unfortunately shown to have some of the worst execution. The wallâŚwhat was he thinking of seriously. And I think someone also pointed out, actually US already has laws on illegal immigration, I just think they, any President, have to be hard and be resolved to processing and enforcing the laws and not let irrelevant noises stop them from doing so.
Think there is an element of fear there, the Republicans were on a roll having a go at Biden,now they donât know what to do, the silence over the last few days, apart from the usual childish abuse tends to confirm that.
She is no fool,Trump is, hence his ongoing blustering about courts, after he stacked SCOTUS.It is suddenly a very different ball game.
Yeah if I was posting video clips with intentionally bad framing then Iâd simply cut the part where she says âthen more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean waterâ - kind of a giveaway that she meant to say pollution not population (although population control through encouraging use of protection and availability of abortion treatment is also a net positive for the environment).
Sheâs clearly not advocating for the elimination of population. Thatâs part of a dumb conspiracy theory popular on the far-right.
Are basically all their positions based on loony conspiracy theories and just flat out lying in the face of hard facts? Why would anyone want to find the âmiddle groundâ with the jewish space laser crowdâŚ
So, Mr Pickering, an honest question; Did you post that because you seriously think that Harris wants to reduce the population? Do you think she has a plan to lower the amount of people in the US? If you wish to attack her, is that all youâve got?
One time where she mixes pollution and population compared to DTâs daily bloopers?
If you are against her, what are the serious policy issues that you disagree with?
