- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The White House statement comes after a week of frantic negotiations in the Senate.
President Joe Biden on Friday urged Congress to pass a bipartisan bill to address the immigration crisis at the nation’s southern border, saying he would shut down the border the day the bill became law.
“What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” Biden said in a statement. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”
Biden’s Friday evening statement resembles a ramping up in rhetoric for the administration, placing the president philosophically in the camp arguing that the border may hit a point where closure is needed. The White House’s decision to have Biden weigh in also speaks to the delicate nature of the dealmaking, and the urgency facing his administration to take action on the border — particularly during an election year, when Republicans have used the issue to rally their base.
The president is also daring Republicans to reject the deal as it faces a make-or-break moment amid GOP fissures.
What, in the purview of an election year (and risk of putting someone obviously orders-of-magnitude worse for such people), with the right-wing border propaganda resonating with many voters, with GOP border states that don’t actually want to work with Biden, and with a divided Congress, do you want Biden to do?
It’s one thing to throw peanuts from the peanut gallery, but another to look at the pragmatic reality and actual viable options versus consequences.
Treating people’s lives like political pawns in a campaign is NOT okay. Stop trying to normalize this shit.
Don’t ever speak to me again. Enabling this shit is a horrible thing to do to people. Let’s put you in a camp or send you into a violent situation and see how much you like it. “BuT iT’s ElEcTiOn YeAr” I don’t care
I say again since you’re obviously deflecting: It’s one thing to throw peanuts from the peanut gallery, but another to look at the pragmatic reality and actual viable options versus consequences.
You can live with your idealistic pyrrhic victory while you naively reject the reality of the political consequences and put someone far worse in power. But you do you, buddy.
I wish we could be idealistic, but the reality is that too many people are under informed, under educated, or otherwise trained to blame the country’s problems on minorities.
The idealists in this thread thinking “let’s say the right thing now, let the bad guys take over, then we’ll just have a little 'ol revolution” have their heads up their asses. They need to take a serious look at the middle east and their royals in golden palaces. That is the Republican end game.
People like them have no actual solution, they just like screaming that you’re wrong while they’re right.
It’s almost like dealing with a MAGAt.
To have a solution, you first must have a problem. This isn’t one. It’s only a problem for racists.
Oh, how awfully convenient!
But true, it’s better defined as a dilemma. The dichotomy between doing nothing because one’s hands are tied, or investing in a move that gives you power to address it down the road.
… You know… By not handing the keys back to the real racist.
But some people don’t think that many chess moves ahead, I guess.
Frankly it makes me wonder if they are. Unfortunately we know it’s a common tactic for them to pretend they’re leftist and wedge-drive to sow apathy.
Feel free to check my post history and you’ll see when I turned
How many genocide did Trump support and enable again?
Oh I don’t know…
When you say you trust Putin’s word over the consensus of your own intelligence agencies, I’d argue enabling Russia’s genocide against Ukraine is one.
When you buddy up with the North Korean leader, you’re at least endorsing the famine of their people.
When you undermine peace deals with Iran, you undermine regional stability indirectly leading to further deaths both domestically and externally.
… Though let’s not forget that neither the UN nor ICJ has formally ruled on genocide charges.
And sure, let’s just pretend you’re not oversimplifying the situation in order to obviously wedge-drive all the while pretending Trump is some leader of global peace LOL.
So how many weapons did we send to ACTIVELY engage in genocide?
Trump was a fucking horrible person but he was way too fucking inept of a moron to pull off anything big.
Biden fucking tricked us all into thinking he was a fucking good guy.
Hell he tricked me pretty good.
Not sure but a reminder that Trump directly killed more civilians from US air strikes in the year of 2017 than Obama and Biden, combined. So there’s that.
Trump may or may not be a moron, but his cabinet was not. From Richard Spencer to Bill Barr to Pompeo to Homan – It was full of evil fucking psychopaths and if you’re unfamiliar with Project 2025 you best familiarize yourself with it. It’s no different than Bush Jr., and the neocons he was surrounded by.
Biden is in a tricky spot that I do not envy. While it’s very pleasant to the brain to think in absolutes, there are major consequences to these decisions that can have major implications in the election ahead… Which again, we do not wish to hand the keys to someone who trusts the likes of Putin and kisses Netanyahu’s ass just the same.
To Biden’s credit his tone has shifted significantly on Israel, going from lockstep support to publicly calling Israel’s attacks, “Indiscriminate Bombing.” He’s already denied them advanced military aid packages like Apache Helicopters, and has met with Netanyahu trying to force them to dial back the conflict. Calling it genocide publicly will do little substantively but to close the door to any diplomacy and influence Biden has with Netanyahu in the first place.
I am so grateful that he gave them slightly less weapons than they asked for.
It sure cancels out all the ones he did
Yeah well, just you wait for what fellow right-wing nationalist Trump – who unlike Biden has not called for mitigating civilian casualties – will give him. And let’s not forget that Trump already vowed to not let any Palestinian refugees into America.
But yes, please proceed with this totally good faith argument totally not rooted in blatant false equivalence.
Removed by mod
Removed, rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
Yeah I admit I chuckled at this.
I got major, “Don’t speak to me or my son ever again!” vibes lol.
Removed by mod
Removed, rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
Heard, and that’s fair.
Removed by mod
Removed, rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”