President Joseph R Biden Jr. 46th President of the United States

315 posts in this topic

Indeed! Various US banks and bureaucracy already think that about expats...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things: 

 

1) This is some bullshit.

2) Here is the so-called liberal press calling it out.

 

Fact-checking Psaki's claim that there 'have not been sanctions put in place' on foreign leaders even in recent past

 

Quote

Facts First: It's not true that there "have not been sanctions put in place" against the leaders of foreign governments even in the recent past. In fact, all three of Biden's predecessors who took office in the 21st century imposed direct sanctions on foreign leaders. Psaki made a narrower and more accurate claim on Monday, saying the US has "typically" not imposed direct sanctions on leaders of countries with which it has diplomatic relations.

Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who has studied sanctions, said Psaki's Sunday assertion "is too broad" given the list of leaders against whom the US has indeed imposed direct sanctions. He added, "What Psaki meant to say is that the US seldom if ever sanctions the leaders of countries regarded as important US allies, nor does it sanction the leaders of nuclear adversaries."

The list of leaders against the US has hit with direct sanctions includes:

 

 

There is some complexity about who qualifies as a leader of a foreign government. Iran's official head of government is the President, but the ultimate authority is, as the title suggests, the Supreme Leader. Saudi Arabia is still officially led by King Salman, but the crown prince, his son, is the de facto ruler.

Regardless, Psaki's claim went too far. Michael Beck, a sanctions expert with the firm TradeSecure, LLC, said that when you consider the list of sanctioned leaders, "it's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that the United States has not or will not sanction leaders of foreign governments."

The specifics of the sanctions on these leaders varied. They included travel restrictions, asset freezes, and bans on Americans having financial dealings with them.

 

It has to be killing the pro-Trump camp to see CNN criticize Biden and his team. Kick rocks. Truth rolls that way.

 

P.S. - This still does not make Biden = Trump. Biden is still > Trump every day.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Biden restores climate change page to EPA website, reversing Trump"

 

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency restored a page containing key climate change information to its public website on Thursday, four years after the Trump administration had removed it as part of a strategy to downplay global warming threats.

 

The move reflects the massive gulf between Democratic President Joe Biden and Republican ex-President Donald Trump on climate change that is likely to result in sweeping policy changes in the coming years to tamp down on planet-warming emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industry.

 

“Climate facts are back on EPA’s website where they should be,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement provided to Reuters. “Considering the urgency of this crisis, it’s critical that Americans have access to information and resources so that we can all play a role in protecting our environment, our health, and vulnerable communities.”

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Border coordinator and former US Ambassador to Mexico, Roberta Jacobson will resign at the end of April.  

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-border-coordinator-roberta-jacobson-to-step-down-at-end-of-month-11618001762

 

Background from DW.  

 

https://www.dw.com/en/usa-migrant-drama-at-the-southern-border/av-56972292

 

It will require a more substantial effort to resolve the problem than spinning "crisis" as "challenge" and "kids in cages" to "kids in overflow facilities" while restricting press access to the facilities.

 

Someone should have informed the people who left their homes in Mexico and Central America that the encouraging words from Biden during the campaign were not meant to be taken literally.    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, balticus said:

spinning "kids in cages" to "kids in overflow facilities" 


Looks like someone has been watching Fox News, that exact phrase has been said verbatim. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2021, 7:46:14, Janx Spirit said:

"Biden restores climate change page to EPA website, reversing Trump"

 

What I don't understand is why EPA standards are subject to change based on the current administration, or what gives a sitting president the authority to not fulfill commitments made at environmental summits.  The environment can't be allowed to be political.  (Much like health, be it health insurance or health crises.)  There seems little point in enforcing emissions controls when they will just be undone by the next administration.  This tug of war has been going on for over 20 years.  Why can't we get those commitments written in stone so we can actually achieve something over time?  One for the flummoxed thread perhaps.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mackle said:


Looks like someone has been watching Fox News, that exact phrase has been said verbatim. 

 

The term "overflow facilities" comes from Jan Psaki, Biden's Press Secretary.

 

Here it is from CNN.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-presidency-trump-impeachment-2-02-21/h_f2ec6dc9e451dc8d1b91ae891250e93f

 

Do the conditions for the kids bother you or are you more interested in deflecting from a crisis which is much worse than it has ever been?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dessa_dangerous said:

 

What I don't understand is why EPA standards are subject to change based on the current administration, or what gives a sitting president the authority to not fulfill commitments made at environmental summits.  The environment can't be allowed to be political.  (Much like health, be it health insurance or health crises.)  There seems little point in enforcing emissions controls when they will just be undone by the next administration.  This tug of war has been going on for over 20 years.  Why can't we get those commitments written in stone so we can actually achieve something over time?  One for the flummoxed thread perhaps.

 

Americans have explained to me that the US never ratified the Treaty of Versailles because it was never passed by the Senate.    The SALT II treaty "agreed" upon in the late 1970s expired without being ratified in 1985.   The Senate would not pass it after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.   The POTUS can make any agreement he wants, but if the Senate does not ratify, then it doesn't mean bupkis.   Anyone of any substance negotiating a treaty with the US knows this.    But once something is ratified, getting it reversed is equally difficult.  

 

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

 

Obama never even attempted to make compromises and do the work to get the Paris Accord ratified in the Senate.   It was simply a public relations stunt.   He looks righteous, and he could demonize the opposition.    If any of the climate doomsters really believed that global warming is an existential crisis, they would be willing to make huge concessions to get things done.    They're not willing and they can continue to score cheap political points via fear mongering.    

0

Share this post


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

 

What I don't understand is why EPA standards are subject to change based on the current administration, or what gives a sitting president the authority to not fulfill commitments made at environmental summits.  The environment can't be allowed to be political.  (Much like health, be it health insurance or health crises.)  There seems little point in enforcing emissions controls when they will just be undone by the next administration.  This tug of war has been going on for over 20 years.  Why can't we get those commitments written in stone so we can actually achieve something over time?  One for the flummoxed thread perhaps.

 

Flummox methinks :( 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dessa_dangerous said:

 

What I don't understand is why EPA standards are subject to change based on the current administration, or what gives a sitting president the authority to not fulfill commitments made at environmental summits.  The environment can't be allowed to be political.  (Much like health, be it health insurance or health crises.)  There seems little point in enforcing emissions controls when they will just be undone by the next administration.  This tug of war has been going on for over 20 years.  Why can't we get those commitments written in stone so we can actually achieve something over time?  One for the flummoxed thread perhaps.

 

It's the same process repeatedly since Reagan. Republicans screw up the environment,  give corporations free rein, and then take their dark money. Then Democrats come in to fix the problem.

 

Then, there's always some butt-reaming asshole who knows the GOP fucked up the situation who bitches about why the Democrats haven't fixed the GOP-caused problems in 100 days. It's not because they are merely stupid; they are also disingenuous, lying scum.

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US might slowly wake up to the fact that after their behaviour in Iran 50 years, Vietnam and South America thereafter. And everything under Trump, in particular just pulling out of Paris, and the Iran deal.

 

The USA has 0 soft power left. The USA is feared. Their military is awesome, and punitive.

But they cannot be trusted

And will not be respected.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AlexTr said:

 

It's the same process repeatedly since Reagan.

 

Isn't that the guy who brought the eastern bloc to its knees and greatly improved the life of millions of people who were oppressed by Communism?     Wh

17 hours ago, AlexTr said:

Republicans screw up the environment,  give corporations free rein, and then take their dark money. Then Democrats come in and take their turn.

 

 

Fixed that for you.   

 

17 hours ago, AlexTr said:

Then, there's always some butt-reaming asshole who knows the GOP fucked up the situation who bitches about why the Democrats haven't fixed the GOP-caused problems in 100 days. It's not because they are merely stupid; they are also disingenuous, lying scum.

 

Could you give specific examples?   

 

As far as I know, butt reaming between two consenting adults in the US is legal.   I had never considered that it would have an impact on political views, but then again, you and i probably get our US political news from different sources.    🤡

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

The US might slowly wake up to the fact that after their behaviour in Iran 50 years, Vietnam and South America thereafter. And everything under Trump, in particular just pulling out of Paris, and the Iran deal.

 

The USA has 0 soft power left. The USA is feared. Their military is awesome, and punitive.

But they cannot be trusted

And will not be respected.

 

On a constructive note, i have found that many of the videos by Peter Zeihan (formerly of the US State Department and Stratfor), George Friedman (founder of Stratfor and founder of Geopolitical Futures and well known Forecaster), and Benn Steil from (the Council on Foreign Relations)  provide very good explanations of what the so called post WW II rules based international order is and what the system was prior to the war.     For what it is worth, Friedman's politics are difficult to read, but Zeihan and Steil are clearly globalists.

 

Zeihan's last book called "Disunited Nations" outlines his forecast that the US has been pulling back for more than 10 years.    For people who don't understand Bretton Woods, the Eurodollar system, and the role of the US Navy in protecting shipping across the globe, it is surprising.    For people who live in countries which are not energy independent, the idea that the US is indeed energy independent, and its major trade partners (Mexico and Canada) have energy security and thus no interest in military adventures in the middle east, it might be a bit worrying.    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now