To pull this convo here from another thread, what policies under Trump and Biden have been, in your opinion, divisive?
Which do you personay agree with but understand could be viewed as divisive?
Not looking at the Red vs Blue of which ones are right or better, but focusing specifically on the policies and whether they were or are divisive in whole or in part and most importantly... your thoughts on why
- HDGristle
- 02-07-2022, 12:49 PM
- eyecu2
- 02-07-2022, 01:16 PM
Repeal and replace -
if you didn't have something to replace it with, why even start or try that??
Zero tolerance at the border to remove kids from parents-
Kids. Nobody want's to see kids alone at the border. Stephen Millers' brain child- He's really the devil incarnate.
BBB that includes too much pork to get off the launch pad.-
When you have a majority, don't fucking be a dumbass about pork, make it about BBB, and not BBBJWCIMSWS.
Nuclear options in the senate-
If you do it to the other side, they will do it back to you. In spades.
Tax incentives for the RICH-
c'mon dudes- trickle down has never been proven to work. It's nepotism in the highest.
a Tax increase for Affordable Care act non-participants-
why not give a tax deduction for those who participated instead?- carrot instead of the stick. Pissed off lots of ppl
if you didn't have something to replace it with, why even start or try that??
Zero tolerance at the border to remove kids from parents-
Kids. Nobody want's to see kids alone at the border. Stephen Millers' brain child- He's really the devil incarnate.
BBB that includes too much pork to get off the launch pad.-
When you have a majority, don't fucking be a dumbass about pork, make it about BBB, and not BBBJWCIMSWS.
Nuclear options in the senate-
If you do it to the other side, they will do it back to you. In spades.
Tax incentives for the RICH-
c'mon dudes- trickle down has never been proven to work. It's nepotism in the highest.
a Tax increase for Affordable Care act non-participants-
why not give a tax deduction for those who participated instead?- carrot instead of the stick. Pissed off lots of ppl
- lustylad
- 02-07-2022, 01:31 PM
Joe Biden wins the divisiveness trophy hands-down with his vulgar and disgusting Jan. 11 speech in Atlanta.
He smeared anyone and everyone who disagrees with him as being akin to Bull Conner, George Wallace, and Jefferson Davis. What makes this smear even more absurd and offensive is that all 3 were loyal, card-carrying members of Biden's own racist dim-retard party!
His Jan. 11 speech was so divisive that Stacey Abrams - the supposed poster child for dim-retard lies about voting rights - declined to attend!
He smeared anyone and everyone who disagrees with him as being akin to Bull Conner, George Wallace, and Jefferson Davis. What makes this smear even more absurd and offensive is that all 3 were loyal, card-carrying members of Biden's own racist dim-retard party!
His Jan. 11 speech was so divisive that Stacey Abrams - the supposed poster child for dim-retard lies about voting rights - declined to attend!
- berryberry
- 02-07-2022, 01:32 PM
To pull this convo here from another thread, what policies under Trump and Biden have been, in your opinion, divisive?You first
Which do you personay agree with but understand could be viewed as divisive?
Not looking at the Red vs Blue of which ones are right or better, but focusing specifically on the policies and whether they were or are divisive in whole or in part and most importantly... your thoughts on why Originally Posted by HDGristle
- lustylad
- 02-07-2022, 01:45 PM
Peggy Noonan is not a Trump supporter. She is a former Presidential speechwriter, so she knows the difference between a good speech and an awful one.
Here's what she had to say about Biden's divisive and incendiary Jan. 11 Atlanta speech:
Biden’s Georgia Speech Is a Break Point
He thought he was merely appealing to his base. He might have united the rest of the country against him.
By Peggy Noonan
Jan. 13, 2022 6:43 pm ET
It is startling when two speeches within 24 hours, neither much heralded in advance—the second wouldn’t even have been given without the first—leave you knowing you have witnessed a seminal moment in the history of an administration, but it happened this week. The president’s Tuesday speech in Atlanta, on voting rights, was a disaster for him. By the end of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s answering speech on Wednesday you knew some new break point had occurred, that President Biden might have thought he was just crooning to part of his base but the repercussions were greater than that; he was breaking in some new way with others—and didn’t know it. It is poor political practice when you fail to guess the effects of your actions. He meant to mollify an important constituency but instead he filled his opponents with honest indignation and, I suspect, encouraged in that fractured group some new unity.
The speech itself was aggressive, intemperate, not only offensive but meant to offend. It seemed prepared by people who think there is only the Democratic Party in America, that’s it, everyone else is an outsider who can be disparaged. It was a mistake on so many levels. Presidents more than others in politics have to maintain an even strain, as astronauts used to say. If a president is rhetorically manipulative and divisive on a voting-rights bill it undercuts what he’s trying to establish the next day on Covid and the economy. The over-the-top language of the speech made him seem more emotional, less competent. The portentousness—“In our lives and . . . the life of our nation, there are moments so stark that they divide all that came before them from everything that followed. They stop time”—made him appear incapable of understanding how the majority of Americans understand our own nation’s history and the vast array of its challenges.
By the end he looked like a man operating apart from the American conversation, not at its center. This can be fatal to a presidency.
He was hardly done speaking when a new Quinnipiac poll showed the usual low Biden numbers, but, most pertinently, that 49% of respondents say he is doing more to divide the country, and only 42% see him as unifying it.
In the speech Mr. Biden claimed he stands against “the forces in America that value power over principle.” Last year Georgia elected two Democratic senators. “And what’s been the reaction of Republicans in Georgia? Choose the wrong way, the undemocratic way. To them, too many people voting in a democracy is a problem.” They want to “suppress the right to vote.” They want to “subvert the election.”
This is “Jim Crow 2.0,” it’s “insidious,” it’s “the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies.”
The problem is greater than Georgia. “The United States Senate . . . has been rendered a shell of its former self.” Its rules must be changed. “The filibuster is not used by Republicans to bring the Senate together but to pull it further apart. The filibuster has been weaponized and abused.” Senators will now “declare where they stand, not just for the moment, but for the ages.”
Most wince-inducing: “Will you stand against election subversion? Yes or no? . . . Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”
If a speech can be full of itself this speech was.
From the floor of the Senate the next day came Mr. McConnell’s rebuke. It was stinging, indignant to the point of seething. He didn’t attempt to scale any rhetorical heights. The plainness of his language was ferocious.
Mr. Biden’s speech was “profoundly unpresidential,” “deliberately divisive” and “designed to pull our country further apart.” “I have known, liked and personally respected Joe Biden for many years. I did not recognize the man at the podium yesterday.” Mr. Biden had entered office calling on Americans to stop the shouting and lower the temperature. “Yesterday, he called millions of Americans his domestic ‘enemies.’ ” That, a week after he “gave a January 6th lecture about not stoking political violence.”
“Twelve months ago, this president said that ‘disagreement must not lead to disunion.’ But yesterday, he invoked the bloody disunion of the Civil War to demonize Americans who disagree with him. He compared a bipartisan majority of senators to literal traitors.”
“Twelve months ago, the president said that ‘politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path.’ . . . Yesterday he poured a giant can of gasoline on that fire.”
“In less than a year, ‘restoring the soul of America’ has become: Agree with me, or you’re a bigot.”
“This inflammatory rhetoric was not an attempt to persuade skeptical Democratic or Republican senators. In fact, you could not invent a better advertisement for the legislative filibuster than a president abandoning rational persuasion for pure demagoguery.”
American voters, said Mr. McConnell, “did not give President Biden a mandate for very much.” They didn’t give him big majorities in Congress. But they did arguably give him a mandate to bridge a divided country. “It is the one job citizens actually hired him to do.” He has failed to do it.
Then Mr. McConnell looked at Mr. Biden’s specific claims regarding state voting laws. “The sitting president of the United States of America compared American states to ‘totalitarian states.’ He said our country will be an ‘autocracy’ if he does not get his way.” The world has now seen an American president “propagandize against his own country to a degree that would have made Pravda blush.”
“He trampled through some of the most sensitive and sacred parts of our nation’s past. He invoked times when activists bled, and when soldiers died. All to demagogue voting laws that are more expansive than what Democrats have in his own home state.”
“A president shouting that 52 senators and millions of Americans are racist unless he gets whatever he wants is proving exactly why the Framers built the Senate to check his power.”
What Mr. Biden was really doing was attempting to “delegitimize the next election in case they lose it.”
Now, he said, “It is the Senate’s responsibility to protect the country.”
That sounded very much like a vow. It won’t be good for Joe Biden.
When national Democrats talk to the country they always seem to be talking to themselves. They are of the left, as is their constituency, which wins the popular vote in presidential elections; the mainstream media through which they send their messages is of the left; the academics, historians and professionals they consult are of the left. They get in the habit of talking to themselves, in their language, in a single, looped conversation. They have no idea how they sound to the non-left, so they have no idea when they are damaging themselves. But this week in Georgia Mr. Biden damaged himself. And strengthened, and may even have taken a step in unifying, the non-Democrats who are among their countrymen, and who are in fact the majority of them.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-r...aw-11642110521
Here's what she had to say about Biden's divisive and incendiary Jan. 11 Atlanta speech:
Biden’s Georgia Speech Is a Break Point
He thought he was merely appealing to his base. He might have united the rest of the country against him.
By Peggy Noonan
Jan. 13, 2022 6:43 pm ET
It is startling when two speeches within 24 hours, neither much heralded in advance—the second wouldn’t even have been given without the first—leave you knowing you have witnessed a seminal moment in the history of an administration, but it happened this week. The president’s Tuesday speech in Atlanta, on voting rights, was a disaster for him. By the end of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s answering speech on Wednesday you knew some new break point had occurred, that President Biden might have thought he was just crooning to part of his base but the repercussions were greater than that; he was breaking in some new way with others—and didn’t know it. It is poor political practice when you fail to guess the effects of your actions. He meant to mollify an important constituency but instead he filled his opponents with honest indignation and, I suspect, encouraged in that fractured group some new unity.
The speech itself was aggressive, intemperate, not only offensive but meant to offend. It seemed prepared by people who think there is only the Democratic Party in America, that’s it, everyone else is an outsider who can be disparaged. It was a mistake on so many levels. Presidents more than others in politics have to maintain an even strain, as astronauts used to say. If a president is rhetorically manipulative and divisive on a voting-rights bill it undercuts what he’s trying to establish the next day on Covid and the economy. The over-the-top language of the speech made him seem more emotional, less competent. The portentousness—“In our lives and . . . the life of our nation, there are moments so stark that they divide all that came before them from everything that followed. They stop time”—made him appear incapable of understanding how the majority of Americans understand our own nation’s history and the vast array of its challenges.
By the end he looked like a man operating apart from the American conversation, not at its center. This can be fatal to a presidency.
He was hardly done speaking when a new Quinnipiac poll showed the usual low Biden numbers, but, most pertinently, that 49% of respondents say he is doing more to divide the country, and only 42% see him as unifying it.
In the speech Mr. Biden claimed he stands against “the forces in America that value power over principle.” Last year Georgia elected two Democratic senators. “And what’s been the reaction of Republicans in Georgia? Choose the wrong way, the undemocratic way. To them, too many people voting in a democracy is a problem.” They want to “suppress the right to vote.” They want to “subvert the election.”
This is “Jim Crow 2.0,” it’s “insidious,” it’s “the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies.”
The problem is greater than Georgia. “The United States Senate . . . has been rendered a shell of its former self.” Its rules must be changed. “The filibuster is not used by Republicans to bring the Senate together but to pull it further apart. The filibuster has been weaponized and abused.” Senators will now “declare where they stand, not just for the moment, but for the ages.”
Most wince-inducing: “Will you stand against election subversion? Yes or no? . . . Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”
If a speech can be full of itself this speech was.
From the floor of the Senate the next day came Mr. McConnell’s rebuke. It was stinging, indignant to the point of seething. He didn’t attempt to scale any rhetorical heights. The plainness of his language was ferocious.
Mr. Biden’s speech was “profoundly unpresidential,” “deliberately divisive” and “designed to pull our country further apart.” “I have known, liked and personally respected Joe Biden for many years. I did not recognize the man at the podium yesterday.” Mr. Biden had entered office calling on Americans to stop the shouting and lower the temperature. “Yesterday, he called millions of Americans his domestic ‘enemies.’ ” That, a week after he “gave a January 6th lecture about not stoking political violence.”
“Twelve months ago, this president said that ‘disagreement must not lead to disunion.’ But yesterday, he invoked the bloody disunion of the Civil War to demonize Americans who disagree with him. He compared a bipartisan majority of senators to literal traitors.”
“Twelve months ago, the president said that ‘politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path.’ . . . Yesterday he poured a giant can of gasoline on that fire.”
“In less than a year, ‘restoring the soul of America’ has become: Agree with me, or you’re a bigot.”
“This inflammatory rhetoric was not an attempt to persuade skeptical Democratic or Republican senators. In fact, you could not invent a better advertisement for the legislative filibuster than a president abandoning rational persuasion for pure demagoguery.”
American voters, said Mr. McConnell, “did not give President Biden a mandate for very much.” They didn’t give him big majorities in Congress. But they did arguably give him a mandate to bridge a divided country. “It is the one job citizens actually hired him to do.” He has failed to do it.
Then Mr. McConnell looked at Mr. Biden’s specific claims regarding state voting laws. “The sitting president of the United States of America compared American states to ‘totalitarian states.’ He said our country will be an ‘autocracy’ if he does not get his way.” The world has now seen an American president “propagandize against his own country to a degree that would have made Pravda blush.”
“He trampled through some of the most sensitive and sacred parts of our nation’s past. He invoked times when activists bled, and when soldiers died. All to demagogue voting laws that are more expansive than what Democrats have in his own home state.”
“A president shouting that 52 senators and millions of Americans are racist unless he gets whatever he wants is proving exactly why the Framers built the Senate to check his power.”
What Mr. Biden was really doing was attempting to “delegitimize the next election in case they lose it.”
Now, he said, “It is the Senate’s responsibility to protect the country.”
That sounded very much like a vow. It won’t be good for Joe Biden.
When national Democrats talk to the country they always seem to be talking to themselves. They are of the left, as is their constituency, which wins the popular vote in presidential elections; the mainstream media through which they send their messages is of the left; the academics, historians and professionals they consult are of the left. They get in the habit of talking to themselves, in their language, in a single, looped conversation. They have no idea how they sound to the non-left, so they have no idea when they are damaging themselves. But this week in Georgia Mr. Biden damaged himself. And strengthened, and may even have taken a step in unifying, the non-Democrats who are among their countrymen, and who are in fact the majority of them.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-r...aw-11642110521
- eyecu2
- 02-07-2022, 01:57 PM
lol..I can see that the red/ blue notation was merely a side note to those on the right who have decided to clinch onto their pearls and sip mint julips and scream about a speech that was to inspire people to accept voting rights.
HDG, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you ask for what each PERSON's opinion vs. a copy and paste of someone else's opinion. If you can't form your own opinion on here,.....why even bother posting?
HDG, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you ask for what each PERSON's opinion vs. a copy and paste of someone else's opinion. If you can't form your own opinion on here,.....why even bother posting?
- lustylad
- 02-07-2022, 02:01 PM
lol..I can see that the red/ blue notation was merely a side note to those on the right who have decided to clinch onto their pearls and sip mint julips and scream about a speech that was to inspire people to accept voting rights.I gave my opinion in post #3. I backed it up with the analysis of an experienced ex-Presidential speechwriter in post #5.
HDG, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you ask for what each PERSON's opinion vs. a copy and paste of someone else's opinion. If you can't form your own opinion on here,.....why even bother posting? Originally Posted by eyecu2
You have also cut and pasted articles in the sandbox.
I guess what you're telling us is you can't refute either my opinion OR Peggy Noonan's devastating critique of Biden's divisive speech. Sad.
Even sadder and more tone-deaf is when you suggest that a speech as terrible and divisive as this one was supposed to "inspire people".
But hey, I'll agree if you're saying it was meant to inspire Biden's opponents - on that score it may have succeeded, as Peggy Noonan noted.
- eyecu2
- 02-07-2022, 02:09 PM
Quote: Lustylad:
I gave my opinion in post #3. I back it up with the analysis of an expert (a former Presidential speechwriter) in post #5.
You have also cut and pasted articles here.
Nice try, though. I guess what you're telling us is you can't refute either my opinion or Peggy Noonan's analysis. Sad
Maybe your nickname should be Peggy now? LOL- Perhaps from a certain act of performance you enjoy done .....
?? I see that one particular speech you viewed as a policy vs. a speech. If you disagree with policy perhaps you could describe the part of the policy that is offensive and why. I listed 5.....from both sides. If we were to refer to speeches, I would simply add ANY one from Trump; but i'm sticking to policies.
I gave my opinion in post #3. I back it up with the analysis of an expert (a former Presidential speechwriter) in post #5.
You have also cut and pasted articles here.
Nice try, though. I guess what you're telling us is you can't refute either my opinion or Peggy Noonan's analysis. Sad
Maybe your nickname should be Peggy now? LOL- Perhaps from a certain act of performance you enjoy done .....
?? I see that one particular speech you viewed as a policy vs. a speech. If you disagree with policy perhaps you could describe the part of the policy that is offensive and why. I listed 5.....from both sides. If we were to refer to speeches, I would simply add ANY one from Trump; but i'm sticking to policies.
- TechPapi
- 02-07-2022, 02:09 PM
lol..I can see that the red/ blue notation was merely a side note to those on the right who have decided to clinch onto their pearls and sip mint julips and scream about a speech that was to inspire people to accept voting rights.
HDG, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you ask for what each PERSON's opinion vs. a copy and paste of someone else's opinion. If you can't form your own opinion on here,.....why even bother posting? Originally Posted by eyecu2
I guess any opinion can become yours if you BOLD enough of it? lol You're dealing with people that don't really have any original thoughts.
- lustylad
- 02-07-2022, 02:20 PM
I guess any opinion can become yours if you BOLD enough of it? lol You're dealing with people that don't really have any original thoughts. Originally Posted by TechPapiWrong. Peggy actually gets many of her thoughts from me, and vice versa. Are you lost again?
P.S. I add boldface for people like you, who need help with your reading comprehension.
- HDGristle
- 02-07-2022, 02:55 PM
lol..I can see that the red/ blue notation was merely a side note to those on the right who have decided to clinch onto their pearls and sip mint julips and scream about a speech that was to inspire people to accept voting rights.If your opinion matches up with someone else's who was more eloquent on why it was divisive, have at I say and share.
HDG, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you ask for what each PERSON's opinion vs. a copy and paste of someone else's opinion. If you can't form your own opinion on here,.....why even bother posting? Originally Posted by eyecu2
But this is about policies. Divisive Policies.
So things like the push to dismantle Obamacare, DACA, the Wall, Zero Tolerance, proposed changes to H-1B, Remain in Mexico are fair game as things that could be considered divisive by some
- lustylad
- 02-07-2022, 03:04 PM
Maybe your nickname should be Peggy now? LOL- Perhaps from a certain act of performance you enjoy done .....That's so lame I can't even pretend to chuckle.
I see that one particular speech you viewed as a policy vs. a speech. If you disagree with policy perhaps you could describe the part of the policy that is offensive and why. I listed 5.....from both sides. If we were to refer to speeches, I would simply add ANY one from Trump; but i'm sticking to policies. Originally Posted by eyecu2Go ahead and cite a specific Trump speech that you consider as bad as Biden's. Trump lost the Presidency for the same reason Biden and the dim-retards will get their asses whooped in this year's mid-terms - they're both too fucking stupid to broaden their appeal beyond their base.
You want a list of Biden's destructive and divisive policies? Seriously? Where do I even start?
Biden is wrong on every issue that matters to Americans! Some of his policies are so wacky the polls show up to 70-80% of Americans oppose them - and that's really hard to do!
Here ya go, eye:
1. defunding the police (despite his disengenuous denials)
2. abolishing ICE (by turning the CBP into a travel agency)
3. throwing open our borders
4. making us dependent on foreign energy (again)
5. handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban
6. issuing science-denying covid mandates while failing to invest in tests and therapeutics
7. poisoning the minds of our federal workforce and school kids with CRT
8. debasing the dollar
9. spiking inflation and spending us into oblivion
10. wanting to stack the SCOTUS
11. trying to eliminate the Senate filibuster
12. trying to raise taxes
There's a dozen, for starters, and I'm out of breath already!
- eyecu2
- 02-07-2022, 03:32 PM
So lets talk about DACA people who are living in the USA without being on a greencard or any other visa etc. When someone has been living here and has no family or country of residence outside of the USA, what would be a good reason for them to leave here, vs. for us finding a way for them to become citizens. Clearly you cannot get in a time machine and stop them before the mom's and dad's who brought them in. But it's like finding out you have now have something in the system and they are interested in becoming legal also. To that, it seems that our best course is to cause them to be able to show worthiness of citizenship (which could be subjective and I'm sure there already is some criteria) but to also ensure they are not a cronic or habitual law breaker or offender etc. So as to get them onto the tax roles etc? Down side is that they become at some point entitled to things like social security and still they would have to qualify for 40 quarters of work and they have a green card or a SSI number. It really doesn't seem to be in the applicants interest to get SSI if they cannot work for 10 yrs here. They would however be qualified for things like Medicaid, which they already likely qualify for under most state governments for non citizens; I think that they should find a way to fast track the existing DACA folks and then remove all future folks from eligibility. At some point, you cannot continue to let ppl who come in illegally to stay; but that would mean that the existing laws around immigration aren't being followed. I would be interested in knowing why people who don't think DACA folks should get any pathway to citizenship? I mean we haven't kicked them out yet, and the clock keeps ticking. So at what point would they be forced out? I realize that likely other countries require much more stringent adherences to immigration, but that is a whole other can of worms. I don't know how the fuck people come here and upon the end of their visa's or if they are illegal, once captured, why were they not ejected at that point directly. From my limited recollection also, if you overstay your visa or are here illegally, it puts you in a 10 yr hold till you can then again formally try to get back into the visa or green card application system. That doesn't include those seeking sanctuary from persecution etc. But even if you over stay your 180 day visa, and you leave after being here more than 180 days and less than a year, you cannot return for 3 yrs. Probably explains some of our massage gals why they leave and we don't see them for a few years again in most cases.
- eyecu2
- 02-07-2022, 03:35 PM
That's so lame I can't even pretend to chuckle.
for starters, and I'm out of breath already! Originally Posted by lustylad
Lusty- I know you know that was funny!
Relative to the rest, I'm only commenting on Policies not speeches.
Funny- I was able to list some that I didn't like from both,- and list the reason why I liked or didn't like it- but you went straight to fox news to get your little list didn't ya?? Why didn't you list why you didn't agree/ or agreed with your list?
- lustylad
- 02-07-2022, 05:40 PM
...you went straight to fox news to get your little list didn't ya?? Why didn't you list why you didn't agree/ or agreed with your list? Originally Posted by eyecu2First, it's not a "little" list. It's 12 points long, and that's just for starters.
Second, it's a list of divisive Biden policies. If Fox news never existed, those policies would still be in place, in all their stupidity and divisiveness. Your bait is weak.
Third, do I REALLY need to explain WHY each of the 12 policies I listed (for starters) is stupid and divisive? I mean, does ANYONE think defunding the police, throwing open our borders, quadrupling inflation, reversing US energy independence, teaching school kids to hate each other, etc. are remotely defensible, let along sensible or appropriate?
Ok, I know the woke left-wing crazies who currently inhabit the West Wing may support such alarmingly destructive ideas, but do you?
Why don't YOU try to defend those Biden policies, assuming you agree with them? I'm all ears.