Biden Administration Reversals

Joe Fan said:
EV shifts the burden of a constitutionally mandated federal duty to private citizens.
Click to expand...

Is the burden not already on them due to the I-9 form? I've dealt with it. It's a nuisance and you're supposed to get it right. I work for a Fortune 500 company and HR has pushed it down to the hiring Director/Manager level to manage.

Nobody gave me a fake ID course.
 
The wall is part of the portfolio. Being from South Texas, I can tell you that Border Patrol agents want it. It helps.

We've seen pictures of acrobats hoping a wall in a typical Liberal attempt to ridicule Republican initiatives. But 99% of the illegals are not acrobats. It seems to me the wall is a funnel. Or bug spray. It can influence migration patterns. They'll just run to the next apartment and hopefully, the BP is waiting.
 
bystander said:
Is the burden not already on them due to the I-9 form? I've dealt with it. It's a nuisance and you're supposed to get it right. I work for a Fortune 500 company and HR has pushed it down to the hiring Director/Manager level to manage.

Nobody gave me a fake ID course.
Click to expand...

Securing the border is a MANDATORY duty put on the federal govt by the Constitution. It's not a suggestion or a recommendation but an affirmative duty assigned specifically to the federal govt with clear, unambiguous language. I would argue the Constitution does not allow for the shifting of that mandate to private citizens.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
-- Article 4 Section 4​
 
Joe Fan said:
Securing the border is a MANDATORY duty put on the federal govt by the Constitution. It's not a suggestion or a recommendation but an affirmative duty assigned specifically to the federal govt with clear, unambiguous language. I would argue the Constitution does not allow for the shifting of that mandate to private citizens.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
-- Article 4 Section 4​
Click to expand...

Yes, but assuming the private citizens are abusing the existing law then draconian solutions are born. We have a massive problem with 11 million (and that's probably low) people coming over. Why so many? Because somebody is hiring them. Absent E-verify, I don't know the answer other than doubling ICE and the BP.
 
bystander said:
Yes, but assuming the private citizens are abusing the existing law then draconian solutions are born. We have a massive problem with 11 million (and that's probably low) people coming over. Why so many? Because somebody is hiring them. Absent E-verify, I don't know the answer other than doubling ICE and the BP.
Click to expand...

Federal level politicians and their political hires do not get a personal choice on which provisions of the Constitution that are going to follow on any given day. Nor do they get to ask the donors which parts of the Constitution they should ignore. These are the base rules. A mandatory duty is just that. For example, Article I, Section 8 grants Congress has the authority to levy taxes. But what if they dont feel like doing it that day ("taxing is hard") or maybe their biggest donors dont want them do. Can Congress just decide to let GOOGL or AAPL levy and collect taxes? Or perhaps make them do it?
 
Joe Fan said:
Federal level politicians and their political hires do not get a personal choice on which provisions of the Constitution that are going to follow on any given day. Nor do they get to ask the donors which parts of the Constitution they should ignore. These are the base rules. A mandatory duty is just that. For example, Article I, Section 8 grants Congress has the authority to levy taxes. But what if they dont feel like doing it that day ("taxing is hard") or maybe their biggest donors dont want them do. Can Congress just decide to let GOOGL or AAPL levy and collect taxes? Or perhaps make them do it?
Click to expand...

I agree in theory.

But it's on business owners to withhold and pay the taxes or else the owners and employees who handle the trust taxes can be held personally liable. I wonder what would happen if we left paying taxes to everyone and didn't withhold? It's a practical issue and we know non-compliance by the American people would skyrocket.

Face it. We're not honest.

I mean, it would be an interesting world if we left it entirely in the hands of governmental enforcement. That would require of course appropriations by Congress (raise taxes) and we know the net will have lots of holes in it.

Same with gun control.
 
EpPrFjjW4AE3lZX.jpg
 
bystander said:
Not questioning the text. Just the application.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, you are something of a pragmatist.
But I think these negotiations and compromises with Democrats are how we end up with the giant federal messes that we see all around us. It's another one of the many reasons I pimp so hard for having good choices in the federal judgeships. We need bright men and women of courage and conviction who are willing to bleed for the Constitution.
 
Joe Fan said:
I get what you are saying, you are something of a pragmatist.
But I think these negotiations and compromises with Democrats are how we end up with the giant federal messes that we see all around us. It's another one of the many reasons I pimp so hard for having good choices in the federal judgeships. We need bright men and women of courage and conviction who are willing to bleed for the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess I am.

I agree on the type of jurists we need on SCOTUS. It's just about the only thing that matters to me now when I vote for President.

It's very clear that the Left has completely abdicated their role in immigration enforcement. Sanctuary cities, calls to abolish ICE, use of the term racist, tipping off would-be deportees on raids, encouraging tribal thinking and the clear message that tax dollars will be available (if not already) are the evidence. It's is blatant and the elected morons (yes, an insult) who continue to support these things are law-breakers. I'm very militant about this. So my "pragmatic" nature is not a sign of waving the white flag.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The problem with this is that welfare is harder for an illegal immigrant to get. They can get some through their kids but not likely enough to make a living or to make it worthwhile. It also somewhat goes against their culture to go to great effort to be total wards of the state.
Click to expand...

Illegal immigrants hide from any authorities. Lot's of kids in class with no parent contacts with the school for fear of capture. They avoid any process where documentation is required to prove who and where they are. This predated Trump.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Illegal immigrants hide from any authorities. Lot's of kids in class with no parent contacts with the school for fear of capture. They avoid any process where documentation is required to prove who and where they are. This predated Trump.
Click to expand...

But even beyond that, at least with respect to Latinos, going on welfare isn't something they often pursue from a cultural standpoint. It isn't their style. Even when they get it, it's usually the "working poor"/corporate welfare for McDonald's and Walmart kind of welfare, not the sit-on-your-*** kind (which we heavily scaled back in the mid-'90s even for citizens).
 
Mr. Deez said:
But even beyond that, at least with respect to Latinos, going on welfare isn't something they often pursue from a cultural standpoint. It isn't their style.
Click to expand...

Absolutely incorrect. At least 50%+ of hispanic/latino couples I know live together, have kids but aren't married. Why? So they can max out social benefits. They are all very hard working people, but know how to scam the system too.
 
mchammer said:
Checking the diversity boxes for Biden’s cabinet. Not going to end well.

Click to expand...


Pure patronage and social engineering. The country's prospects are irrelevant. These people are absolutely sick.

Ukraine figured out the patronage game the Biden's play when they hired Hunter.
 
Biden is certainly trying to keep all his constituencies happy. I'm not sure that's uncommon for most new administrations for for deputy and below level roles. Buttigieg is certainly a darling of the left. He was my choice for a younger centrist to lead the party so forgive me if I chuckle a bit about the "Marxist" description. It seems that anyone left of right is now "marxist" or "socialist". Hey, it worked in Miami and South Texas.

Buttigieg is not a good fit for this role as it seems a little "small" for his ambitions and his relative lack of experience. Infrastructure may be the only thing Biden can get done given the Congress party breakdown thus this may be a bigger role than is typical of the Cabinet Secretaries.

I'm wondering where were you all were when Ben Carson was given HUD Secretary, Rex Tillerson was handed Sec of State, or the worst Betsy Devos as Sec of Education? All were were woefully underqualified for the role they were blessed with. Heck, Elaine Chao had experience as Sec of Transportation (and her Chinese Shipping magnate family) but you can't convince me that she wasn't a gift to McConnell as sort of an alliance via wedding since she is Mitch's wife.

I haven't looked at each of Biden's cabinets but generally have no problem with prior experience picks, at least ones that were previously deputies in a prior administration.
 
Devos has been one of President Trump’s best appointment. She’s brought back basic evidence rules to campus kangaroo courts, to the wailings of leftists groups. I’ve enjoyed every impotent whine from them for 4 years. Will be sad to see things go back to “Male - guilty!!!”

It’s’ a crap job at DOT but what else is Butgieg going to do? He can’t be elected to major after his disastrous term there - the blacks hated him with a passion. No chance for a state wide election win in Indiana for such a leftists.

He’ll try to keep in the spotlight with various “the historic first Tuesday in March by a gay Cabinet minister”, and see if there a spot to run for President later, or maybe VP for Harris the Office Slut once Slow Joe drools on himself so often he’s a drain on the Party.
 
Tillerson was not a light-weight or an affirmative action hire. All we hear about Pete is he's the first gay, blah blah blah... Kamala, the first black female blah blah blah... It's so bad.

Any educated, smart, experienced person should be able to get to the right answer, whatever it is. But to the Left, diversity is about their extremist views and not that a minority et al is about America and our national interests. It seems they only want to see their extreme agenda administered by the "faces" and nothing else.

ExxonMobil CEO Tillerson emerging as frontrunner for secretary of state

By HENRY C. JACKSON, JOSH DAWSEY and ELIANA JOHNSON


12/09/2016 08:48 PM EST

ExxonMobil president and CEO Rex Tillerson is the leading contender to be America's next secretary of state, according to two Trump transition aides.

Tillerson, an oil executive with extensive experience in international negotiations, has risen the top of Trump's short list for Foggy Bottom in recent days. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani withdrew from the process late Friday afternoon, saying he planned to return to the private sector.

Tillerson was brought into Trump Tower for an interview with Trump at the recommendation of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who count Exxon among their private consulting clients, according to two sources familiar with the conversations. His name was first publicly floated for the job in early December and he met privately with Trump on Tuesday. Rice sat down with the President-elect in late November, and Gates followed her three days later.

While Gates praised Trump's choice of retired Marine General James Mattis to lead the Department of Defense, he has cautioned against the selection of another general to lead the State Department. He said after his meeting with Trump that he thought "it would be awkward to have military officers both [as] secretary of state and secretary of defense."

A transition source said Tillerson "fits the prototype" and that Trump "likes his style and background."

By JOSH DAWSEY and SHANE GOLDMACHER

Other contenders said to still be in the mix include Adm. James Stavridis, Foreign Relations Committee chair Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, one aide said. Former Ford CEO Alan Mulally also met with Trump recently to discuss the position.

At Exxon, Tillerson has been known for his ability to reach complex international agreements. He also brings deep ties to Russia: As an Exxon executive he managed ties between the company and the Kremlin and in 2011 struck a deal that allowed the company to access Arctic resources in Russia.

But that deal was blocked by subsequent U.S. sanctions against Russia — sanctions that Tillerson sharply criticized for failing to consider the "broad collateral damage" they caused.

Tillerson joined the oil giant as an engineer in 1975, working his way up to run the massive oil firm. If he is nominated, his extensive holdings in a company with massive international assets, as well as his personal ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, could complicate his confirmation process.

Josh Gerstein and Alex Isenstadt contributed reporting.
 
Merit no longer means anything in the USA
It's the "everyone gets a trophy" cabinet

Dave will probably get in trouble for the voice inflection here
 
I'm of the view that the President should be given great deference in choosing his cabinet and would only vote to shoot down a nominee if it's especially bad. Buttigieg wouldn't be my choice, but he isn't especially bad.

The lack of qualifications argument is somewhat bogus for two reasons. First, most agencies largely run themselves on a day to day basis. Second, both parties use the cabinet as a tool of political payback and sometimes put at least arguably unqualified people in charge of them (except for at Treasury, and Defense). The criticism is almost always a proxy for political disagreement. Of Biden's nominations, the only one I'd definitely shoot down is Neera Tanden as OMB director. That's a ridiculous pick. The others wouldn't be my choice, but they're good enough. Some are bringing up the 5-year rule on Lloyd Austin. We waived it for Mattis. I don't see why we wouldn't waive it for Austin. It's kind of a dumb rule. If there's a real conflict of interest or ethical concern, reject the nominee, whether he has been out of the service for 5 years or 50 years. Having an arbitrary rule is silly and unfair to guys like Mattis and Austin who served honorably.
 
bystander said:
It's very clear that the Left has completely abdicated their role in immigration enforcement. Sanctuary cities, calls to abolish ICE, use of the term racist, tipping off would-be deportees on raids, encouraging tribal thinking and the clear message that tax dollars will be available (if not already) are the evidence.
Click to expand...
Bystander, that is a pathetic situation - but you're correct, it's what the Democrats want. The GOP must win the Senate runoff in Georgia - if the Dems control the White House and Congress, we're sunk. A Republican Senate is the only remaining buffer that can slow the hard-left agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top