The New Lounge

[Th0r]

Classic answers by leftists. Classic. Datt's answer is par for the course. He has no answer, even after it's been proven how crooked the media is. So all he does is come back with a childish retort that is meaningless. Now you on the other hand? You definitely think you're in the know. See above sentence on media though.

Again, that's because any rational person knows Biden did no good for America, and he wasn't in charge. What he is though is a part of the establishment. Rotten to the core.

Trump hasn't been. You've been indoctrinated by the media, so you've been trained to critique him. That's a problem, and it's why you're stuck like you are.

I gave a clear, and obvious fact about gas prices. All within the first 100 days. You harp on executive orders.

You keep calling everything a media conspiracy, but you haven’t addressed anything I actually said. I laid out what each administration did in their first 100 days. That’s not spin. That’s public record. The American Rescue Plan was passed through Congress. It’s law. That’s governing.

Trump, in contrast, signed a historic number of executive orders. That’s not “harping.” It’s pointing out the difference between actions that last and actions that get reversed, blocked, or forgotten. Executive orders might feel bold, but without legislation behind them, they’re not built to hold up.

You brought up gas prices as your proof. But global oil markets don’t operate on inauguration timelines, and we both know that. If you want to have a real conversation, start with facts that reflect how governing actually works. I’m not here to argue feelings. I’m here to talk results.

 

[Dattier]

...any rational person knows Biden did no good for America, and he wasn't in charge. What he is though is a part of the establishment. Rotten to the core.

Trump hasn't been. You've been indoctrinated by the media, so you've been trained to critique him. That's a problem, and it's why you're stuck like you are.

I gave a clear, and obvious fact about gas prices. All within the first 100 days. You harp on executive orders.

You keep claiming what any rational person knows without refuting facts or presenting any of your own.

Like inflation, Presidents don't control gas prices.

 

[Th0r]

130k apprehensions Feb 2023 and 24. This year 8300. Were new laws passed? Did the CBP increase its staff tenfold? No, they are now simply allowed to do their jobs. They signed up to be in law enforcement, not to be a glorified concierge. Biden should have been impeached for his dereliction at the border.
First priority of a President: protect its borders from invasion. Thousands on terror watch lists pored over our border while Biden had the FBI infiltrating PTA meetings . Shameful

Addendum about the numbers: the deterrence factor can’t be overestimated as well. Exponentially less people are making the trip since November Id wager. When Kamala told them “ Don’t come” they knew it was empty political rhetoric to save their hides. With Trump they don’t want to FAFO.

You’re shifting the goalposts. The original question was about what each administration actually accomplished in their first 100 days. That’s the comparison. Not theories about deterrence. Not personal opinions about who’s tougher. Just results.

One administration passed a 1.9 trillion dollar law through Congress. The other issued executive orders. That’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of record. And when you zoom out, the historical comparison makes it even worse. To pass zero major legislation in your first 100 days while holding both chambers of Congress and a friendly Supreme Court isn’t just underwhelming. It’s embarrassing.

 

[Mac9192]

You keep calling everything a media conspiracy, but you haven’t addressed anything I actually said. I laid out what each administration did in their first 100 days. That’s not spin. That’s public record. The American Rescue Plan was passed through Congress. It’s law. That’s governing.

Trump, in contrast, signed a historic number of executive orders. That’s not “harping.” It’s pointing out the difference between actions that last and actions that get reversed, blocked, or forgotten. Executive orders might feel bold, but without legislation behind them, they’re not built to hold up.

You brought up gas prices as your proof. But global oil markets don’t operate on inauguration timelines, and we both know that. If you want to have a real conversation, start with facts that reflect how governing actually works. I’m not here to argue feelings. I’m here to talk results.

You're showing us who you are. Which is one of those that believe in the system, and think our leaders really care. Not trying to pick on you, but your views are actually naive, to the point of being dangerous. The mere fact you think a 1.9 trillion dollar "Rescue Plan" was a great thing is disturbing. The amount of wasteful spending in it dwarfs whatever good you say is in there.

Our debate was the first 100 days. Oil prices did immediately go up after he was sworn in. That's because Biden cancelled (he didn't make the decision) the completion of the Keystone pipeline. Gas was lower under Trump. That's a fact. This helped Americans, but hurt Big Oil and all the politicians with their ties to them. You may think that's conspiracy talk, but it's true.

And what's really disturbing is you aren't giving any credit to what Trump has done with the Border and our security.

 

[KDSTONE]

You’re shifting the goalposts. The original question was about what each administration actually accomplished in their first 100 days. That’s the comparison. Not theories about deterrence. Not personal opinions about who’s tougher. Just results.

One administration passed a 1.9 trillion dollar law through Congress. The other issued executive orders. That’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of record. And when you zoom out, the historical comparison makes it even worse. To pass zero major legislation in your first 100 days while holding both chambers of Congress and a friendly Supreme Court isn’t just underwhelming. It’s embarrassing.

I was responding to Datt’s implication that the reduced border numbers are a result solely of Trumpian spin and aren’t based in reality.
Passing a 1. 9 trillion bill is a mixed bag if it is seen as spiking inflation, but even more importantly is seen to be as wasteful at it is useful to the American public. If the money is spent efficiently with even a hint of accountability, then great. Just passing a 2 trillion spending bill is merely the start. Only five to ten years later can you truly assess how well the money was spent, assuming that waste and abuse are at acceptable levels.

Not theories about deterrence Not opinions about who’s tougher.
So you don’t think Trump deserves credit for securing the border? That his admin has set the tone to discourage migrants from making the trip? That the CBP has been much more active under his watch?

 

[Mac9192]

You keep claiming what any rational person knows without refuting facts or presenting any of your own.

Like inflation, Presidents don't control gas prices.

Gas was lower under Trump. I just explained this to @Th0r. He worked to make gas affordable for Americans. This hurt, and angered Big Oil and all the politicians that are tied to them.

The problem isn't that you don't get it. It's that you don't want to get it.

 

[KDSTONE]

You keep claiming what any rational person knows without refuting facts or presenting any of your own.

Like inflation, Presidents don't control gas prices.

Generally true, but when the leader of the world’s largest economy makes decisions that jolt the market it can have an immediate impact, like shutting down the Keystone in 21 and banning Russian oil in 22 Biden’s dipping into the Strategic Oil Reserves is another short term example that lowered prices
Biden lowers oil prices in the following example:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-administration-buys-last-oil-emergency-reserve-fund-taps-out-2024-11-08/

 

[Th0r]

You're showing us who you are. Which is one of those that believe in the system, and think our leaders really care. Not trying to pick on you, but your views are actually naive, to the point of being dangerous. The mere fact you think a 1.9 trillion dollar "Rescue Plan" was a great thing is disturbing. The amount of wasteful spending in it dwarfs whatever good you say is in there.

Our debate was the first 100 days. Oil prices did immediately go up after he was sworn in. That's because Biden cancelled (he didn't make the decision) the completion of the Keystone pipeline. Gas was lower under Trump. That's a fact. This helped Americans, but hurt Big Oil and all the politicians with their ties to them. You may think that's conspiracy talk, but it's true.

And what's really disturbing is you aren't giving any credit to what Trump has done with the Border and our security.

You keep calling it naïve to look at facts, but then you repeat myths that fall apart under basic scrutiny. Let’s take oil. The U.S. produced more oil under Biden than under Trump. That’s not opinion. It’s data. In 2023, the country hit record levels of domestic oil production. If Biden was truly waging war on energy, that wouldn’t have happened. And Keystone? It wasn’t operational and wouldn’t have affected short-term prices. Gas prices rise and fall based on global supply, demand, and market volatility, not campaign slogans.

We’re talking about results, so let’s compare Trump’s first term to Biden’s term. Biden passed the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. All of it went through Congress. Trump, even with full control of Congress for two years, passed one major piece of legislation, the 2017 tax cuts. That’s the record. And because Trump relied almost entirely on executive actions instead of actual laws, it allowed Biden to erase most of it on day one. It doesn’t matter if you agree with the legislation or not. Getting bills through Congress takes work. Trump’s never shown he can do that. He takes the shortcut instead. Executive orders are the lazy way out.

 

[BOOGIEMAN1914]

Gas was lower under Trump. I just explained this to @Th0r. He worked to make gas affordable for Americans. This hurt, and angered Big Oil and all the politicians that are tied to them.

The problem isn't that you don't get it. It's that you don't want to get it.

Mac, i thought we came to a concensus about gas a couple years ago....Trumps 1st 3 years of gas prices were higher than Obamas last two years of low gas, although still low but continued in the trajectory of what the previous administration accomplished....we all know why 2020 gas numbers were low...and yes gas under Biden was much higher, but don't mind that pesky global pandemic thingy and demand out doing supply as people began to come back outside

 

[Th0r]

Our debate was the first 100 days. Oil prices did immediately go up after he was sworn in. That's because Biden cancelled (he didn't make the decision) the completion of the Keystone pipeline. Gas was lower under Trump. That's a fact. This helped Americans, but hurt Big Oil and all the politicians with their ties to them. You may think that's conspiracy talk, but it's true.

Gas prices didn’t rise in the first 100 days because of the Keystone cancellation. The pipeline wasn’t operational and wasn’t going to be for years. Citing it as the cause of short-term price changes ignores how energy markets actually work. Gas prices are driven by global supply, refining capacity, and market expectations, not unfinished infrastructure projects. That explanation might hold up on Fox News, but not under real scrutiny.

Yes, prices were lower under Trump, but that was during a global economic shutdown. Demand collapsed. If that’s the benchmark, then the lower prices were the result of crisis, not policy.

Setting that aside, it’s worth stepping back to examine what this kind of defense of Trump reveals. His appeal isn’t rooted in legislative success or durable achievements. It’s based on narrative and persona. He offers a simple explanation for complex problems. Clear villains. Easy promises. And always a list of scapegoats to make sure someone else is to blame for everything going wrong. That message is effective, but it also allows him to avoid doing the harder work of governing.

That’s the core of the issue. In his first term, Trump passed one major law, the 2017 tax cuts, despite having full control of Congress for two years. Everything else came through executive orders, most of which were reversed or stalled. That pattern has continued. When you defend the message instead of the outcomes, it only reinforces my point. There’s a gap between how much power Trump is perceived to have and how little he’s actually accomplished with it.

 

[Mac9192]

I’ve said what I’ve had to say about comparing Trump and Biden. You aren’t going to change my mind. There’s no way Biden’s first 100 days were as good as Trump’s.

The mere fact you guys defend Biden begs me to question your intelligence. He was a walking vegetable. I would be ashamed if the party I supported pulled off a scam like that.

You even defend a trillion dollar “rescue plan.” Reckon there’s a ton of waste mixed in there?

 

[KDSTONE]

I’ve said what I’ve had to say about comparing Trump and Biden. You aren’t going to change my mind. There’s no way Biden’s first 100 days were as good as Trump’s.

The mere fact you guys defend Biden begs me to question your intelligence. He was a walking vegetable. I would be ashamed if the party I supported pulled off a scam like that.

You even defend a trillion dollar “rescue plan.” Reckon there’s a ton of waste mixed in there?

I’m no math wizard but I believe this comes out to 7 functional charging stations after 3 years at 1 billion a pop. I’m sure they cooked the books after this article came out. And who says journalism at the WaPo is dead?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/03/28/ev-charging-stations-slow-rollout/

If this is what they can waste with 7 billion, imagine what they can do with trillions?

 

[Th0r]

I’ve said what I’ve had to say about comparing Trump and Biden. You aren’t going to change my mind. There’s no way Biden’s first 100 days were as good as Trump’s.

The mere fact you guys defend Biden begs me to question your intelligence. He was a walking vegetable. I would be ashamed if the party I supported pulled off a scam like that.

You even defend a trillion dollar “rescue plan.” Reckon there’s a ton of waste mixed in there?

Mac, I think you misunderstand what I’m trying to do here. I’m not trying to sway you or change your opinion. I know that’s not likely. I’m really writing for the people who read these threads but don’t speak up. I lay out the argument, back it with facts, and let you guys try to refute it. That way, people following along can decide for themselves what holds up.

Honestly, the only person on your side who really seems to understand what they believe is @KDSTONE, and I respect his debate style. What I’m trying to do here is counter misinformation with facts and stay focused on the argument itself, not personal attacks or theatrics. Just a straightforward debate without all the BS and propaganda.

I usually avoid debating stuff that’s happened in the past because I’d rather stay focused on the present, but if I see a hanging curveball, I’m swinging for the fence. And in this case, your argument was too easy to pick apart for me to resist. If you want to get into the actual facts, I’m here for it. I’m not going to bat for Biden, but facts are facts.

 

[GhostOf301]

Honestly, the only person on your side who really seems to understand what they believe is @KDSTONE

I very well understand what I believe.

 

[Mac9192]

Mac, I think you misunderstand what I’m trying to do here. I’m not trying to sway you or change your opinion. I know that’s not likely. I’m really writing for the people who read these threads but don’t speak up. I lay out the argument, back it with facts, and let you guys try to refute it. That way, people following along can decide for themselves what holds up.

Honestly, the only person on your side who really seems to understand what they believe is @KDSTONE, and I respect his debate style. What I’m trying to do here is counter misinformation with facts and stay focused on the argument itself, not personal attacks or theatrics. Just a straightforward debate without all the BS and propaganda.

I usually avoid debating stuff that’s happened in the past because I’d rather stay focused on the present, but if I see a hanging curveball, I’m swinging for the fence. And in this case, your argument was too easy to pick apart for me to resist. If you want to get into the actual facts, I’m here for it. I’m not going to bat for Biden, but facts are facts.

One of your problems is you think the sources you listen to are correct. The other is you think you’re the smartest guy in the room.

Both are bullshit.

 

[Th0r]

One of your problems is you think the sources you listen to are correct. The other is you think you’re the smartest guy in the room.

Both are bullshit.

That’s fair if you don’t agree with me, and I certainly have no hard feelings. I don’t base my arguments on whether I feel smart. I base them on what can be verified. If I reference a source, it’s because it’s traceable, not because it tells me what I want to hear. You’re welcome to challenge anything I’ve said, but taking shots at motives instead of the substance doesn’t really move the conversation forward. As I’ve always said, I encourage you to fact check me and seek the information out for yourself. And if I’m wrong, show me.

I think you’re probably a pretty good guy overall, but you accuse others of using bad sources without ever questioning whether you might be the one trapped in the bubble. Sometimes things might break your way, sure. But when so much of what you’ve been told doesn’t hold up, it’s worth asking whether the people feeding you that version of the story are being straight with you.

 

[KDSTONE]

It’s true, especially since FDR, that a President’s legacy is defined greatly by his legislative accomplishments. It’s also true that many Presidencies are defined by things completely unrelated. Nixon and Watergate. Bush and the wmd debacle soured the public and he lost the political capital he accrued after his steady leadership after 9/11. Biden’s approval numbers dipped and never recovered after the Afg withdrawal. As for his spending packages, it’s not enough to ram trillion $ bills through Congress. Undoubtedly some good was accomplished with that much dough thrown around. Short term the American people thought the money could have been better spent. Long term we won’t know for years. If Biden sacrificed short term political points for principled projects that won’t take years to bear fruit, kudos for that, but I don’t think we all got our money’s worth based on what we currently know , but I’ve yet to come across a nonpartisan account of how all the money has been spent, whether it’s been spent, the degree of waste and mismanagement, etc.
If anyone comes across an autopsy of the spending that doesn't read like it’s written by Ron Klain or Sean Hannity, let me know.

 

[denverexpat]

One of your problems is you think the sources you listen to are correct. The other is you think you’re the smartest guy in the room.

Both are bullshit.

bullseye!

 

[Th0r]

It’s true, especially since FDR, that a President’s legacy is defined greatly by his legislative accomplishments. It’s also true that many Presidencies are defined by things completely unrelated. Nixon and Watergate. Bush and the wmd debacle soured the public and he lost the political capital he accrued after his steady leadership after 9/11. Biden’s approval numbers dipped and never recovered after the Afg withdrawal. As for his spending packages, it’s not enough to ram trillion $ bills through Congress. Undoubtedly some good was accomplished with that much dough thrown around. Short term the American people thought the money could have been better spent. Long term we won’t know for years. If Biden sacrificed short term political points for principled projects that won’t take years to bear fruit, kudos for that, but I don’t think we all got our money’s worth based on what we currently know , but I’ve yet to come across a nonpartisan account of how all the money has been spent, whether it’s been spent, the degree of waste and mismanagement, etc.
If anyone comes across an autopsy of the spending that doesn't read like it’s written by Ron Klain or Sean Hannity, let me know.

I think that’s a fair question, and I agree it should all be traceable. I’m sure the information is out there if you’re willing to dig for it, but most people don’t have time to sort through budget reports or government dashboards. And that’s part of the problem.

I can’t speak to every dollar, but I can speak to the infrastructure side of ARPA and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I’ve contributed to multiple projects funded through those programs. These were projects that had been shelved for years because there just wasn’t any money. That funding gave cities and counties a real chance to build things instead of just planning them. From where I sit, at least some of that spending made a tangible difference, even if it’s anecdotal.

One thing that often gets overlooked is what happened after the Tea Party pushed to eliminate what used to be called pork spending in 2011. A lot of local infrastructure, especially in smaller or rural communities, relied on that kind of targeted funding. When it was stripped out, many places lost their only realistic path to federal investment. For over a decade, that gap left roads, bridges, and public systems in disrepair. These two bills didn’t fix the problem completely, but they helped. They gave local governments a way to start catching up.

But that’s what I’ve been trying to point out. It’s completely fair to criticize Biden’s legislation. I’m not a fan of all of it, and I don’t expect every piece to work. But at least there’s something to criticize. So far, Trump hasn’t shown he can do the hard part of governing, especially with his inability to get real laws passed. Maybe that changes. But for now, the difference is pretty clear.

 

[Mac9192]

That’s fair if you don’t agree with me, and I certainly have no hard feelings. I don’t base my arguments on whether I feel smart. I base them on what can be verified. If I reference a source, it’s because it’s traceable, not because it tells me what I want to hear. You’re welcome to challenge anything I’ve said, but taking shots at motives instead of the substance doesn’t really move the conversation forward. As I’ve always said, I encourage you to fact check me and seek the information out for yourself. And if I’m wrong, show me.

I think you’re probably a pretty good guy overall, but you accuse others of using bad sources without ever questioning whether you might be the one trapped in the bubble. Sometimes things might break your way, sure. But when so much of what you’ve been told doesn’t hold up, it’s worth asking whether the people feeding you that version of the story are being straight with you.

I think you’re a nice guy, but probably spend too much time in books, and also lack the “want to” to use your eyes. Case in point: Biden. What I was seeing and hearing with my own eyes and ears since 2020 didn’t line up with what the media and liberals here were saying. They mocked anyone for suggesting it.

So until you’re willing to admit thisi, you won’t have much credibility.

 

[Th0r]

I think you’re a nice guy, but probably spend too much time in books, and also lack the “want to” to use your eyes. Case in point: Biden. What I was seeing and hearing with my own eyes and ears since 2020 didn’t line up with what the media and liberals here were saying. They mocked anyone for suggesting it.

So until you’re willing to admit thisi, you won’t have much credibility.

I appreciate the civility, and I’ll return it. But I think there’s a disconnect here. What you see and hear firsthand matters, I’m not dismissing that. But personal perception isn’t a substitute for a full picture. That’s why I look at facts, legislation, legal rulings, and reporting from a wide range of sources. Not because I blindly trust everything I read, but because what feels true and what is true don’t always line up.

And if you really knew me, you’d understand why I can speak to a lot of this with confidence. I don’t just skim headlines or go off vibes. I follow the policy, track the outcomes, and stay in it day to day. I’m not in here trying to dunk on people, but I will push back when an argument doesn’t hold up. Honestly, this is just how I work through things and test ideas.

I’ve said right here in this thread that it pissed me off how Biden’s inner circle shielded his condition from the public. They misled people, and I’ve never made excuses for that. I never will.

If you think I’m missing something, I’m open to specifics. I don’t claim to know everything, and I’ve learned plenty from conversations like this. But credibility isn’t built on gut feelings alone. It comes from showing your work, being clear about your sources, and adjusting when the facts shift.

 

[Dattier]

You're showing us who you are. Which is one of those that believe in the system, and think our leaders really care. Not trying to pick on you, but your views are actually naive, to the point of being dangerous. The mere fact you think a 1.9 trillion dollar "Rescue Plan" was a great thing is disturbing. The amount of wasteful spending in it dwarfs whatever good you say is in there.

Our debate was the first 100 days. Oil prices did immediately go up after he was sworn in. That's because Biden cancelled (he didn't make the decision) the completion of the Keystone pipeline. Gas was lower under Trump. That's a fact. This helped Americans, but hurt Big Oil and all the politicians with their ties to them. You may think that's conspiracy talk, but it's true.

And what's really disturbing is you aren't giving any credit to what Trump has done with the Border and our security.

You love assuming things about who people are, like you can read people so easily you know them better than they know themselves. Like you're so superior or something.

Th0r is drinking your milkshake and all you have are cynical, arrogant assumptions.

He has stated a couple times now that it's not about your opinion of an accomplishment; it's about whether it actually qualifies as an accomplishment. Our President's Executive Orders make sensational headlines, but what change are they going to make? He did something similar in his first term, where he also ran on getting tough with immigration and building the wall that Mexico would pay for. What lasting change has he made? How long would you say it took President Biden's administration to set us back to 2016 re: immigration? What does that say about what President Trump really managed to accomplish in his first term, for all the posturing and tough talk?

Then Senator Biden was a champion of the 1994 Crime Bill. Both he and President Clinton speak openly about the unintended negative consequences of it now, but there's no denying it was a major accomplishment, whether we like it or not. I detest most of what President Reagan accomplished, but there's no denying his accomplishments or stature.

The thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that you actually have to do the heavy lifting and go the extra mile to provide support for your positions. It's an uphill battle. The default is that you're wrong. You're fighting against the common sense. Keep in mind that I prefer the definition of "common sense" meaning "what the majority agrees on," whether or not it is valid, so I'm not actually saying you're wrong. I'm stating what you're up against and your burden of proof. You're not doing any of that heavy lifting. You're throwing out the conspiracy theory and doubts about any and every thing you disagree with, then stopping short of providing any real evidence.

Even your example of gas prices: you're blaming President Biden for gas prices going up under President Trump, but failing to acknowledge how other factors also influence gas prices going down. It's really uncanny how similar you are to President Trump himself in this regard: everything positive is entirely to his credit; everything else is blamed on someone else.

 

[Dattier]

I was responding to Datt’s implication that the reduced border numbers are a result solely of Trumpian spin and aren’t based in reality.

Already addressed:

What are you talking about? I gave you an answer that contained exactly zero pronouns since you hate them so much.

 

[Dattier]

Gas was lower under Trump. I just explained this to @Th0r. He worked to make gas affordable for Americans. This hurt, and angered Big Oil and all the politicians that are tied to them.

The problem isn't that you don't get it. It's that you don't want to get it.

You didn't explain anything. You said gas prices were lower under President Trump, which no one has denied. What you have not done is explained how he did that, what he did to make gas affordable. What, exactly, has he done other than take credit for it? Where is any evidence of Big Oil's anger at President Trump, or his actions that positively affected gas prices?

These questions? They're not rhetorical; they're not disagreement. They're evidence that I want to get it. I won't speak for Th0r, but I'd say you have far less reason to suspect that of him and accuse him of that than you do of me.

 

[Dattier]

...the only person on your side who really seems to understand what they believe is @KDSTONE, and I respect his debate style.

I concur. @KDSTONE has risen a lot in my estimation over the last month or so. Apologies to you, KD, for once lumping you in w/ @Mac9192 for presenting as the dumbest poster here.

 

[Dattier]

I’ve said what I’ve had to say about comparing Trump and Biden. You aren’t going to change my mind. There’s no way Biden’s first 100 days were as good as Trump’s.

The mere fact you guys defend Biden begs me to question your intelligence. He was a walking vegetable. I would be ashamed if the party I supported pulled off a scam like that.

You even defend a trillion dollar “rescue plan.” Reckon there’s a ton of waste mixed in there?

No, what is happening is Th0r presents FACTS that demonstrate what was accomplished under President Trump and President Biden. That's not a defense of Biden. It's a defense of what actually happened. Where are any facts to support your claims to the contrary?

President Biden was a walking vegetable? Haha, yuck-yuck, you really got him there. What do the facts show about what his administration accomplished? On his watch/blank stare?

I absolutely do reckon there's a ton of waste/pork/trans programming for kindergarteners mixed in there. Again, accomplishments don't exist or not exist based on whether you agree with them. They exist based on facts. They require facts. Where are yours?

 

[Mac9192]

No, what is happening is Th0r presents FACTS that demonstrate what was accomplished under President Trump and President Biden. That's not a defense of Biden. It's a defense of what actually happened. Where are any facts to support your claims to the contrary?

President Biden was a walking vegetable? Haha, yuck-yuck, you really got him there. What do the facts show about what his administration accomplished? On his watch/blank stare?

I did a little looking up on This Rescue Plan that Biden passed. It was touted as a great thing. I mean passing a bill that's worth 1.9 trillion is a headliner. However, if you believe what you read, it wasn't great. More like a disaster. According to the American Enterprise Institute, about 1.8 million Americans turned down jobs because extended unemployment benefits were in the bill, and it failed to create any of the 4 million jobs the Democrats promised.

The bill itself? A slim 650 pages. I'm sure there was no wasteful spending in there. If you fall for that, I'll sell you some ocean front property in Tennessee.

When comparing the first 100 days of the Biden to Trump, and The Rescue Plan is your go to versus Trump putting major focus on the border, and tagging gangs as terrorists organizations? It's a no brainer. But keep on being you Datt.

 

[KDSTONE]

I concur. @KDSTONE has risen a lot in my estimation over the last month or so. Apologies to you, KD, for once lumping you in w/ @Mac9192 for presenting as the dumbest poster here.

This seems less like an apology and more like an excuse to insult us both again by republishing it.
If I’m wrong, then it’s my turn to apologize.

 

[GhostOf301]

The points being made about accomplishments are pretty valid, IMO. It is frustrating watching our country go on without any real legislation. So when they are critical about Trump’s accomplishments not having shelf life, it's a fair criticism. They're not asking what has he accomplished, they're asking what had he accomplished that can't be undone by the stroke of a pen by the next elected Democrat? I think that's perfectly fair to call out. I personally think it is a good thing to deport the vast majority of illegal immigrants, particularly the ones who came here illegally. Not just the violent criminals. I think it is a good thing that the border crossings have drastically decreased. But nothing is being done in a GOP led congress to assure that things won't just go right back to the way they were once the EOs are either shut down by the courts or undone by a future president.

I laugh at the idea that what Biden accomplished was a good thing. But whether it was Biden making the calls or not, his administration was about to pass legislation. Trump doesn't even seem interested in passing legislation. Though I think his actions are better for the country as a whole.

 

[GhostOf301]

This seems less like an apology and more like an excuse to insult us both again by republishing it.
If I’m wrong, then it’s my turn to apologize.

Never apologize. It shows weakness.

 

[Th0r]

I did a little looking up on This Rescue Plan that Biden passed. It was touted as a great thing. I mean passing a bill that's worth 1.9 trillion is a headliner. However, if you believe what you read, it wasn't great. More like a disaster. According to the American Enterprise Institute, about 1.8 million Americans turned down jobs because extended unemployment benefits were in the bill, and it failed to create any of the 4 million jobs the Democrats promised.

The bill itself? A slim 650 pages. I'm sure there was no wasteful spending in there. If you fall for that, I'll sell you some ocean front property in Tennessee.

When comparing the first 100 days of the Biden to Trump, and The Rescue Plan is your go to versus Trump putting major focus on the border, and tagging gangs as terrorists organizations? It's a no brainer. But keep on being you Datt.

First, let’s talk about that American Enterprise Institute claim. AEI has a clear ideological slant. That doesn’t make them wrong by default, but it does mean you should take their framing with some skepticism. The 1.8 million figure they cite is based on speculative modeling, not hard proof. And even if some people chose to delay going back to low wage jobs while receiving legal unemployment benefits, that’s not a failure of the law. That’s individuals making choices within the system. If your criticism is that the law gave people breathing room, that’s a political preference, not an objective flaw.

Second, the Rescue Plan did a lot more than just issue checks. It helped keep schools open, accelerated vaccine distribution, supported small businesses, and prevented mass layoffs in cities and counties across the country. I’ve personally worked on projects funded through that legislation that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. It wasn’t perfect, but it had real impact. The economy added over 6 million jobs in 2021, and even economists across the spectrum acknowledged the bill played a role in that recovery.

But here’s the bigger issue you’re sidestepping. You’re focused on dissecting a law Biden passed while not acknowledging the elephant in the room. Trump hasn’t shown he can pass laws at all. That was the point. You might not like ARPA, but at least there’s a real legislative record to examine.

And since we’ve talked about ARPA, would you like to shift to Trump’s 2017 tax cuts? Since it was the only major piece of legislation he passed during his first term, a 429 page bill for the record, I’d love nothing more than to tear into that one if that’s where you want to take the conversation.

 

[KDSTONE]

First, let’s talk about that American Enterprise Institute claim. AEI has a clear ideological slant. That doesn’t make them wrong by default, but it does mean you should take their framing with some skepticism. The 1.8 million figure they cite is based on speculative modeling, not hard proof. And even if some people chose to delay going back to low wage jobs while receiving legal unemployment benefits, that’s not a failure of the law. That’s individuals making choices within the system. If your criticism is that the law gave people breathing room, that’s a political preference, not an objective flaw.

Second, the Rescue Plan did a lot more than just issue checks. It helped keep schools open, accelerated vaccine distribution, supported small businesses, and prevented mass layoffs in cities and counties across the country. I’ve personally worked on projects funded through that legislation that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. It wasn’t perfect, but it had real impact. The economy added over 6 million jobs in 2021, and even economists across the spectrum acknowledged the bill played a role in that recovery.

But here’s the bigger issue you’re sidestepping. You’re focused on dissecting a law Biden passed while not acknowledging the elephant in the room. Trump hasn’t shown he can pass laws at all. That was the point. You might not like ARPA, but at least there’s a real legislative record to examine.

And since we’ve talked about ARPA, would you like to shift to Trump’s 2017 tax cuts? Since it was the only major piece of legislation he passed during his first term, a 429 page bill for the record, I’d love nothing more than to tear into that one if that’s where you want to take the conversation.

There may be more than one elephant in the room. The other is that if no legislation is ever passed, then Congress can’t get credit for any admin successes and it diminishes one branch of govt while strengthening his own.

 

[Dattier]

I did a little looking up on This Rescue Plan that Biden passed. It was touted as a great thing. I mean passing a bill that's worth 1.9 trillion is a headliner. However, if you believe what you read, it wasn't great. More like a disaster. According to the American Enterprise Institute, about 1.8 million Americans turned down jobs because extended unemployment benefits were in the bill, and it failed to create any of the 4 million jobs the Democrats promised.

The American Enterprise Institute is a "center-right" think tank, meaning they lean slightly to the right, a huge improvement over your usual sources. The flip spin on that is that a lot of people who couldn't retire before could afford to. As I said before, I'm sure there was waste, I'm sure some elements didn't work. Regardless, it qualifies as actually doing something.

 

[Dattier]

This seems less like an apology and more like an excuse to insult us both again by republishing it.
If I’m wrong, then it’s my turn to apologize.

Ha! No, no need for you to apologize. I really dio mean it as a compliment and apology, but it's understandable for you to be suspicious, given our history.

 

[Th0r]

The points being made about accomplishments are pretty valid, IMO. It is frustrating watching our country go on without any real legislation. So when they are critical about Trump’s accomplishments not having shelf life, it's a fair criticism. They're not asking what has he accomplished, they're asking what had he accomplished that can't be undone by the stroke of a pen by the next elected Democrat? I think that's perfectly fair to call out. I personally think it is a good thing to deport the vast majority of illegal immigrants, particularly the ones who came here illegally. Not just the violent criminals. I think it is a good thing that the border crossings have drastically decreased. But nothing is being done in a GOP led congress to assure that things won't just go right back to the way they were once the EOs are either shut down by the courts or undone by a future president.

I laugh at the idea that what Biden accomplished was a good thing. But whether it was Biden making the calls or not, his administration was about to pass legislation. Trump doesn't even seem interested in passing legislation. Though I think his actions are better for the country as a whole.

There may be more than one elephant in the room. The other is that if no legislation is ever passed, then Congress can’t get credit for any admin successes and it diminishes one branch of govt while strengthening his own.

You’re both raising fair points, and I think this gets to something even bigger than partisanship. If Congress continues to sideline itself, we’re not just dealing with gridlock. We’re watching one branch of government become irrelevant by choice. That should concern everyone, no matter who’s in office.

And from a Trump supporter’s perspective, I’d be frustrated that after four years of missed opportunities, he came back with no clear plan to do things differently. No push to build coalitions, no serious legislative proposals, just more of the same playbook that left little behind the first time. It’s not just a lack of results. It’s a lack of growth.

 

[Mac9192]

First, let’s talk about that American Enterprise Institute claim. AEI has a clear ideological slant. That doesn’t make them wrong by default, but it does mean you should take their framing with some skepticism. The 1.8 million figure they cite is based on speculative modeling, not hard proof. And even if some people chose to delay going back to low wage jobs while receiving legal unemployment benefits, that’s not a failure of the law. That’s individuals making choices within the system. If your criticism is that the law gave people breathing room, that’s a political preference, not an objective flaw.

Second, the Rescue Plan did a lot more than just issue checks. It helped keep schools open, accelerated vaccine distribution, supported small businesses, and prevented mass layoffs in cities and counties across the country. I’ve personally worked on projects funded through that legislation that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. It wasn’t perfect, but it had real impact. The economy added over 6 million jobs in 2021, and even economists across the spectrum acknowledged the bill played a role in that recovery.

But here’s the bigger issue you’re sidestepping. You’re focused on dissecting a law Biden passed while not acknowledging the elephant in the room. Trump hasn’t shown he can pass laws at all. That was the point. You might not like ARPA, but at least there’s a real legislative record to examine.

And since we’ve talked about ARPA, would you like to shift to Trump’s 2017 tax cuts? Since it was the only major piece of legislation he passed during his first term, a 429 page bill for the record, I’d love nothing more than to tear into that one if that’s where you want to take the conversation.

All I'm doing is comparing the first 100 days. It looks like Trump is trying to do a hundred things, when it might be better to focus on a few at a time. I absolutely love what he's done with the Border. Not sure about you and @Dattier, but I think that should be easy to support. You don't need to pass new legislation, just enforce what's already written down. And designating a gang like MS-13 a terrorists organization? Great idea.

The President may not control gas prices, but any rational person knows there's a direct connection with Big Oil and DC. The higher oil is by the barrel, the bigger their accounts are. This isn't rocket science. And why did Biden's handlers have him cancel the Keystone Pipeline on the first day?

On credibility of sources? You don't have to look far to find something slanted. I still say using the ol eyes is a decent gauge. Some of you might want to try that.

 

[Dattier]

The points being made about accomplishments are pretty valid, IMO. It is frustrating watching our country go on without any real legislation. So when they are critical about Trump’s accomplishments not having shelf life, it's a fair criticism. They're not asking what has he accomplished, they're asking what had he accomplished that can't be undone by the stroke of a pen by the next elected Democrat? I think that's perfectly fair to call out. I personally think it is a good thing to deport the vast majority of illegal immigrants, particularly the ones who came here illegally. Not just the violent criminals. I think it is a good thing that the border crossings have drastically decreased. But nothing is being done in a GOP led congress to assure that things won't just go right back to the way they were once the EOs are either shut down by the courts or undone by a future president.

I laugh at the idea that what Biden accomplished was a good thing. But whether it was Biden making the calls or not, his administration was about to pass legislation. Trump doesn't even seem interested in passing legislation. Though I think his actions are better for the country as a whole.

I can respect that.
I'll add that there hasn't been a President who issued under 150 EOs since the 1800s, including JFK and Ford -- 2 of our shortest tenured Presidents ever. So it's not like anyone is saying legislation is the only way to accomplish something. It's the surest way for a long-term effect. If an EO works and is popular in the short-term, the next President may very well extend it.

 

[Dattier]

All I'm doing is comparing the first 100 days. It looks like Trump is trying to do a hundred things, when it might be better to focus on a few at a time. I absolutely love what he's done with the Border. Not sure about you and @Dattier, but I think that should be easy to support. You don't need to pass new legislation, just enforce what's already written down. And designating a gang like MS-13 a terrorists organization? Great idea.

The President may not control gas prices, but any rational person knows there's a direct connection with Big Oil and DC. The higher oil is by the barrel, the bigger their accounts are. This isn't rocket science. And why did Biden's handlers have him cancel the Keystone Pipeline on the first day?

On credibility of sources? You don't have to look far to find something slanted. I still say using the ol eyes is a decent gauge. Some of you might want to try that.

I don't trust the methods President Trump has used to get results on immigration. I acknowledge he seems to have stopped the bleeding for now.
I see a pretty huge distinction between gangs and terrorist organizations. I also see plenty of overlap, but I think the distinction is significant and important. The more precision and less broadness, the more likely solutions can be targeted and effective.
MS-13 are bad hombres and nasty women, no doubt. I have serious misgivings about their being categorized as a terrorist organization by the same President who pardoned Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys. It just seems convoluted as a component of an immigration policy.

I don't know of any partisan alliance with Big Oil, nor of any dissatisfaction with President Trump from Big Oil.

Everyone is using their eyes. Everyone is using their brains. Nobody can see or think or know everything.

 

[Th0r]

Here’s a great example of what I’ve been talking about, and it really drives home how lazy and unserious Trump’s second term has become.

A competent administration vets people before nominating them for powerful roles. They don’t just pick whoever’s loudest on cable news or most loyal on Truth Social. But that’s exactly what we’re seeing here. Trump nominated Ed Martin, a “Stop the Steal” activist with no experience as a federal prosecutor, no experience as a judge, and no relevant qualifications for the job. He was tapped to serve as US Attorney for DC, one of the most powerful prosecutorial roles in the country. This office handles both federal and local crimes, including high profile political cases. It’s a serious job that requires serious people.

Martin’s nomination was already shaky. He had spent his interim tenure demoting prosecutors involved in January 6 cases and using his platform to launch political threats. But the final straw came when it surfaced that he brought a known neo-Nazi, Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, onto his podcast. Hale-Cusanelli once said, “I would kill all the Jews and eat them for breakfast, lunch, and dinner,” according to court filings. He also dressed up like Adolf Hitler and sketched Jewish people as pigs. Martin praised him on air, then tried to walk it back when the heat came. That was enough to make even Senator Thom Tillis walk away, and the nomination quietly collapsed.

And Trump’s backup plan? He picked Judge Jeanine Pirro. Yes, the Fox News host. While she does have a distant legal background as a district attorney, she hasn’t practiced law in years. She’s spent more time yelling in prime time than dealing with actual casework. This isn’t someone with federal prosecutorial experience. It’s someone with a camera ready persona and unwavering loyalty.

This makes me mad for you guys, honestly. Because I get how impossible it is to defend stuff like this with a straight face. You’ve got people trying to argue that Trump has learned from the past and is building a serious team, but the actions speak louder than the slogans. No growth, no learning, just the same broken loop. And if you’re wondering why nothing durable ever comes out of these appointments, why it all unravels the second someone pushes back, this is why. You cannot govern a country like you are casting a reality show.

 

[Mac9192]

I don't know of any partisan alliance with Big Oil, nor of any dissatisfaction with President Trump from Big Oil.

Everyone is using their eyes. Everyone is using their brains. Nobody can see or think or know everything.

All in all Datt, you gave a decent reply. I have to take issue with this though. If everyone is using their eyes and brains, they'd definitely see a connection with DC and Big Oil.

That makes it good for them, but bad for us.