Jump to content
misplacedcowboy

Biden/Harris building on Trump's border policy?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, grandjean87 said:

Just got back from a slow 4m run + 2m walk. SW Idaho summer evenings.  Session IPA down and should I do 1/2 gummy or not?

Ok. This is a long term policy project. The link you provided from that policy center is the type of planning that needs to take place. I read over half of it, and it just stood out as serious, practical, and critical policy.  I can’t say the Biden Admin. will take the full cues, but at least (I sure hope) policy direction is serious and scholarly.  Grown ups.  

Harris’ trip is a political trip. Her speaking points are political. The other team’s criticism is political.  None of it really impacts long term policy.

Ill go back and finish reading the link, but it just had a solid direction as far as I read. 

No you should eat the full gummy!

@Joe from WY I first got this guy to create an account here now I have got the teacher eating edibles!  

You have posted some good ideas on how direct and indirect funding could help in various respects in the past.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

No you should eat the full gummy!

@Joe from WY I first got this guy to create an account here now I have got the teacher eating edibles!  

You have posted some good ideas on how direct and indirect funding could help in various respects in the past.  

 

No on the full gummy. You remember what I said about those three tokes. I think I’ll just have another ale or two and brandy night cap. 
 
There are some really good, strategic planning and policy suggestions/options from that immigration study center — I still need to read over and slower. 

Why hasn’t the VP gone to the border?  They know there would be a political cost for that.  The only reason to do a visit would be political (I can’t see a policy angle, but maybe there is?). Maybe strategic advice recommended no?  At least one of Harris’ statements, and I have not followed closely, seemed to imply. Maybe the statements made during the mission combined with the no border visit were viewed as causing the least harm to the current border problems?  I do know this is an administration that has some fealty to policy re: politics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, grandjean87 said:

No on the full gummy. You remember what I said about those three tokes. I think I’ll just have another ale or two and brandy night cap. 
 
There are some really good, strategic planning and policy suggestions/options from that immigration study center — I still need to read over and slower. 

Why hasn’t the VP gone to the border?  They know there would be a political cost for that.   The only reason to do a visit would be political. Maybe strategic advice recommend no?  At least one of Harris’ statements, and I have not followed closely, seemed to imply. Maybe the statements made during the mission combined with the no boxer visit were viewed as causing the least harm to the current border problems?  I do know this is an administration that has some fealty to policy re: politics. 

 

Early studies are showing promise for long term mental health benefits if done in daily moderation.  Speeds up your metabolism.  At least eat the half gummy.

Yeah, I thought  that study had some good things in it, why I posted it while not addressing the question directly.

Kamala being appointed the border tsar and not going to the border is just a bad look, no other way about it.  Even if going there would not materially impact things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Early studies are showing promise for long term mental health benefits if done in daily moderation.  Speeds up your metabolism.  At least eat the half gummy.

Yeah, I thought  that study had some good things in it, why I posted it while not addressing the question directly.

Kamala being appointed the border tsar and not going to the border is just a bad look, no other way about it.  Even if going there would not materially impact things.

No 1/2 tonight.  After eating a little late dinner, having a little brandy. Maybe tomorrow.  

I’m of the mind it was a strategic decision not to visit. It certainly could be that most Ds and D-team media are not really focused on the border and a Kamala visit draws attention. Political choice. 

I also think no visit plus her speaking on this trip may have been chosen as the means of harm reduction.  The NT migration issue is a long-term policy matter.   

Either way, there isn’t any real political cost to Biden (it’s on Harris…pretty smart?), and despite that “Deliverance” post today, the old dude is in charge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Early studies are showing promise for long term mental health benefits if done in daily moderation.  Speeds up your metabolism.  At least eat the half gummy.

Yeah, I thought  that study had some good things in it, why I posted it while not addressing the question directly.

Kamala being appointed the border tsar and not going to the border is just a bad look, no other way about it.  Even if going there would not materially impact things.

Going there materially impacts things. It tells the would be immigrants “Seriously, don’t come. No matter what bs we said before, you won’t be able to stay.” The notion that we aren’t serious is fueling this generational increase.

Long term plan: great idea. But we can’t pretend the hypothetical success of an Apollo 11 means you can ignore barbecued astronauts in Apollo 1 and everything will be hunky dory. Sometimes you have to make it clear you’re going to fix the door.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Going there materially impacts things

Lol. Migrants won't stay based on Kamala doing a PR border town visit.

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, grandjean87 said:

No 1/2 tonight.  After eating a little late dinner, having a little brandy. Maybe tomorrow.  

I’m of the mind it was a strategic decision not to visit. It certainly could be that most Ds and D-team media are not really focused on the border and a Kamala visit draws attention. Political choice. 

I also think no visit plus her speaking on this trip may have been chosen as the means of harm reduction.  The NT migration issue is a long-term policy matter.   

Either way, there isn’t any real political cost to Biden (it’s on Harris…pretty smart?), and despite that “Deliverance” post today, the old dude is in charge. 

 

Realpolitik has a time and place and yeah, not sure what benefit it does them politically.  Still, a visit there would send strength to any message they are trying to convey.  Right now the message being conveyed is "meh we got bigger problems" and even if that is true...the border is not a nothing berder.  Get the +++++ down there, it is 2 day round trip.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Realpolitik has a time and place and yeah, not sure what benefit it does them politically.  Still, a visit there would send strength to any message they are trying to convey.  Right now the message being conveyed is "meh we got bigger problems" and even if that is true...the border is not a nothing berder.  Get the +++++ down there, it is 2 day round trip.  

 

Maybe?  Or, not?  It's all forgotten soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Maji said:

Lol. Migrants won't stay based on Kamala doing a PR border town visit.

Don’t do PR visits. She was supposedly empowered by the executive to be the border czar. Do your damn job. It’s not that hard. Literally saying at the border the opposite of what she and Democrats have been saying for years is going to have an effect. Just like this jackassery had an effect.

WireAP_ccba19b8b9b64adeab74dfbfcb111961_
It’s not a mystery.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/06/973824927/asylum-seekers-are-entering-the-u-s-again-but-many-more-migrants-are-left-behind 

They crossed over the Rio Grande in the last couple weeks with the false expectation that every family with kids would be allowed to stay under the new Biden policies. They were detained by Customs and Border Protection and returned to Mexico. 

"They dumped us here three days ago on the bridge; they left us here without any explanation," Damasio says. "We thought the new president would create new opportunities for migrants, but from what we've seen there is nothing for us."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/us/migrants-border-coronavirus-san-diego.amp.html  
 

Mother Isabel Turcios, a nun in Piedras Negras, Mexico, a small town across from Eagle Pass, Texas, described a chaotic situation with migrants arriving by the dozens by train each day and parking themselves on street corners and in abandoned houses, hoping for a chance to cross.

“There are many, many mothers with children coming,” she said. “They think they will be allowed to pass because there is a new president. Some are succeeding, not all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, grandjean87 said:

Maybe?  Or, not?  It's all forgotten soon.

 

Why is Iran considered a major political focus, but the NT and border is on a side burner forgotten about?

Dumb da da dumb dumb da.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, grandjean87 said:

Maybe?  Or, not?  It's all forgotten soon.

The border will not be forgotten. It’s the biggest miscalculation Republicans got wrong in the mid 20teens and one Democrats have only gotten abysmal at addressing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Don’t do PR visits. She was supposedly empowered by the executive to be the border czar. Do your damn job. It’s not that hard. Literally saying at the border the opposite of what she and Democrats have been saying for years is going to have an effect. Just like this jackassery had an effect.

WireAP_ccba19b8b9b64adeab74dfbfcb111961_
It’s not a mystery.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/06/973824927/asylum-seekers-are-entering-the-u-s-again-but-many-more-migrants-are-left-behind 

They crossed over the Rio Grande in the last couple weeks with the false expectation that every family with kids would be allowed to stay under the new Biden policies. They were detained by Customs and Border Protection and returned to Mexico. 

"They dumped us here three days ago on the bridge; they left us here without any explanation," Damasio says. "We thought the new president would create new opportunities for migrants, but from what we've seen there is nothing for us."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/us/migrants-border-coronavirus-san-diego.amp.html  
 

Mother Isabel Turcios, a nun in Piedras Negras, Mexico, a small town across from Eagle Pass, Texas, described a chaotic situation with migrants arriving by the dozens by train each day and parking themselves on street corners and in abandoned houses, hoping for a chance to cross.

“There are many, many mothers with children coming,” she said. “They think they will be allowed to pass because there is a new president. Some are succeeding, not all.

This smacks of Biden’s campaign rhetoric of welcoming migrants, whether intended or not, and then slamming the door in their face when it got out of control. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The border will not be forgotten. It’s the biggest miscalculation Republicans got wrong in the mid 20teens and one Democrats have only gotten abysmal at addressing.

You misinterpreted.   I was referring specifically, and narrowly to the decision of the VP to not yet visit the border.  I don't think 1920s  nativist policies  were the main cause of Republican decline other than there were some currents that fed into the long-lasting Roosevelt Coalition.

I remember Jack Kemp saying in the '90s, there were two huge issues the Rs got wrong that century.  Immigration and Civil Rights. I don't see the Ds even today on that level.    

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

 

Why is Iran considered a major political focus, but the NT and border is on a side burner forgotten about?

Dumb da da dumb dumb da.

It's because Iran is viewed as a threat

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maji said:

It's because they view Iran as a threat

Wrong.  It is because the Iran deal was viewed as Biden's biggest political win, ever.  He orchestrated it.  It was a gross disgusting deal that made us look weak and ignorant, but that is for another thread.

The Iran deal was Biden's baby.  It was stupid policy then and even dumber now.  But Biden is focused as hell on it.  But no shits given to the border under the guise "we can only focus on so much and right now that is COVID and the economy"  

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Wrong

I'm referring to the national security community at large, not Biden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Why is Iran considered a major political focus, but the NT and border is on a side burner forgotten about?

Dumb da da dumb dumb da.

I had hope for you in this thread :)

FFS, Harris was in the NT not Tehran.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, grandjean87 said:

I had hope for you in this thread :)

Not a fan of the prior Iran deal.  Not a fan of reigniting it.  And certainly not a fan of the excuse for the current administration that "they are focusing on other things" when Iran is one of the things they are focusing so much on.

Why is it that we do not have the ability to focus resources on some things but have it to focus on Iran?  Sucking Irans dick for a political win where we say "it is totally cool you build a nuclear arsenal in 20 years, just do not do it in 10" is good policy?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Not a fan of the prior Iran deal.  Not a fan of reigniting it.  And certainly not a fan of the excuse for the current administration that "they are focusing on other things" when Iran is one of the things the focusing so much on.

Why is it that we do not have the ability to focus resources on some things but have it to focus on Iran?  Sucking Irans dick for a political win where we say "it is totally cool you build a nuclear arsenal in 20 years, just do not do it in 10" good policy?

 

I should have taken that gummy.  I thought I had responded. 

Can we stay on one topic?  It’s not like any modern administration had only one FP matter to deal with at any time.  Start an Iran thread if you want.  

The border issue is a long-term solution issue like about everything. Going rabid on it from either political or policy perspective for the short term, matters little. I never really  criticized the Trump border policy until the ‘18 separation policy.  Let’s take the long road. 
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...