Biden's Day 1 & Beyond Executive orders

[Archy1221]

39 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I think it's telling that 12 members have voted in the poll but only 9 are for appointees signing ethics agreement. I can sort of see having an issue with some of these but ethics in government..... c'mon. How can anyone besides @Archy1221 be against that?

I haven’t voted on any of them.  And there you go assuming again. 

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I haven’t voted on any of them.  And there you go assuming again. 

Didn't say you voted on anything but based on your well established support for all things Trump, of course you aren't for ethics in government. It's not an assumption rather it's a rational observation.

[Archy1221]

54 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Didn't say you voted on anything but based on your well established support for all things Trump, of course you aren't for ethics in government. It's not an assumption rather it's a rational observation.

Not so.  Keep trying.  

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

Didn't say you voted on anything but based on your well established support for all things Trump, of course you aren't for ethics in government. It's not an assumption rather it's a rational observation.

 

34 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Not so.  Keep trying.  

Whenever it’s brought up directly, this is what you say but your cumulative posting history is telling a completely different story. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

[Ulty]

 

13 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Funhusker, I assume you think this is a topic of sorts that is worthy of a discussion.  Abigail goes pretty far in her interpretation I agree, but regardless it discussion worthy??  Or would you be like @Ultysays and consider yourself transphobic for talking about it because well he just does I guess?  
Obviously I don’t think you are and you probably have a few thoughts and they come from a good place.  But is it transphobic to discuss?

 

13 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Would you be considered transphobic since you are talking about this issue as I have been called since I broached this topic by @Ulty?  

 

Projecting your nonsense onto @funhusker and @BigRedBuster is not fair to them. You posted the transphobic tweets from Ben Shapiro and Abigail Shrier, own up to it. Asking questions in good faith about this subject is not transphobic. Hyperbolic fear-mongering, on the other hand, is.

 

I don't believe that any of us on this board are bona fide experts on gender dynamics, and it can be a complex issue. So we can have a discussion about the gender spectrum, civil rights policy, what it means for sports and restrooms, etc, without being alarmist, offensive, or disrespectful (that discussion should be in a different thread, imo). But the tweets that you pasted here without comment were not made in good faith about the transgender community or gender dynamics. 

 

What points were Ben Shapiro and Abigail Shrier trying to make with their tweets, and what are their views on the transgender community (I'll go ahead and answer: their views are horrific, and they were trying to stir up more fear and bigotry). What point were you trying to make when you posted them here? And compare funhusker's and BRB's questions with the intent of you and your twitter follows. Do you understand the difference?

 

 

 

[funhusker]

24 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

 

 

Projecting your nonsense onto @funhusker and @BigRedBuster is not fair to them. You posted the transphobic tweets from Ben Shapiro and Abigail Shrier, own up to it. Asking questions in good faith about this subject is not transphobic. Hyperbolic fear-mongering, on the other hand, is.

 

I don't believe that any of us on this board are bona fide experts on gender dynamics, and it can be a complex issue. So we can have a discussion about the gender spectrum, civil rights policy, what it means for sports and restrooms, etc, without being alarmist, offensive, or disrespectful (that discussion should be in a different thread, imo). But the tweets that you pasted here without comment were not made in good faith about the transgender community or gender dynamics. 

 

What points were Ben Shapiro and Abigail Shrier trying to make with their tweets, and what are their views on the transgender community (I'll go ahead and answer: their views are horrific, and they were trying to stir up more fear and bigotry). What point were you trying to make when you posted them here? And compare funhusker's and BRB's questions with the intent of you and your twitter follows. Do you understand the difference?

 

 

 

Well said.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

13 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Would you be considered transphobic since you are talking about this issue as I have been called since I broached this topic by @Ulty?  

No.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

 

 

 

Projecting your nonsense onto @funhusker and @BigRedBuster is not fair to them. You posted the transphobic tweets from Ben Shapiro and Abigail Shrier, own up to it. Asking questions in good faith about this subject is not transphobic. Hyperbolic fear-mongering, on the other hand, is.

 

I don't believe that any of us on this board are bona fide experts on gender dynamics, and it can be a complex issue. So we can have a discussion about the gender spectrum, civil rights policy, what it means for sports and restrooms, etc, without being alarmist, offensive, or disrespectful (that discussion should be in a different thread, imo). But the tweets that you pasted here without comment were not made in good faith about the transgender community or gender dynamics. 

 

What points were Ben Shapiro and Abigail Shrier trying to make with their tweets, and what are their views on the transgender community (I'll go ahead and answer: their views are horrific, and they were trying to stir up more fear and bigotry). What point were you trying to make when you posted them here? And compare funhusker's and BRB's questions with the intent of you and your twitter follows. Do you understand the difference?

 

 

 

No, but you are free to express your opinion as you have. 
 

It was a Biden Executive order.  This is the Biden executive order thread and it’s worth discussing the impact this will have on female athletes.  Personally I don’t believe men should be allowed to compete in women’s athletic competitions.  If someone else does and can convince me I’m wrong, I have no problem with it.  
 

I agree with another poster that Abbigail was being a bit hyperbolic, but the concern is still there.  That in no way makes me transphobic for posting a discussion piece. I do understand that is your way of attempting to shut down discussion or another viewpoint, I happen to think it’s the wrong way.  
 

How about instead of calling me transphobic for me questioning the executive order, you present a point of view that shows the executive order is good and won’t harm anyone else’s opportunity.  That’s how adults do this.  Not by name calling. 

[TGHusker]

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I saw that.

 

I recently found out that an employee was stocking up before the inauguration with lots of food supplies because her and her husband were convinced that the country was going to be shut down.  Yesterday morning, a plane flew over and she was heard mumbling....here come the bombs.....

 

It's absolutely so amazing in a freaky scary sort of way.  

   One day there may be a collective revelation to these people that they were in a chess game - but they were the objects being moved on the board and and not the chess player.    There will be anger and disillusion  as trump would say "Like Never Before, Youge"

[TGHusker]

More EOs for Friday:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/covid-stimulus-update-biden-to-sign-executive-orders-on-hunger-workers-rights.html

Quote

 

• President Biden will sign two more executive orders that aim to reduce hunger in the U.S. and promote federal workers’ rights during the coronavirus pandemic.
• Biden has taken several actions during his first days as president both to control the virus and offer economic relief.
• The White House is pushing for a $1.9 trillion relief package in Congress and says the executive actions cannot replace a comprehensive congressional response.

President Joe Biden will sign two executive orders Friday designed to reduce hunger and bolster workers’ rights during the coronavirus pandemic, as his administration pushes Congress to pass another sweeping coronavirus relief package.

One White House measure urges the federal government to offer any relief it can through “existing authority,” National Economic Council Director Brian Deese told reporters Thursday night. The other calls for “empowering federal workers and contractors.”

 

The orders set out multiple tools to offer aid during the pandemic, while Biden tries to nudge his $1.9 trillion proposal through Congress.

• Biden will ask the U.S. Department of Agriculture to consider allowing states to expand access to enhanced Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits as the country confronts a hunger crisis unseen in decades.
• The USDA will also examine increasing by 15% the Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer program, which replaces meals for low-income children who would otherwise get food at school.
• The president will urge the Treasury Department to adopt tools to more efficiently deliver the direct payments approved by Congress to eligible people. The White House said up to 8 million people did not receive the first $1,200 stimulus check passed in March.
• Biden will ask the Labor Department to set out rules clarifying that workers have the right to turn down work that risks their health during the pandemic — without losing eligibility for jobless benefits.
• The president asked his administration to prepare a potential executive order, which he aims to sign in his first 100 days in office, that would require federal contractors to offer a $15 per hour minimum wage and emergency paid leave.
• Biden will revoke executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump that the White House said damaged workers’ collective bargaining power, and get rid of a rule that limited job protections for civil servants.
• He will call on agencies to review which federal workers make fewer than $15 per hour.

Deese stressed that the orders and others signed this week to provide immediate aid cannot replace another relief package from Congress.

“These actions are not a substitute for comprehensive legislative relief … but they will provide a critical lifeline to millions of American families,” he told reporters.

 

 

[Archy1221]

18 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

None of the oil from the Keystone XL Pipeline is destined for America. It's too dirty to use in the US under Bush-era guidelines. The oil would have to be refined here, then shipped overseas.

 

America is a pass-through for this stuff, and Canadian oil companies are getting the American government to declare eminent domain and take our farmers' land.

 

My wife's uncle helped build a couple of the pipelines that exist in Nebraska now. The whole promise of "thousands" of jobs is laughable. A couple hundred dudes work on a pipeline, and they don't hire new people for every mile. Maybe a few new ones state to state, but at most we're talking a thousand jobs, and likely far fewer.

 

I have no idea why American politicians ever agreed to this pipeline. But I can guess, and it's not a charitable guess.

 

And I haven't even touched on the environmental impact of the spills. Those typically get hushed up, but they destroy land every year.

 

 

You edited to add the "LOL" at the top, and I'm not sure why...

 

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t there already a Keystone pipeline going from Canada to TX? and the reason for Keystone XL is to keep up with the production increase in Canada.

 

That oil will now be trucked to rail and then rail to refinery it seems.  How is that better for the environment?  Now we are for more emissions not less?  

[Ulty]

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

 

How about instead of calling me transphobic for me questioning the executive order, you present a point of view that shows the executive order is good and won’t harm anyone else’s opportunity.  That’s how adults do this.  Not by name calling. 

Who's name calling? I didn't specifically call you transphobic, or any other names that I recall. Please point out if I am wrong, I am willing to apologize if I step over the line. But the tweets that you copied from twitter and pasted into HB certainly were.

 

The executive order in question was good because it expanded protections to the LGBTQ community. One thing that was often overlooked amid the chaos of the past couple weeks was on Friday afternoon, shortly before BEtsy DeVos's resignation took effect, the Dept of Education issued a determination that misinterpreted a recent court ruling, which, in DOE's words, limited protections against LGBTQ and did not offer all of the same rights to the LGBTQ community under Title IX. The executive order, among other things, rectifies that. Do you believe that people should be protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity? If not, why?

 

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I do understand that is your way of attempting to shut down discussion or another viewpoint, I happen to think it’s the wrong way.  

I'm not trying to shut down discussion, and it is shameful of you to suggest that. I would hope that my reputation on this board regarding social issues and civil rights stands on its own. These are definitely worthwhile things to talk about. Those tweets were transphobic. You submitted them without comment, and you still have not said why. If you bristle at the thought of being associated with them, maybe you can include your actual thoughts on the matter when you paste them into your post. Otherwise we may be led to believe that you agree with what you are posting. Discussion should be done in a respectful manner, but those tweets were not respectful. They were alarmist dog-whistles for those who fear what they do not understand. 

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

This is the Biden executive order thread and it’s worth discussing the impact this will have on female athletes.  Personally I don’t believe men should be allowed to compete in women’s athletic competitions.  If someone else does and can convince me I’m wrong, I have no problem with it.  

This was a strawman argument, though. There was nothing in that EO about letting men compete in women's sports. The tweet was fear-mongering hyperbole. Now, there are legitimate questions about how this might impact athletics, as others have brought up in good faith. But those questions can occur without strawmen and without bigotry. I don't have the answers to those questions, but the topic is worthwhile. But making an absurd statement that the EO, which expands federal protections, would "eviscerate" women's sports, is not conducive to honest conversation.

[TGHusker]

16 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t there already a Keystone pipeline going from Canada to TX? and the reason for Keystone XL is to keep up with the production increase in Canada.

 

That oil will now be trucked to rail and then rail to refinery it seems.  How is that better for the environment?  Now we are for more emissions not less?  

 

Yes, XL is a short cut it appears. 

[Archy1221]

21 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Hadn't read this. Certainly changes things. 

Here are a few things to look at that tell a alternate (some may say more true) story.  
 

https://context.capp.ca/energy-matters/2020/og-101-heavy-oil

 

And keep in mind Obama’s own State Department did 4 or 5 studies showing no climate change or environmental impact 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/keystone-pipeline-report-state-department-102948

[Archy1221]

Looks legit and is dumb if true.