US Presidency

unit94 said:
Rejoined Paris climate agreement,set up quite a lot of infrastructure for a covid response. Stopped the ridiculous "muslim ban." Overturned the trans military ban and stopped that ridiculous wall being built. He's done alot of environmental orders in general it seems. To me that's been a pretty good start. I feel like you're gonna tell me why those things are bad though!

slimsim said:
I was a bit gobsmacked when I saw WillSan question what good Biden has done when the Paris climate agreement was rejoined almost immediately. If he did nothing else at all, trying to prevent global warming is a pretty good choice to make in the long run.

unit94 said:
Rejoined Paris climate agreement,set up quite a lot of infrastructure for a covid response. Stopped the ridiculous "muslim ban." Overturned the trans military ban and stopped that ridiculous wall being built. He's done alot of environmental orders in general it seems. To me that's been a pretty good start. I feel like you're gonna tell me why those things are bad though!

slimsim said:
I was a bit gobsmacked when I saw WillSan question what good Biden has done when the Paris climate agreement was rejoined almost immediately. If he did nothing else at all, trying to prevent global warming is a pretty good choice to make in the long run.

BigMacca said:
I'll take issue with the "Muslim Ban" propaganda.
It was never a "Muslim Ban", it was a ban on foreign nationals from the following countries entering the USA on the grounds that they posed a significant risk of terrorism:
Initially Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia (Iraq was originally on the list but was removed after reaching an agreement with the USA)
The travel ban was then extended to include people from three more countries: North Korea, Venezuela and Chad and then later on Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania.
You might already note that not all of these countries are muslin majority.
You may also notice that there are a few, very large Muslim majority countries not included in that list.
You may not agree with the policy, but it was in no way a travel ban imposed on the Muslim religion.
Let us not forget that the 'deporter in chief' himself, Mr Barack Obama made all this possible when signed into law the Visa Waiver Improvement Program and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act in 2015, which designated Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia as areas of concern

Billwest said:
Maybe i'm not understanding you right, but If they have already received $600, then that only leaves an extra $1400 to pay doesn't it, or did they offer an additional $2000?
The politics of the passing legislation in Congress sounds like it has been victim to massively divided state of US Politics. So Pelosi blocked a bill she might otherwise supported, i read somewhere that McConnell said his greatest achievement of the Obama 2nd term was attempting to block every single piece of legislation Obama tried to pass. If no legislation can be passed in a bi-partisan way, then it makes it difficult for a president to get his legislative agenda accepted. For this, both democrats and republicans are responsible, from the sound of it. Let's face it, in any sensible system, government would not be run by 70-somethings (Trump, Biden, Pelosi, McConnell) who should be put out to grass.
As you say, if affordable healthcare is accepted across the board, surely those same voters would not be asking what form this legislation took, but why the previous president spent 4 years criticising it and saying he would repeal it.

macroth said:
It was always a Muslim travel/immigration/refugee ban, as called for by Trump himself during his campaign, as supported by his voters and as advocated on his website until it proved problematic from a PR and legal point of view.
It was also rushed and poorly thought-out, which is why they were repeatedly forced to tweak it and water it down, much to Trump's disappointment, to find a version that could be upheld by the courts. In the end, it was saved by a 5-4 vote along partisan lines in the Supreme Court.
Including NK (a few dozen visa applications/year) and select Venezuelan govt officials (as opposed to Venezuelans as a whole) were clear attempts to "un-Muslim" the travel ban. In fact those two countries were basically unaffected by the ban, in terms of visas granted per year, while the Muslim-majority countries saw 70-80% drops.
All this is regardless of whatever Obama did or Biden might do. The 2015 law was bad, Trump's travel ban was worse, reversing it is better.

BigMacca said:
Did it ban all people of the Muslim faith entering the USA?
If the answer is yes, then it was most certainly a Muslim Ban.
If the answer is no, then it wasn't a Muslim ban.
I'll help you out a little bit here:
The original version of the 'Muslim ban' affected an estimated 135 million people (not just Muslims obviously).
There are over 1.8 billion people of the Muslim persuasion on the planet.
If we assume that all of the original 135 million people affected by the original restrictions were Muslims (they weren't), then it affected roughly 7.5% of the global Muslim population

WILLSAN said:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/1024px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png

unit94 said:Will you still haven't told me why those things were bad!