9 points

Say what you will about whats legally required but if Biden didn’t want to catch criticism from his fellow democratic lawmakers, he shouldn’t have made a campaign promise saying he wouldn’t build ‘another foot’ of border wall. Its not like he’s unaware how these things work, he kind of brought this on his self.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

You can delve into the definition of “another” in that context. It could mean “no more than what is currently built” or it could mean " no more than what’s already been determined/legally required will be built".

Though even with that, I will grant that using that wording could be considered deceptive. As much as people like to say “technically correct is the best correct”, I would disagree when it comes to politics. It’s Aes Sedai lying vs outright lying.

permalink
report
parent
reply
127 points

The funds for 20 miles of border wall were approved in 2019 before Biden took office. He urged Congress to reassign these funds for more intelligent and efficient enforcement purposes, but Republicans did not comply. Now, Biden has to fulfill his lawful obligations.

permalink
report
reply
42 points

He waived environmental protections with executive powers to expedite the process. He isnt just passively letting this happen because his hands are tied.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points
*

Would those environmental protections have allowed the wall to simply not be built, or would they have just delayed it, costing even more money for environmental reviews, changed plans, etc., when a government shutdown is imminent?

That’s a real question, to be clear, and not one the article answered one way or the other.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

Even if it were the case, as they said the budget is already allocated. Why not make them waste as much of it as possible paying for stuff that isn’t building the wall that everyone knows is useless? Making it look like even more of an expensive boondoggle seems like a better strategy than paving the way through federally protected lands.

And that’s setting aside the costs of maintaining what gets built or what it would cost to remove the wall at some point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

He has to do it at the end of the year to comply with the order.

The end of the year is in 3 months.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

He has to utilize executive fiat to circumvent normal environmental regulation procedures? What exactly do you think would happen if he didn’t?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Genuinely curious why he couldn’t go ahead and fund the wall, allow existing environmental law to block it, take that back to congress and say this project is illegal and now it is up to congress to repurpose funds.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I feel like a more creative person would have built an 10 foot long section of wall (or better yet a really fancy gate) valued at whatever amount of money congress had allocated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

It needs to pass an audit. The wall is stupid, but building a monument instead of a wall should fail audits and is a type of corruption worthy of impeachment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Presidents have to choose what they are going to stand for.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

That would be like USPS getting $30million to replace a fleet of delivery trucks and instead buying a handful of monster trucks that can’t enter residential areas. No one’s gonna look at that and go, “whoops! You got me! We said buy 120 USPS trucks with the approved budget but instead you bought 5 monster trucks and a sweet set of ramps and said you followed the ‘spirit of the ask’ because they’re all trucks. Well, I see no reason to investigate this for misusing funds! As you were!”

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

That does sound reasonable when discussing buying monster trucks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

This sounds like it could be the premise of an episode of Veep

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

And the GOP House 100% would have voted to start an impeachment trial if he didn’t follow through on it. They would draw a false equivalence between the extortion scheme against Ukraine that lead to Trump’s first impeachment trial, where one aspect of it was Trump unlawfully withholding congressionally mandated funds, and claim that this is the same thing. Actually, they’ll say this is worse because they’re completely shameless and untethered to reality.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They’re so salty Trump got impeached (twice) that they’re pretty much calling for impeachment for any little thing they don’t like. It’s actually humiliating and I don’t understand how anyone can proudly say they vote for that party. It’s like middle school logic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

That’s an excellent point. If he doesn’t comply in good faith, it would 100% be in conservative media that he’s sabotaging the borders, misappropriating funds, and haul him off to a real impeachment trial. It’d be the excuse for political theater that they want, and likely exactly why Congress wouldn’t reallocate the funds to something else.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

Yep, let’s not forget who controls the purse. You just know this is going to get spun 🙄

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

He should spend it on a cute little picket fence with lots of pretty flowers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You immediately answered the one question I had, thanks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

It’s security theater, just like the TSA you see at the airport do nothing. The real protection is hidden both at the airport and at the border.

permalink
report
reply
-2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Lol TSA has a 95% failure rate but go on, I guess.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s what he was saying, TSA is not effective

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I got through airport security with a knife in my carry-on. I was pretty unimpressed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The TSA is a glorified welfare program. Know what keeps planes secure? Locked, sturdy cockpit doors. Not some asshole harassing you because your container of hair gel is too big and your nail clipper is too pointy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Ain’t nothing hidden at the airport. It’s as secure as the bus

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

In general that’s not true.

Reinforced cockpit doors.

Isolation of runways/terminals (yes incursions happen)

Habit tracing, and Id scanning upon entry. Gait analysis and license plate reading.

Air Marshalls (yes not on every flight)

Lots of shit that comes together to do a ton behind the scenes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

All means shit if someone puts their mind to it. TSA misses the majority of treat items.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

He tried to put it off as long as he could by getting Congress to reappropriate the funds. They refuses. He was ordered to build the wall.

So he’s using the funds to ensure the most dangerous parts are blocked to funnel the people into the designated channels so they can be processed humanely and securely.

What’s the problem.

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The problem is that I can’t read so good and it’s so easy to let social media influence my opinions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

He should had the money spent to redesign them as a welcome wall or something to help nesting birds and wild animals thrive. Instead of these shitty useless monstrosities.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

He is using the funds to make portable walls instead, which could be reused elsewhere I guess once their “purpose” has been fulfilled on the border. I’m not sure what the law requires of them, but they maybe will just be placed there and immediately moved.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 450K

    Comments