Imgflip Logo Icon

Voters don't deserve to know Joe Biden's policies

Voters don't deserve to know Joe Biden's policies | "THE AMERICAN VOTERS DON'T DESERVE TO KNOW MY POLICIES."; YES, HE SAID THAT | image tagged in joe biden,horrible,stupid liberals,maga,2020,memes | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
5,473 views 61 upvotes Made by anonymous 4 years ago in politics
49 Comments
2 ups, 4y
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
Smilin Biden Meme | WE MUST SET OUR COURSE OR ELSE EXCHANGE THIS FALL FOR A VIRGIN. | image tagged in memes,smilin biden | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Fun with a random word generator!
[deleted]
1 up, 4y
that actually sounds like something he said lol
0 ups, 4y
:)
0 ups, 4y
And trump hid his tax returns for years. If biden did that, you'd be freaking out. He also requested foreign aid to help on an election, not so patriotic now is he?
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
where did he say that?
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGNLDftCCI0 - here is the clip. He cuts himself off but he clearly says voters do not deserve to know his position on court packing which would be his policies.
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
On the perspective on donald trump is what sets your point of view.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
ugh , okay, can we both agree that Joe Biden is a professional politician? And will say anything to anyone at anytime if he thinks it is what he has to say to look good? Like every politician ever?
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
including
Dodnald dRUMPf
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y
yup all of them - so please stop trying to make Biden out that he is a good guy and is looking out for anyone, he is far worse (imo) than Trump, because he made a career out of f**king Americans over. He got rich by screwing Americans, the only income Biden has is from screwing Americans over. Just like the rest of congress.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
Which he immediately followed with: “I’m not gonna play [Trump’s] game… he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”
[deleted]
3 ups, 4y,
1 reply
He told the American people they don't deserve to know what his policies are ... whether or not it would benefit trump doesn't matter. How can a person make a informed decision if he refuses to tell Americans what he will do?
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
If your informed decision rests on this point of contention alone, then you're not informed.
[deleted]
3 ups, 4y,
1 reply
Packing the supreme court is a major issue, it would offset the balance of powers with in our government. It would render the US constitution worthless. It has been defined as a power grab by both parties in the past and more recently in 2005 by Joe Biden himself before he was turned into a left wing puppet.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
2 replies
"...The number [of supreme court justices] increased three years later. On April 10, 1869, Congress passed an act to amend the judicial system, increasing the number of justices to nine. The law took effect in December 1869..."

It is not unheard of in our nation's history to, in this instance, change the number of supreme court justices.

It is true that we live in unprecedented times with an unprecedented president. Again, if you think this is the crux of his presidency, you're not informed as Joe Biden cannot increase the count of supreme court justices himself. He would need congress to do that. To pin this on Joe Biden alone is a straw man.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
Actually I am not pinning anything on Joe Biden , personally I doubt he will even be able to do 4 years. I am pinning the issue on the radical democratic party that is so hungry for power they would sacrifice you me and every American for their own power.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
3 replies
That comment doesn't make sense as the GOP is the party who would gladly throw entire demographics under the bus just to make a few more dollars.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y
man, okay it is not the republican constituents burning our cities to the ground.. 9 judges has worked perfectly for 150 years , depending on the case at hand. Trump has not packed the court whatsoever, don't listen to left wingers on this. Trump has a constitutional right to fill an empty senate seat. If democrats would have mentioned to Ginsberg to retire under Obama they would have had ayoung progressive Judge for the next 40 years , but she decided to die in her seat, giving Trump a 3rd Judge. I understand that you do not think the saem things are important that I do , we have different values . that is fine. But when there is a well known force pushing for ultimate power - the dems- by changing the rules to fit their game, that should concern every American.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y
just 2 examples - to think about, open borders with free healthcare for all. How long do you think America would last if we offered free health coverage to the world? Because that is 2 guaranteed things the dems want.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y
Feel free to ask me to defend any of my policies, my political leanings, and anything else.. but if you could do it without the underhanded insults to my intelligence, I would appreciate that. I am not being rude to you , pay me that same respect.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
By making DC and Puerto rico states and adding 4 more democratic senate seats , they will have the ability to alter the dynamics of the SCOTUS , if that is done and packing the court with left wing judges - we might as well simply turn into a one world government owned by china, because we will no longer have a constitution or a bill of rights.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
3 replies
Seems to me that you're appealing to extremes. You're talking about packing the court....

I remember when 10 months away from election, Mr. Turtle... Er, Moscow Mitch, said that we could not fill a nomination because it was (his words) "too close to the election." Now, here we are, 22 days away. But, that's besides the point.

If anything, sure, adding four seats and putting in four left-leaning judges to the ranks would put the power shift to the left, heavily. But, that's what's already happening with Trump and the Senate right now, but for the inverse. I would argue, that if you have more seats, it makes it more difficult to pack a court with judges - in the long term. The immediate effect could be polarizing.

That being said, he hasn't commented on this. He may not intend to at all, but doesn't want to say so as this could hurt his support. If he says he is going to, it's going to hurt his support. Regardless, he's not playing the game and that's the best move he can make. That being said, we aren't in the hypothetical situation proposed by Trump and his admin. We are in the situation where the GOP is playing double standards *right now.*

So, before one argues about this topic in good faith, they should look closer at what their own party is *actually* doing before we start talking about what someone *might* do.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
Also they want to increase the court to 15 so that would be 6 left leaning judges, so even in the long run there would be 0 power dispersed in our government - it would be venezuela but on a much larger scale. Businesses would leave completely , people would be completely dependent on the government for food ,water, and medical supplies, poverty would run rampant and the ultra rich democrats would sit in their gated communities with their guard armed with fully automatic machine guns, eating their steak and wine as they discuss what is best for the rest of us.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
3 replies
You're describing rich people in general. Republicans do this also. The difference is, Republicans vote to get more money for the rich. Democrats seek to tax the wealthy so our country can afford to feed it's own. That's what "America First" is all about. You're quick to press the button on Venezuela when it's no where near comparable to our country. Might wanna research more about the country than just blurting it out.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
Venezuela was a rich prosperous country before socialists took over. With in a few years after socialism, people were building boats out of garbage to come to America.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y
*BZZZZZZ* I'm sorry but your answer is incorrect, the correct answer is, the country had begun to starve out due to severe sanctions placed upon the country.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
again , without the underhanded insults next time, please.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y
What underhanded insults?
[deleted]
1 up, 4y
Venezuela has long been dependent on oil revenues, and the Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chavez did not fundamentally alter that situation,” explains Jo-Marie Burt, an associate professor of political science and Latin American Studies at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. “The decline of oil prices, the massive social spending of the Chavez and Maduro governments, U.S. sanctions, and a combination of economic mismanagement and corruption at the top have contributed to the economic collapse.”

Venezuela's crisis has been deepened by U.S. sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry. In March, it also sanctioned the Venezuelan gold mining industry, and in April, it also imposed sanctions against the Central Bank of Venezuela, cutting off that institution's access to U.S. currency and limiting its ability to conduct international transactions, to put even more pressure upon Maduro's regime.

Here are some of the key moments in that saga.

An undated photograph of the derricks in Maracaibo oil fields in Venezuela.

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

1922: Oil Is Discovered
An oil well in the Maracaibo basin of western Venezuela begins gushing 100,000 barrels of oil per day, indicating the massive reserves beneath the nation’s surface. Then-dictator Gen Juan Vicente Gomez allows more than 100 foreign oil companies into Venezuela and, by 1928, Venezuela becomes the world’s second-biggest petroleum exporter.

The influx of oil revenues enriches Venezuela’s military regime, especially after it enacts a 1943 law requiring foreign oil companies to turn over half their profits. But the money only offers a band-aid on the nation’s underlying problems.

“Even before the rise of the oil industry Venezuela did not have a highly productive agricultural sector,” says Miguel R. Tinker Salas, professor of Latin American studies and history at Pomona College in California, and author of Venezuela: What Everyone Needs to Know and The Enduring Legacy: Oil, Culture, and Society in Venezuela. “Land was monopolized by a handful of powerful families, infrastructure was lacking and the country lacked a nationally integrated economy.” But, Salas explains, oil and the rise of cities such as Caracas enabled people to flee rural poverty.

Venezuelan President Romulo Betancourt, circa 1958.

Frank Scherschel/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images

1958: Venezuela Elects President Betancourt
After the overthrow of brutal, corrupt Venezuelan dictator Marc
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
That was a lot of words for......WAAAAAAAHHHHHHh!!!!
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
4 replies
Someone has reading comprehension issues....
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y
0 ups, 4y,
2 replies
....and you can't reply to your last meme since that's your "last word" solution.
Pathetic. lol
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y
"That's a lot of words for waaaahhh" and "You write a paragraph in your meme." I honestly don't know how to put my ideas into any smaller words and sentences so you can understand. I can't lower my brain function to that level.
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y
Hint: I can't argue with your meme as its made up. I can't argue with stupid. I just can't, I'm sorry. That's not a language I'm fluent in.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
One more point about the Obama thing - Obama was not up for reelection , he was an outgoing lame duck President, and throughout history a GOP controlled senate rarely ever nominated a democratic presidential nominee during an election cycle. I think they nominated 2 justices that were not of the same party. You have to know history before you bring these things up.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
3 replies
True, Obama was not up for re-election, but Hilary was, and at that point it wasn't clear who was going to be the winner. In fact, Trump was admittedly ready to call up Hilary to congratulate her on her win, when instead he found out he won. So, don't try to give me that go-around :)
[deleted]
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
Because Trump has a constitutional right to fill the seat while being up for reelection. The senate and President are both on the saem party which historically means they will fill the seat with his nomination .
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y
And that's true. The President *should* have his right to nomination per his four years in office. Obama was elected for his second term and was 10 months away from the end of his term.

Per Trump's reasoning in his Presidential debate this year, he said "I was elected for four years, not three. I therefore, have the right to put in my nomination." (Slight paraphrase.) So, by that logic should show that Obama should have had his nomination. So, let's turn the pages back to his administration. Obama was elected for another four years. Not three. He still had ten more months. The reason he was given was simply stated that such nominations should not be held during an election year. That was the reason for their vote and they had no reason other than that. They voted against a perfectly solid candidate that simply went against their ideology. As such, the Republicans didn't want to lose their power. So, the only reason that they could *actually* give is: "We don't want to fill the seat during election year.

Yet, here we are, less than a month away from election, and they're trying to speed that process as fast as they can KNOWING Biden might fill the presidency.

I fail to see how this has not been and is not a power-grab maneuver. I fail to see how this is anything but that.
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
Obama DID make his nomination, the senate was just controlled by the opposing party and refused to take any action on it. The senate this time is NOT controlled by the opposing party. Thus, the president makes a nomination, and the senate confirms.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y
If McConnell was honest in his argument, he would have either given both of them a vote, or neither. Here, he's supporting a vote for this justice a month before election, where Garland didn't even get a vote because "election." 10 months away.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
Theseat was open for hillary to fill if she won, just like it was open to Trump.
[deleted]
1 up, 4y
Now you're getting it. So why are we trying to fill it now during election time?
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
"THE AMERICAN VOTERS DON'T DESERVE TO KNOW MY POLICIES."; YES, HE SAID THAT