spartan max2 18,074 #1 Posted January 21 (edited) Quote WASHINGTON — In 17 executive orders, memorandums and proclamations signed hours after his inauguration, President Biden moved swiftly on Wednesday to dismantle Trump administration policies his aides said have caused the “greatest damage” to the nation. Despite an inaugural address that called for unity and compromise, Mr. Biden’s first actions as president are sharply aimed at sweeping aside former President Donald J. Trump’s pandemic response, reversing his environmental agenda, tearing down his anti-immigration policies, bolstering the teetering economic recovery and restoring federal efforts to promote diversity. Here’s a look at what the measures aim to accomplish. https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/biden-executive-orders.amp.html?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=16112491097170&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From %1%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2021%2F01%2F20%2Fus%2Fbiden-executive-orders.html Edited January 21 by spartan max2 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Desertrat56 21,496 #2 Posted January 21 The wording is strange for this article "Despite an inaugural address that called for unity..." then followed by the reversing of things that actually caused the most division from the Trump administration. So what is the "Despite" referring to???? It implies that reversing all those things is not indicative of unity, but all those things being reversed were very divisive and destructive. 4 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spartan max2 18,074 #3 Posted January 21 2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said: The wording is strange for this article "Despite an inaugural address that called for unity..." then followed by the reversing of things that actually caused the most division from the Trump administration. So what is the "Despite" referring to???? It implies that reversing all those things is not indicative of unity, but all those things being reversed were very divisive and destructive. Yeah the intro is kind of dumb. The executive orders are worth looking at though because it's probably a indication on what direction his administrations policies are going to go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OverSword 56,616 #4 Posted January 21 One thing I will never be on board with is enabling Iran to get a nuclear weapon, which the Iran Nuclear Deal makes far easier. I watched an interview with Prince Mohammed bin Salman the next King of Saudi Arabia and he said that if Iran gets nuclear weapons then of course Saudi Arabia and all the other wealthy nations in that part of the world must also have them. He was very happy when trump pulled the US out of that deal, I wonder how happy he will be to see it re-implemented? I'm not happy about any cooperation with Iran personally while they are ruled by a theocracy. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Desertrat56 21,496 #5 Posted January 21 10 minutes ago, OverSword said: One thing I will never be on board with is enabling Iran to get a nuclear weapon, which the Iran Nuclear Deal makes far easier. I watched an interview with Prince Mohammed bin Salman the next King of Saudi Arabia and he said that if Iran gets nuclear weapons then of course Saudi Arabia and all the other wealthy nations in that part of the world must also have them. He was very happy when trump pulled the US out of that deal, I wonder how happy he will be to see it re-implemented? I'm not happy about any cooperation with Iran personally while they are ruled by a theocracy. Well, it makes sense that if one country in the middle east gets nukes then all of them should have them and maybe that is where that weird new age prophecy I read about in the 80's said that the middle east would be completely desolate because of nuclear weapons. I think no one should have nukes, not even U.S., UK & Russia. None of them have proven to be very trust worthy or protective of the world in so many ways. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OverSword 56,616 #6 Posted January 21 @Desertrat56 Wouldn't that be nice? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rashore 16,911 #7 Posted January 21 For more information on the actions themselves, from the White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/ 3 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Golden Duck 12,373 #8 Posted January 21 3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said: Well, it makes sense that if one country in the middle east gets nukes then all of them should have them and maybe that is where that weird new age prophecy I read about in the 80's said that the middle east would be completely desolate because of nuclear weapons. I think no one should have nukes, not even U.S., UK & Russia. None of them have proven to be very trust worthy or protective of the world in so many ways. France and China - the Nuclear Two Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Desertrat56 21,496 #9 Posted January 21 1 minute ago, Golden Duck said: France and China - the Nuclear Two I forgot to list them, but same goes for them as U.S., UK & Russia 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Setton 8,746 #10 Posted January 21 4 hours ago, OverSword said: One thing I will never be on board with is enabling Iran to get a nuclear weapon, which the Iran Nuclear Deal makes far easier. I watched an interview with Prince Mohammed bin Salman the next King of Saudi Arabia and he said that if Iran gets nuclear weapons then of course Saudi Arabia and all the other wealthy nations in that part of the world must also have them. He was very happy when trump pulled the US out of that deal, I wonder how happy he will be to see it re-implemented? I'm not happy about any cooperation with Iran personally while they are ruled by a theocracy. But you're bothered what the Saudis think? How inconsistent... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OverSword 56,616 #11 Posted January 21 15 minutes ago, Setton said: But you're bothered what the Saudis think? How inconsistent... They don't want a nuclear weapon and the head of their nation is not an Imam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Setton 8,746 #12 Posted January 21 36 minutes ago, OverSword said: They don't want a nuclear weapon and No, so long as they've got friends who have one and enemies who don't, that is... Quote the head of their nation is not an Imam. No less a theocracy for giving the head of state a different title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OverSword 56,616 #13 Posted January 21 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Setton said: No, so long as they've got friends who have one and enemies who don't, that is... Valid point, but they will if Iran builds one and they have not because of Israel. 18 minutes ago, Setton said: No less a theocracy for giving the head of state a different title. I would say the royal family would adapt were it required in order to maintain power if for some reason being ruled by Islamic law was no longer accepted by the people, an Imam would not. Edited January 21 by OverSword Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Golden Duck 12,373 #14 Posted January 22 9 hours ago, OverSword said: Valid point, but they will if Iran builds one and they have not because of Israel. I would say the royal family would adapt were it required in order to maintain power if for some reason being ruled by Islamic law was no longer accepted by the people, an Imam would not. And would you still hold that view for The Custodian of The Two Holy Mosques? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OverSword 56,616 #15 Posted January 22 5 hours ago, Golden Duck said: And would you still hold that view for The Custodian of The Two Holy Mosques? Sure. Look it up, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy not a theocracy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
