Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

biko

Brian? wrote: »

It's called a peaceful protest. I thought we all supported peaceful protests?

This is a video of a driver making their way through a crowd standing in an intersection. They don't hit anyone but are chased down, blocked and driver almost pulled from their car.
https://news.yahoo.com/protesters-hollywood-appear-try-pull-045946341.html

Lawyer is accused of shooting driver said to be ‘inching forward’ into protesters
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer-is-accused-of-shooting-driver-said-to-be-inching-forward-into-protesters/

Both these incidents could have been avoided if protestors weren't standing in the roadway.

Rather than a bill allowing drivers to hit protestors I'd like to see a bill to make it illegal to loiter in the roadway.

But let's get back to Joe.

WrenBoy

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
Turns out the Russian bounties on US troops story has been walked back and revealed to have just been an Afghan jailhouse rumour. Intel Services now state they only had "low to moderate confidence in the story.... at best unproven and possibly untrue"

Remember couple of boardsies loved to throw that out every now and again.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
Turns out the Russian bounties on US troops story has been walked back and revealed to have just been an Afghan jailhouse rumour. Intel Services now state they only had "low to moderate confidence in the story.... at best unproven and possibly untrue"

Remember couple of boardsies loved to throw that out every now and again.

Paywall. Or at least, you need to log in to read it. Try a different source, preferably one with a bit more credibility.

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Paywall. Or at least, you need to log in to read it. Try a different source, preferably one with a bit more credibility.

I used that source because they pushed the bounty story for 2 years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Us+troop+bounties&rlz=1C5CHFA_enIE797IE797&oq=Us+troop+bounties&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j69i60j69i61.10905j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

I used that source because they pushed the bounty story for 2 years.

Nobody can read your source as you need to pay (or at least log in). Try again.

Edit: A Google link? Tell us what article you want us to read.

Hande hoche!

WrenBoy wrote: »

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
Turns out the Russian bounties on US troops story has been walked back and revealed to have just been an Afghan jailhouse rumour. Intel Services now state they only had "low to moderate confidence in the story.... at best unproven and possibly untrue"

Remember couple of boardsies loved to throw that out every now and again.

It seemed a bit moronic. Pay the Afghans to attack the Americans, as the latter is in the process of beginning their withdrawal.

everlast75

WrenBoy wrote: »

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
Turns out the Russian bounties on US troops story has been walked back and revealed to have just been an Afghan jailhouse rumour. Intel Services now state they only had "low to moderate confidence in the story.... at best unproven and possibly untrue"

Remember couple of boardsies loved to throw that out every now and again.

Christ, do you remember how Trump treated the troops? Do you remember how he grovelled before Putin? Do you remember how poorly he was respected by the rest of the world? Is it any wonder any reasonable person might believe that story to be true when put into context.

Seriously, the amount of failed "Gotchas" in this and the Biden thread are bordering on spam.

ohnonotgmail

WrenBoy wrote: »

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
Turns out the Russian bounties on US troops story has been walked back and revealed to have just been an Afghan jailhouse rumour. Intel Services now state they only had "low to moderate confidence in the story.... at best unproven and possibly untrue"

Remember couple of boardsies loved to throw that out every now and again.

you can't read that story without signing up. got another source? AP or reuters or something similar?

Smee_Again

Deleted User wrote: »

Paywall. Or at least, you need to log in to read it. Try a different source, preferably one with a bit more credibility.

Pretty sure I read it on the Guardian site a few days ago and Pskai was asked about it at a brief but wouldn't comment on the previous administration or some such dodge.

It does seem to be true that the intelligence community have said it's only low to moderate faith in it being true.

WrenBoy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you can't read that story without signing up. got another source? AP or reuters or something similar?

AP story here.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-afghanistan-russia-vladimir-putin-928ebdf775268b10e121d3160af2da42

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody can read your source as you need to pay (or at least log in). Try again.

Edit: A Google link? Tell us what article you want us to read.

Any, the information shouldn't change too much.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

Any, the information shouldn't change too much.

Well, it does because your link says that "the Biden administration announced..." when it was in fact an anonymous source.

(Here is a working link for your source by the way. Edit: maybe not, it worked for me the first time but not any more.)

Also, you have said that it is just a rumour, which is not what "low to moderate confidence" implies.

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, it does because your link says that "the Biden administration announced..." when it was in fact an anonymous source.

(Here is a working link for your source by the way. Edit: maybe not, it worked for me the first time not not any more.)

Also, you have said that it is just a rumour, which is not what "low to moderate confidence" implies.

"The senior Biden official added on Thursday that the “difficult operating environment in Afghanistan” complicated US efforts to confirm what amounts to a rumour."
Not my words.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

"The senior Biden official added on Thursday that the “difficult operating environment in Afghanistan” complicated US efforts to confirm what amounts to a rumour."
Not my words.

You're aware that the bit that the anonymous source said was only “difficult operating environment in Afghanistan” and that the rest of that sentence was written by the The Daily Beast reporter right?

ohnonotgmail

WrenBoy wrote: »

"The senior Biden official added on Thursday that the “difficult operating environment in Afghanistan” complicated US efforts to confirm what amounts to a rumour."
Not my words.

certainly not the words of the white house official either. the only part that is a quote is the part in quotes.

biko

everlast75 wrote: »

Christ, do you remember how Trump treated the troops?

Trump had long called for US troops to come home and has criticised US military interventions for being costly and ineffective.

Biden is now thankfully also promising the same thing, although he wants to keep some forces there.

Russia tried to control Afghanistan and US have tried too. It's time to realise Afghanistan cannot be controlled.

biko

biko wrote: »

Trump had long called for US troops to come home and has criticised US military interventions for being costly and ineffective.

That would be a great statement if he was running for President. But he was President, so he didn't have to call for anything. He could have just done it.

While there was less troops overseas when his presidency ended compared to when it started, that's been true of the majority of recent presidents, and he did not reduce the number significantly more than other recent presidents (especially after his first year), even though that was supposedly one of his main agendas.

biko

And hopefully that line will continue to decline under Biden.

Cody montana

biko wrote: »

And hopefully that line will continue to decline under Biden.

Um, they are leaving Afghanistan in September.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

That would be a great statement if he was running for President. But he was President, so he didn't have to call for anything. He could have just done it.

While there was less troops overseas when his presidency ended compared to when it started, that's been true of the majority of recent presidents, and he did not reduce the number significantly more than other recent presidents (especially after his first year), even though that was supposedly one of his main agendas.

What's the baseline figure for US troops overseas I wonder?

Looking at that it looks like it's about 170/180k troops in total.

I assume that no matter what there are always going to be 10's of thousands of US troops in other countries.

How many of that total are in places like the UK or Germany etc. rather than being on "active deployment" in somewhere like Afghanistan or Iraq?

ohnonotgmail

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What's the baseline figure for US troops overseas I wonder?

Looking at that it looks like it's about 170/180k troops in total.

I assume that no matter what there are always going to be 10's of thousands of US troops in other countries.

How many of that total are in places like the UK or Germany etc. rather than being on "active deployment" in somewhere like Afghanistan or Iraq?

just over 60,000 army between europe and places in asia like japan and korea. info on deployments elsewhere can be found here https://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-deployments-may-2017-5?r=US&IR=T#heres-a-look-at-some-of-the-most-significant-deployments-for-american-soldiers-2

Dr. Bre

Nothing can help Afghan - some places will always be at war

biko

Cody montana wrote: »

Um, they are leaving Afghanistan in September.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

That would be a great statement if he was running for President. But he was President, so he didn't have to call for anything. He could have just done it.

While there was less troops overseas when his presidency ended compared to when it started, that's been true of the majority of recent presidents, and he did not reduce the number significantly more than other recent presidents (especially after his first year), even though that was supposedly one of his main agendas.

To be fair to him, he was focused on building the wall, jailing Hillary, draining the swamp and repealing Obamacare.

BanditLuke

Cody montana wrote: »

Um, they are leaving Afghanistan in September.

Talk is cheap as we have thus far with Biden.

BanditLuke

BanditLuke wrote: »

Talk is cheap as we have thus far with Biden.

He's had a highly successful term so far, more than talk too. He's been dealing with a global pandemic..

salmocab

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He's had a highly successful term so far, more than talk too. He's been dealing with a global pandemic..

Facts are no defence against rhetoric

Cody montana

BanditLuke wrote: »

Talk is cheap as we have thus far with Biden.

Yeah,

It only took 50 days for him to fulfil his promise of 100Million vaccinations.
A recovery package providing stimulus cheques and help for the economy
Cancelling the Keystone pipeline
Protections for LGBT people
A commitment to end the war in Afghanistan

He should have just pretended his healthcare and infrastructure bills were coming in 2 weeks and be done with it.

Tell me how

BanditLuke wrote: »

Talk is cheap as we have thus far with Biden.

lol.

Overheal

Tell me how wrote: »

lol.

I know more than the generals. ISIS gone in 30 days! Mexico will pay!

Another great example of why we need Trump as our president, there was a man whose talk was not cheap, no sir.

Seriously I’d love elaboration on how Biden’s talk is so cheap.

Duff Man Jr.

There was a deal to pull troops of of Afghanistan on May 1st, Biden delayed it 6 months and people are framing it like its a good thing. I must be missing something, could someone explain pls?

Duff Man Jr.

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

There was a deal to pull troops of of Afghanistan on May 1st, Biden delayed it 6 months and people are framing it like its a good thing. I must be missing something, could someone explain pls?

I would say exiting a volatile situation likely needs preparation to safely achieve it. So them needing an extra few months to do so is sensible. Imagine they also need time to prepare Afghani officials etc. It's definitely not something that should be rushed.

Igotadose

Cody montana wrote: »

Yeah,

It only took 50 days for him to fulfil his promise of 100Million vaccinations.
A recovery package providing stimulus cheques and help for the economy
Cancelling the Keystone pipeline
Protections for LGBT people
A commitment to end the war in Afghanistan

He should have just pretended his healthcare and infrastructure bills were coming in 2 weeks and be done with it.

Wait...hasn't he proposed an infrastructure plan, too?

But yeah, where's the healthcare reform? Oh wait...Healthcare is hard.

And in terms of cheap talk: "We have killers, too." Lest we forget that #IMPOTUS gem.

Water John

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say exiting a volatile situation likely needs preparation to safely achieve it. So them needing an extra few months to do so is sensible. Imagine they also need time to prepare Afghani officials etc. It's definitely not something that should be rushed.

The chaotic evacuation of Saigon will be long remembered in the American military.

Rjd2

WrenBoy wrote: »

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
Turns out the Russian bounties on US troops story has been walked back and revealed to have just been an Afghan jailhouse rumour. Intel Services now state they only had "low to moderate confidence in the story.... at best unproven and possibly untrue"

Remember couple of boardsies loved to throw that out every now and again.

It was a silly story at the time for sure.

Their was an element online who were content to constantly blow up stories like this to appeal to old boomers who still think we are living in the cold war era.

I don't think its really fair to blame Biden here though, it wasn't him who reported the story just the dailybeast looking for clickbait and a partisan element online content to elevate it for their own needs.

He may have scored some political capital from it, but I'm skeptical if anyone else would have said "lets hold fire here" that sadly is politics in a nutshell.

Probably more suited to the Trump thread this debate.

Brian?

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

There was a deal to pull troops of of Afghanistan on May 1st, Biden delayed it 6 months and people are framing it like its a good thing. I must be missing something, could someone explain pls?

Like a lot of the things Trump announced, there was no actual plan to implement it. He shouted it for headlines and the Pentagon had to scramble to find a way to make it happen.

Rjd2

Brian? wrote: »

Like a lot of the things Trump announced, there was no actual plan to implement it. He shouted it for headlines and the Pentagon had to scramble to find a way to make it happen.

He did want to pull out the troops but he bottled it sadly.

They screamed Putin at him and he obviously was more worried about getting blowback from the likes of Rachel Maddow etc then actually implementing a good policy.

ALPHA. :pac:

Oh and actually would have meant some hard work involved as majority of the GOP would oppose that, so he said ""**** it, I will just tweet about doing it instead every few months".

Biden will get a lot of blowback and it also will be cynical and sadly bipartisan,,some neocons "warning" about "female equality" etc trying to to use social justice as a cover to keep them their forever.

If he follows through , then its something he should be praised on, lets hope he doesn't fold like Obama and obviously Trump did.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1383097700946694147?s=19

Not happy about this at all

Duff Man Jr.

Brian? wrote: »

Like a lot of the things Trump announced, there was no actual plan to implement it. He shouted it for headlines and the Pentagon had to scramble to find a way to make it happen.

They had 20 years, but they had to scramble?

Where are you getting that as the reason he delayed it?

It was framed as Biden ending the war not delaying it further

Leroy42

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

They had 20 years, but they had to scramble?

Where are you getting that as the reason he delayed it?

It was framed as Biden ending the war not delaying it further

What was Trumps plan? What was the exit strategy?

He didn't have either. Trump was good at announcing things, his failure always was his ability to actually deliver.

A combination of lack of planning, lack of including experts and lack of interest in doing the actual work.

He simply gave up on healthcare, tax reform, trade wars and most damningly he simply gave up on Covid.

BanditLuke

Biden slurring is words now on Bloomberg live from the White House. Is he drunk?

Cody montana

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden slurring is words now on Bloomberg live from the White House. Is he drunk?

Nothing on Twitter about it.
Are you?

mcmoustache

Sigh...

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden slurring is words now on Bloomberg live from the White House. Is he drunk?

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is that an improv prompt, a running comentary or what?


I appreciate that not all people are capable of making a coherent point but come on. Try to up your game.

mcmoustache

Cody montana wrote: »

Nothing on Twitter about it.
Are you?

It's a rerun of something. Possibly a Steve Martin skit with Martin Short. He sees something, he posts something. Simple enough, really.

Duff Man Jr.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What was Trumps plan? What was the exit strategy?

He didn't have either. Trump was good at announcing things, his failure always was his ability to actually deliver.

A combination of lack of planning, lack of including experts and lack of interest in doing the actual work.

He simply gave up on healthcare, tax reform, trade wars and most damningly he simply gave up on Covid.

I'm not arguing with you, Trump was a very **** president to put it mildly.
Biden didn't mention any of this when announcing the delay, it was framed as a win.

So in Feb 2020 they said 15 months and they're out, and now the time has come they say the 15 months and 18 years before that wasn't long enough for the biggest most war hungry military ever to beat one of the poorest countries on earth and they need another 6 months.

Maybe i'm being cynical but I just don't believe them, and I cant understand why some people think its a good thing.

y0ssar1an22

Cody montana wrote: »

Nothing on Twitter about it.
Are you?

i dont know if he was drunk but the fact its not on twitter is irrelevant as they have censored things in the past.

Brian?

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

They had 20 years, but they had to scramble?

Where are you getting that as the reason he delayed it?

It was framed as Biden ending the war not delaying it further

They had to scramble because there was no timetable for a full withdrawal. It’s hardly shocking that Trump took the Pentagon by surprise. He was a bull in a china shop.

Cody montana

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i dont know if he was drunk but the fact its not on twitter is irrelevant as they have censored things in the past.

Yeah, the president of the USA got drunk and went on live tv.
The second problem being he doesn't drink alcohol.

Are you saying twitter is censoring comments for a live feed?
How exactly would they do that?
I use twitter, it's very relevant.
If something is happening, it's there.

Brian?

Rjd2 wrote: »

He did want to pull out the troops but he bottled it sadly.

They screamed Putin at him and he obviously was more worried about getting blowback from the likes of Rachel Maddow etc then actually implementing a good policy.

ALPHA. :pac:

Oh and actually would have meant some hard work involved as majority of the GOP would oppose that, so he said ""**** it, I will just tweet about doing it instead every few months".

Biden will get a lot of blowback and it also will be cynical and sadly bipartisan,,some neocons "warning" about "female equality" etc trying to to use social justice as a cover to keep them their forever.

If he follows through , then its something he should be praised on, lets hope he doesn't fold like Obama and obviously Trump did.

He wanted to pull the troops out, no doubt about it. But he didn’t actually ask anyone how it would be done when he announced it. He flummoxed his own staff.

Biden is actually planning.

Brian?

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden slurring is words now on Bloomberg live from the White House. Is he drunk?

2/10 for effort