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.