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

y0ssar1an22

Cody montana wrote: »

How would they censor live responses to Biden speaking?

are you asking how would they do it, or why they would they do it?

how...i have no idea.

instagram banned videos of joe biden falling being shared.

twitter have censored many things...NYP being 1 example

Facebook have censored everything about the BLM founder.

how can you rely on them when you know they censor stuff?

Beasty

BanditLuke wrote: »

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

Threadbanned

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

are you asking how would they do it, or why they would they do it?

how...i have no idea.

instagram banned videos of joe biden falling being shared.

twitter have censored many things...NYP being 1 example

Facebook have censored everything about the BLM founder.

how can you rely on them when you know they censor stuff?

They flagged an article which was a pretty dodgy effort to interfere with an election. That's a lot easier to do than actively filtering specific tweets about been my Biden. One is related to a url which is easy to spot and the other is elaborate sentiment analysis that isn't feasible to catch at this point in time. So yes, if you can't backup your claim then it's simply a conspiracy.

Duff Man Jr.

Brian? wrote: »

I think you’ve an entirely too simplistic view of what withdrawing those troops means. It would take a day to get them in the air and out of the country.

It’s the mayhem that would leave behind that needs to be mitigated with a plan.

And, yes, Trump did surprise the Pentagon. They were stupid enough to think he would have asked their advice before he did it.

Ok forget about Trump/Biden left/right for a min.

Feb 2020 they say troops home by May 2021.
Come Apr 2021 they say 6 more months.
People act like its a good thing.


I'm not trying to start a fight but I can't understand how everyone doesn't see they're full of ****.

ohnonotgmail

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

It was a surprise to be told to end a 19 year on war that no-one wants? C'mon.
Even if they had no exit strategy 15 months is enough to make one, less than a month after 9/11 they went in but...............

What does that have to do with Biden? He hasn't been president for 15 months

y0ssar1an22

Deleted User wrote: »

They flagged an article which was a pretty dodgy effort to interfere with an election. That's a lot easier to do than actively filtering specific tweets about been my Biden. One is related to a url which is easy to spot and the other is elaborate sentiment analysis that isn't feasible to catch at this point in time. So yes, if you can't backup your claim then it's simply a conspiracy.

what do you mean..they censored an article and blocked the publisher and blocked the real time sharing of that article, even links to the website. (New york post)

jack dorsey did an interview after the fact and apologised, how it was a mistake. the fact it happened is what concerns me, that they have the power to do that.

you yourself take the news from twitter. does that concern you?

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

what do you mean..they censored an article and blocked the publisher and blocked the real time sharing of that article, even links to the website. (New york post)

jack dorsey did an interview after the fact and apologised, how it was a mistake. the fact it happened is what concerns me., that they have the power to do that.

you yourself take the news from twitter. does that concern you?

Firstly, I don't generally source my news from twitter. Secondly, I'm saying that the nyp story that was blocked at the time was a pretty dodgy effort by Giuliani and Co to manufacture a story to interfere with an election. Finally, blocking the tweeting of a url is a lot more straight forward than blocking people's sentiments in tweets. In this case that Biden's speech is supposedly impaired in a dramatic way. Have you a credible news source to back it up? Have you anything? Cause if you're claiming something is a conspiracy and has occurred due to its absence from twitter, that's a bit fallacious y'know...

y0ssar1an22

Deleted User wrote: »

Firstly, I don't generally source my news from twitter. Secondly, I'm saying that the nyp story that was blocked at the time was a pretty dodgy effort by Giuliani and Co to manufacture a story to interfere with an election. Finally, blocking the tweeting of a url is a lot more straight forward than blocking people's sentiments in tweets. In this case that Biden's speech is supposedly impaired in a dramatic way. Have you a credible news source to back it up? Have you anything? Cause if you're claiming something is a conspiracy and has occurred due to its absence from twitter, that's a bit fallacious y'know...

i never claimed biden was drunk.

the story was true, hence why dorsey apologised after the fact for incorrectly censoring it.

does the fact he can do that at all worry you?

whats the last question?

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i never claimed biden was drunk.

the story was true, hence why dorsey apologised after the fact for incorrectly censoring it.

does the fact he can do that at all worry you?

whats the last question?

Not particularly, twitter is a private platform and they're pretty entitled to remove or block content if they so wish. I'd also tend to be pretty grand with flagging certain groups for poorly sourced stories.

You implied twitter were blocking a story this evening. Eg in the case of the nyp article, they blocked people from tweeting the article but plenty did tweet about the contents of it. So my point is, if somebody searches "Biden", if some massive story is occurring it's incredibly difficult to block people tweeting about it beyond blocking tweets with urls. So things like commentary via tweet etc remain visible. And to actively block even the likes of urls ends with a Streisand effect that tends to ironically go viral on Twitter.

Finally, you did lend credibility to the earlier poster and behaved as if twitter were censoring it... It's becoming a more and more common thing with Trump fans on here. Everything amounts to a conspiracy..

mcmoustache

Whatever about the "concern" about a private platform choosing what to broadcast, I'd like to hear some non-communist proposals about how to "fix" it.

The Floyd p

Are people in this thread still defending Biden for the mammoth achievement of being a D in the WH who is mirroring Trump is most meaningful ways? So funny.

Faugheen

The Floyd p wrote: »

Are people in this thread still defending Biden for the mammoth achievement of being a D in the WH who is mirroring Trump is most meaningful ways? So funny.

I thought we got rid of the 'they're both bad, but Biden...' crowd after the election.

mcmoustache

The Floyd p wrote: »

Are people in this thread still defending Biden for the mammoth achievement of being a D in the WH who is mirroring Trump is most meaningful ways? So funny.

What?

The Floyd p

Faugheen wrote: »

I thought we got rid of the 'they're both bad, but Biden...' crowd after the election.

www.imgur.com/CUVT4Pd

www.imgur.com/LvtXW2I

Being better than your predecessor in a narrow way doesn't make you a good president by any means. This thread feels incredibly apologetic of Joe Biden, despite not rowing back any of Trump's border policies in a meaningful way.
He's throwing the USA back into the Iran deal, despite expecting Iran to accept bad terms despite the USA being the ones who left!

How many times have we heard the We're leaving Afghanistan! shtick? Longest war in USA history. I heard Biden say similar before.

HUFFINGTON POST 12/19/2010 10:54 am ET Updated Dec 06, 2017
Joe Biden: We’ll Be Out Of Afghanistan By 2014, ‘Come Hell Or High Water’

He's desperate and the Dems will give up ground in the mid-terms if there is any will in the populace.

Brian?

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

Ok forget about Trump/Biden left/right for a min.

Feb 2020 they say troops home by May 2021.
Come Apr 2021 they say 6 more months.
People act like its a good thing.


I'm not trying to start a fight but I can't understand how everyone doesn't see they're full of ****.

You’re oversimplifying it. The detail and nuance is extremely important to understand why the troops won’t have left by May.

An analogy. I get hired to manage a demolition project that’s in progress. The previous project managers said the building would be demolished and site cleared by May, but he got sacked for bad behaviour.

When I take a look with the staff on how we’re doing, I see that there isn’t a hope of finishing by May. I tell my employers it’ll be done in September. Am I talking **** now or was the last guy.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

You’re oversimplifying it. The detail and nuance is extremely important to understand why the troops won’t have left by May.

An analogy. I get hired to manage a demolition project that’s in progress. The previous project managers said the building would be demolished and site cleared by May, but he got sacked for bad behaviour.

When I take a look with the staff on how we’re doing, I see that there isn’t a hope of finishing by May. I tell my employers it’ll be done in September. Am I talking **** now or was the last guy.

Only trouble is the building was demolished a decade ago.

francois

BanditLuke wrote: »

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

More sober than the trumpanzees sh1tposting after a few beers

everlast75

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1383165300191981573?s=19

Great to see.

Shouldn't have done it in the first place

Cody montana

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1383165300191981573?s=19

Great to see.

Shouldn't have done it in the first place

This is accountability.

relax carry on

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1383165300191981573?s=19

Great to see.

Shouldn't have done it in the first place

At least Biden can be reasoned with and seems to listen to others. There was never a chance of that with the previous POTUS.

eagle eye

relax carry on wrote:

At least Biden can be reasoned with and seems to listen to others. There was never a chance of that with the previous POTUS.

Why keep comparing him to the worst in history?
How about comparing him to the other Presidents from the last 30 or 40 years. I put him ahead of all of them, he's been very impressive and during extremely tough times too.

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

Why keep comparing him to the worst in history?
How about comparing him to the other Presidents from the last 30 or 40 years. I put him ahead of all of them, he's been very impressive and during extremely tough times too.

Because he was here till a few months ago and is the most recent past president that’s why.

Duff Man Jr.

Brian? wrote: »

You’re oversimplifying it. The detail and nuance is extremely important to understand why the troops won’t have left by May.

An analogy. I get hired to manage a demolition project that’s in progress. The previous project managers said the building would be demolished and site cleared by May, but he got sacked for bad behaviour.

When I take a look with the staff on how we’re doing, I see that there isn’t a hope of finishing by May. I tell my employers it’ll be done in September. Am I talking **** now or was the last guy.

I understand what you're saying, I think our difference boils down to three points;
1. That the pentagon was surprised being asked/told to get out.
2. 15 months wasn't enough to do it safely.
3. They need another 6 months.

I must be missing something obvious but I can't see how any normal person knows they were surprised and 15 months wasn't enough and 6 more is enough.
Can you explain to me how you got there?

Brian?

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, I think our difference boils down to three points;
1. That the pentagon was surprised being asked/told to get out.
2. 15 months wasn't enough to do it safely.
3. They need another 6 months.

I must be missing something obvious but I can't see how any normal person knows they were surprised and 15 months wasn't enough and 6 more is enough.
Can you explain to me how you got there?

They were surprised because no one told them it was coming. That’s pretty simple. The Pentagon actually said as much the day of the announcement, they had no idea it was coming. That’s an objective fact.

No plan was put forth, the Afghan government didn’t actually want them to leave. They’ve spent over a year working out the best exit strategy with the Afghans.

They could have left 15 months ago. It would have been mayhem. The Taliban would have launched an offensive and the Afghan army would have struggled to contain it. The state department has spent the last 15 months attempted to build a peace between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

If I want to leave somewhere, I get up and leave. It’s not the same for moving thousands of troops out of a country that has been at war for 40 years.

ohnonotgmail

Xerro wrote: »

Wery disrespectful from old Joe not to meet the japaneeas prim minister

Where is hunter

poor in nearly every regard

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-04-16/biden-meets-with-japans-prime-minister-his-first-in-person-talks-with-a-foreign-leader

Professor Moriarty

It's gratifying to see so many brand new posters join this thread every day. Wonderful diversity of opinion and informed debate.

Cody montana

Xerro wrote: »

Wery disrespectful from old Joe not to meet the japaneeas prim minister

Where is hunter

Cute

Professor Moriarty

Xerro wrote: »

Wery disrespectful from old Joe not to meet the japaneeas prim minister

Where is hunter

Where's Wally? Oh there he is.

Duff Man Jr.

Brian? wrote: »

They were surprised because no one told them it was coming. That’s pretty simple. The Pentagon actually said as much the day of the announcement, they had no idea it was coming. That’s an objective fact.

So you're taking the word of a very pro war organisation who has lied America into wars for years, Iraq having wmds, gulf of Tonkin, Syrian gas attacks, Russian bounties on American Soldiers or the fact that they done everything to stay in Afghanistan for the last 20 years.

No plan was put forth, the Afghan government didn’t actually want them to leave. They’ve spent over a year working out the best exit strategy with the Afghans.

America sends hundreds of billions on Afghanistan, the Afghan government is extremely corrupt and lining their pockets, of course they want them to stay.

They could have left 15 months ago. It would have been mayhem. The Taliban would have launched an offensive and the Afghan army would have struggled to contain it. The state department has spent the last 15 months attempted to build a peace between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

It was announced in Feb 2020 they'd be out in 15 months, in May 2021. I never said they were meant to be out 15 months ago. Of course it'd be mayhem but if after 20 they haven't sorted it I can't see what difference an extra 6 months will make.

If I want to leave somewhere, I get up and leave. It’s not the same for moving thousands of troops out of a country that has been at war for 40 years.

Correct!


I think our differences boil down to you believe the pentagon and I don't?

Brian?

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

So you're taking the word of a very pro war organisation who has lied America into wars for years, Iraq having wmds, gulf of Tonkin, Syrian gas attacks, Russian bounties on American Soldiers or the fact that they done everything to stay in Afghanistan for the last 20 years.



America sends hundreds of billions on Afghanistan, the Afghan government is extremely corrupt and lining their pockets, of course they want them to stay.


It was announced in Feb 2020 they'd be out in 15 months, in May 2021. I never said they were meant to be out 15 months ago. Of course it'd be mayhem but if after 20 they haven't sorted it I can't see what difference an extra 6 months will make.


Correct!


I think our differences boil down to you believe the pentagon and I don't?

I think you’re confusing the Pentagon with the CIA. The CIA do the deception and the soldiers the pentagon send end up dead.