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

I am not trolling when I say I am actually shocked your line of defence is, well the interviewer said "should", and the general said Recommend, it's the same thing in this context. When I say to a mate, you "should" have a drink , I am not ordering them to have a drink like you seem to be implying "should" means.

Gen McKenzie

" I recommended that we maintained 2,500 troops in Afghanistan"

"And General Milley, I assume you agree with that in terms of the recommendation of 2,500?

Gen. Milley: (50:12)

What I said in my opening statement and the memoranda that I wrote back in the fall of 2020 remained consistent"

So that's Gen Milley and Gen McKenzie.

Now what about Gen Miller. Unfortunately his briefing is under wraps AFAIK. But this exchange means we know what was recommended by Gen.Miller.

"Mr. Inhofe: (50:21)

This committee is unsure as to whether or not General Miller’s recommendation ever got to the president. Obviously, there are conversations with the president, but I would like to ask, even though General McKenzie, I think you’ve all made this statement. Did you talk to the president about General Miller’s recommendation?

Gen. McKenzie: (50:41)

Sir, I was present when that discussion occurred, and I’m confident that the president heard all the recommendations and listened to them very thoughtfully"

"Mr. Inhofe: (11:01)

Around the same time, General Miller, who was then the commander of the US Forces Afghanistan advised his chain of command to keep approximately 2,500 troops in the country. "

So the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, (Gen.Miller), the commander of US Central command (Gen.Mckenzie), and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, recommended the retention of the troops, and Biden "heard all the recommendations and listened to them very thoughtfully"

So what's your "numerous" other explainations?

I don't think anyone is ignoring it, just that they're not bought into all these things being impeachable offences.

Even taking your interpretation completely, do politicians get caught in spin often? Yes, do they do it maliciously? Most don't, some do (the predecessor), Biden doesn't seem to, he seems quite genuine in what he's doing and trying to achieve. Most people will be looking at the two infrastructure bills and the pros and cons of them instead (I remember one poster was particularly obsessed by Kamala Harris' opinion on Tupac in a similar way, but only to try and slur someone rather than having any point to make).

The "other side" is trying to make everything into a personality contest and trying to keep away from talking policy because they have none, you're putting yourself into that category making your posts more and more hollow and vacuous. Tucker Carlson style outrage only works with GQP supporters which gives you a very small audience (you're at the "even if the actions went well, what they said about it is an outrage" stage, which followed the "this is the worst set of actions ever by a president" stage).

OK. So at least you have moved to understanding that it could have happened.

So at least we can move on from you insisting there are only three possibilities.

By you. You have acknowledged that he could have misspoken, you struggle to understand why he doubled down.

But you were adamant that there was only three options, which now accept, grudgingly, that there are indeed others.

So now that we agree that it may not have been a lie, or a senior moment, what exactly are you so exercised about that you have been chasing this for so long?

The ultra liberal New Yorker magazine is calling out Biden for the border crisis.

How Biden Came to Own Trump’s Border Policy

Haitian asylum seekers were deported under Title 42, a despised Trump-era practice that the current Administration can’t seem to let go of.

They really need to have a referendum on it, instead of all this constant court wrangling. Of course that is never going to happen, the greatest democracy in the world(tm) can't actually do that.

Just ask the straight question, rather than have it wrapped up in local, state etc elections where lots of other factors come into it.

Do that, and then tackle the 2nd Amendment

That's not the process; Congress (2/3 both houses) send the amendment to the states for ratification, or 2/3 of the states can have a convention and propose amendments. The latter has never happened, it'd be some sight if it did. Once proposed, the amendments need approval from 3/4 of the state legislatures or conventions of the states. Again, the 27 amendments were approved by state legislature vote, there's never been conventions.

FWIW the last amendment (which was proposed in 1792!) was ratified in 2019. Currently, the 'equal rights amendment' has met the 3/4 approval by State Legislatures, but is caught in legal wrangling initiated by the #2xIMPOTUS DoJ, everyone's favorite John Goodman lookalike, William Barr.

Decent article here indicating even as Afghanistan gets further in the rear view mirror he needs some big wins.

Ah Trump, never one to miss an opportunity to be become even more of a cartoon villain.

This is why I’m glad he was elected.

He also moved to protect the Tongass national forest, which some loser wanted to level.

And stopped drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“The president will also reimpose fishing restrictions in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine national monument off the coast of New England that Trump had opened to commercial fishing.”

bUt hIs PoLe NuMbErS!!

I thought his strategy was that by offering extension he doesn't risk the republicans getting blamed for tanking the global economy but will force the democrats to put a price tag on the amount of borrowing and still have to try pass their spending deals by is it Christmas/January?and said costs will be made obvious for attack ads to use later

September jobs report: Economy adds back disappointing 194,000 jobs, unemployment rate falls to 4.8%