Author Topic: The Joe Biden Thread  (Read 3307 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #300 on: October 26, 2020, 02:28:43 pm »
Both antiwar.com and RT.com tell you how pro-Trump they both are. Then with RT.com you would be able to reason why they are pro-Trump. It's in their foreign policy interests of course!

As to antiwar.com they're less concerned now about antiwar interests than they're concerned with their libertarian rightist interests. But some at that site still believe that the antiwar cause is better served with Trump.

You really need some better sources of information.  The conspiracy theory nonsense is kept alive by people like yourself.  You will believe their bullshit, if it suits your narrative.  Thatís not a good pathway to determining what is true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Airing_conspiracy_theories
« Last Edit: October 26, 2020, 02:31:25 pm by the_squid »

Online Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #301 on: October 26, 2020, 02:35:01 pm »
You really need some better sources of information.  The conspiracy theory nonsense is kept alive by people like yourself.  You will believe their bullshit, if it suits your narrative.  Thatís not a good pathway to determining what is true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Airing_conspiracy_theories

What conspiracy theory do you think I'm pushing? Both of those sites are pushing for Trump. I haven't even offered an explanation for why that is yet!
Those two aren't the only sources of my information, they are just included as sources. I visit Commondreams.org and Breitbart.com too. And several others too but you could tell me of one you think I need to pay more attention to?
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #302 on: October 26, 2020, 02:59:04 pm »
Why do you think that locking children up in cages is not popular with Americans? You don't know that but you're making assumptions that could be based on human decency.

Why would that be unpopular with Americans when at least the Trump supporters believe that the immigrants are to blame for their poverty?
From: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/18/17475740/family-separation-poll-polling-border-trump-children-immigrant-families-parents
Two new polls find that the US government policy of separating children from their parents at the Mexican border is very unpopular with the general public... Sixty-six percent of voters...told Quinnipiac they opposed the policy...A poll conducted by Ipsos exclusively for the Daily Beast found similar results....Fifty-five percent of respondents stated they disagreed...while 27 percent agreed.

Now, admittedly there was more support for the policy among republicans, but the number who identify themselves as republican has been dropping steadily over the years. The public by and large rejects the family separation policy.

Quote
Why would that be unpopular with Americans when at least the Trump supporters believe that the immigrants are to blame for their poverty?
Many (perhaps even most) Trump supporters may favor locking children in cages, but again they don't make up a majority of voters in the country. (And even some Trump supporters think it goes too far... in one of the polls it wasn't even a majority of republicans who supported it.)

Online Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #303 on: October 26, 2020, 03:07:25 pm »
From: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/18/17475740/family-separation-poll-polling-border-trump-children-immigrant-families-parents
Two new polls find that the US government policy of separating children from their parents at the Mexican border is very unpopular with the general public... Sixty-six percent of voters...told Quinnipiac they opposed the policy...A poll conducted by Ipsos exclusively for the Daily Beast found similar results....Fifty-five percent of respondents stated they disagreed...while 27 percent agreed.

Thanks for that poll results. Have you considered the implications of anyone saying that they would support the policy? Would you say you could support something as evil as that? For that reason I think your poll results aren't conclusive. If it's supported by some Republicans you can be sure that it's supported by as many Democrats. They're not D's and R's, they're Americans and that's the main point.

Quote
Now, admittedly there was more support for the policy among republicans, but the number who identify themselves as republican has been dropping steadily over the years. The public by and large rejects the family separation policy.
Many (perhaps even most) Trump supporters may favor locking children in cages, but again they don't make up a majority of voters in the country. (And even some Trump supporters think it goes too far... in one of the polls it wasn't even a majority of republicans who supported it.)

You're not  being a good judge of human nature but that could be because you aren't appreciating the reasoning behind Trump's methods of gaining support.

Hardly any Germans would have said they supported killing Jews in Nazi Germany of the 30's and 40's.

You can write me off as exaggerating for now but Trump wins we can revisit the question later.

This can become an instance in which a country isn't guilty for it's crimes against humanity for you!  Somewhat the same as the Iraq war!
« Last Edit: October 26, 2020, 03:09:44 pm by Montgomery »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #304 on: October 26, 2020, 03:27:34 pm »
What conspiracy theory do you think I'm pushing? Both of those sites are pushing for Trump. I haven't even offered an explanation for why that is yet!

I was commenting on you pushing RT as a source of information.  Itís not.  Itís a source of conspiracy theory bullshit pedalled by Russians.  The fact that they may have posted an article you agree with doesnít change that fact.

Quote
Those two aren't the only sources of my information, they are just included as sources. I visit Commondreams.org and Breitbart.com too. And several others too but you could tell me of one you think I need to pay more attention to?

You visit many shitty sites that are more disinformation than information...   congratulations, I guess. 

Offline Shady

  • Truth Detector
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #305 on: October 26, 2020, 03:38:08 pm »
This bullshit McCarthyism needs to stop.  You people are obsessed with nonsense.  Itís like an automatic crutch.  You see it everywhere, no matter what. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Anti-herd is the new anti-vaxx.  Sweden did it right.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8225
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #306 on: October 26, 2020, 04:04:34 pm »
This bullshit McCarthyism needs to stop.  You people are obsessed with nonsense.  Itís like an automatic crutch.  You see it everywhere, no matter what. (Attachment Link)

Let me give you a brief description as to the difference between McCarthyism. and what's happening now: the former were a bunch of accusations without evidence.
Get it?
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Bubbermiley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 679
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #307 on: October 26, 2020, 05:39:52 pm »
Biden canít even remember who heís running against!  Dementia/Harris 2020

https://youtu.be/aAR8OAOdzr4
Turns out you're wrong again, as he was talking to George Lopez and he stutters. How humiliating for you.  :D

Offline Shady

  • Truth Detector
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #308 on: October 26, 2020, 08:08:26 pm »
Turns out you're wrong again, as he was talking to George Lopez and he stutters. How humiliating for you.  :D
That excuse doesnít make sense.  4 more years of George Lopez?  You Biden cult people are hilarious!  Twisting yourselves into pretzels to defend Dementia Joe.
Anti-herd is the new anti-vaxx.  Sweden did it right.
Funny Funny x 1 Dumb Dumb x 3 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4019
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #309 on: October 26, 2020, 11:29:00 pm »
That excuse doesnít make sense.  4 more years of George Lopez?  You Biden cult people are hilarious!  Twisting yourselves into pretzels to defend Dementia Joe.

 ďYou look at countries, Austria, you look at so many countries. They live in the forest, theyíre considered forest cities. So many of them. And they donít have fires like this. And they have more explosive trees.Ē
  -Donald Trump


Hey look, it's the Fruit Friends, Tim Apple and Donnie Orange!


 -k
Masked for your safety.
Funny Funny x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4036
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #310 on: October 26, 2020, 11:57:05 pm »
Dementia Joe.

DementiaDon... or... people are saying it could be untreated STDs given all the hookers and porn stars Trumpy has availed himself of!

Like Like x 1 View List

Online Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #311 on: October 27, 2020, 12:56:16 pm »
DementiaDon... or... people are saying it could be untreated STDs given all the hookers and porn stars Trumpy has availed himself of!



I think we can agree that there's a lot of trouble ahead for the US if they choose Trump. For just one example, is it beyond possibilities that Biden and many other political opponents of Trump could be arrested? Seriously, is it?
That's an effort to address America's domestic policy under a Trump regime.

But on US foreign policy, are you convinced that Trump wouldn't be a good choice?
I'm not convinced but I don't mind saying that I'm very pro-China and pro-Russia and I have good reasons for being so.
40 US wars of aggression since the end of WW2 alone!
Russia isn't coming and never was! And certainly China has never shown any proclivity toward military aggression.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #312 on: October 27, 2020, 03:20:40 pm »
But on US foreign policy, are you convinced that Trump wouldn't be a good choice?
As a Canadian, I'd have to say Trump is a pretty bad choice.

His trade wars are harming countries (like Canada) that are supposed to be allies. (They are also harming the U.S. too...) His cutbacks in various forms of 'soft power' increases the possibility of future conflicts. His cutbacks on programs that deal with disease prevention mean an increased chance of future pandemics. And his attempts to withdraw troops from parts of the middle east lead to a flareup that displaced thousands of people (not exactly a canada-specific problem but still one that should be of concern.)

The U.S. is no longer a trustworthy ally, and countries can expect that even if they come to some agreement with the U.S., it might not be honored.

Quote
I'm not convinced but I don't mind saying that I'm very pro-China and pro-Russia and I have good reasons for being so.
Well, Russia and China do benefit from having Trump around. Trump is Putin's puppet, and  his general screw-ups have left a power vacuum that China and Russia are very eager to fill.

However, what benefits China and/or Russia does not necessarily benefit Canada (or the U.S. for that matter).
Quote
40 US wars of aggression since the end of WW2 alone!
Ummm... so?

First of all, wars are not the only thing that can be a problem for the world. Widespread famine, diseases, abusive dictatorships, environmental problems, etc. can often cause just as much death as your average war. And lets face it, Trump's record on these is not exactly favorable.

Secondly, the fact that Trump has not engaged in any armed conflict does not make him any better at Biden. After all, he Obama/Biden administration was not particularly militaristic, and I doubt that Biden would suddenly decide to start dropping bombs on random countries. (I could also point out that while Trump hasn't started any wars, under his administration Drone strikes have increased, and oversight has decreased compared to the Obama administration.... not a good combination in my opinion.)

The fact that there hasn't been a war break out in the past 4 years probably has more to do with luck than anything.
 
I would also be curious what you consider a "war of aggression". Something like Gulf War 2 could certainly be classified as such... But what about Afghanistan? (I'm sure most people would consider it justified given that the U.S. was attacked from people operating from there.) How about Libya? (The U.S. did engage in bombing there, but the U.S. were certainly not the instigators.) Or are you assuming that any war the U.S. fights in is automatically a "war of aggression", regardless of the underlying context?

Quote
Russia isn't coming and never was!
Russia may not be a threat in the way of "Large scale invasion/occupation". But that does not mean that they are not a problem....

They certainly have used their military against neighboring countries.... Afghanistan (back when i was the USSR), Ukraine, etc. And even if they are not a military threat, they certainly have disrupted other countries in other ways.... such as interfering in various elections (most famously the U.S. 2016/2020 elections, but also possibly the 2017 french election, the 2014 Ukraine election, and possibly Brexit)

Russia should not be considered an ally, nor a country that should be trusted.
Quote

And certainly China has never shown any proclivity toward military aggression.
While I don't think China would have any interest in a large-scale war against the U.S., they may decide to flex their muscles and act against Taiwan, or expand their sphere of influence in south east asia. And they have had their recent skirmishes with India. They have used a lot of resources to build their own stealth jets (with data that had been stolen from the F35 program, part of which Canada funded.)


Online Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #313 on: October 27, 2020, 03:42:19 pm »
As a Canadian, I'd have to say Trump is a pretty bad choice.

His trade wars are harming countries (like Canada) that are supposed to be allies. (They are also harming the U.S. too...) His cutbacks in various forms of 'soft power' increases the possibility of future conflicts. His cutbacks on programs that deal with disease prevention mean an increased chance of future pandemics. And his attempts to withdraw troops from parts of the middle east lead to a flareup that displaced thousands of people (not exactly a canada-specific problem but still one that should be of concern.)

The U.S. is no longer a trustworthy ally, and countries can expect that even if they come to some agreement with the U.S., it might not be honored.
Well, Russia and China do benefit from having Trump around. Trump is Putin's puppet, and  his general screw-ups have left a power vacuum that China and Russia are very eager to fill.

However, what benefits China and/or Russia does not necessarily benefit Canada (or the U.S. for that matter).Ummm... so?

First of all, wars are not the only thing that can be a problem for the world. Widespread famine, diseases, abusive dictatorships, environmental problems, etc. can often cause just as much death as your average war. And lets face it, Trump's record on these is not exactly favorable.

Secondly, the fact that Trump has not engaged in any armed conflict does not make him any better at Biden. After all, he Obama/Biden administration was not particularly militaristic, and I doubt that Biden would suddenly decide to start dropping bombs on random countries. (I could also point out that while Trump hasn't started any wars, under his administration Drone strikes have increased, and oversight has decreased compared to the Obama administration.... not a good combination in my opinion.)

The fact that there hasn't been a war break out in the past 4 years probably has more to do with luck than anything.
 
I would also be curious what you consider a "war of aggression". Something like Gulf War 2 could certainly be classified as such... But what about Afghanistan? (I'm sure most people would consider it justified given that the U.S. was attacked from people operating from there.) How about Libya? (The U.S. did engage in bombing there, but the U.S. were certainly not the instigators.) Or are you assuming that any war the U.S. fights in is automatically a "war of aggression", regardless of the underlying context?
Russia may not be a threat in the way of "Large scale invasion/occupation". But that does not mean that they are not a problem....

They certainly have used their military against neighboring countries.... Afghanistan (back when i was the USSR), Ukraine, etc. And even if they are not a military threat, they certainly have disrupted other countries in other ways.... such as interfering in various elections (most famously the U.S. 2016/2020 elections, but also possibly the 2017 french election, the 2014 Ukraine election, and possibly Brexit)

Russia should not be considered an ally, nor a country that should be trusted.While I don't think China would have any interest in a large-scale war against the U.S., they may decide to flex their muscles and act against Taiwan, or expand their sphere of influence in south east asia. And they have had their recent skirmishes with India. They have used a lot of resources to build their own stealth jets (with data that had been stolen from the F35 program, part of which Canada funded.)

I very intelligent and thoughful post which deserves my full attention when I have the time......
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Online Montgomery

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #314 on: October 27, 2020, 05:51:40 pm »
As a Canadian, I'd have to say Trump is a pretty bad choice.

You could be right, but chances are we'll discuss the pros and cons here.

Quote
His trade wars are harming countries (like Canada) that are supposed to be allies. (They are also harming the U.S. too...) His cutbacks in various forms of 'soft power' increases the possibility of future conflicts.

I am of the opinion that there can be no harm done to Canada if we start to quickly diversify our trade relations away from the US. As other countries do that, and they are already, the US will be forced to fall into line with us in free and fair trade. There's no way to beat a blackmailer in working with one. I have little feeling for the US being hurt in trade relations with other countries. And the world has M.A.D. to fall back on for it's safety from US aggression.

 
Quote
His cutbacks on programs that deal with disease prevention mean an increased chance of future pandemics. And his attempts to withdraw troops from parts of the middle east lead to a flareup that displaced thousands of people (not exactly a canada-specific problem but still one that should be of concern.)

The increased chance of future pandemics is a point worth considering but could be a necessary trade-off for other considerations. I would suggest that only good can come from a US withdrawal from all ME countries. That would minimize the death toll, as opposed to prolonging the slaughter. And also consider the great probability that the US has no intention of withdrawing from the ME. It's not going to give up it's share of the wealth and just willingly award the spoils to Russia, China, or other big oil consumers. As we speak, Russia is close to bringing peace to Syria, while the US continues to promote more war. Also, consider that we all should know that Trump will lose all his incentive to deny the virus after the election.

Quote
The U.S. is no longer a trustworthy ally, and countries can expect that even if they come to some agreement with the U.S., it might not be honored.

My point on trade relations with the US!

Quote
Well, Russia and China do benefit from having Trump around. Trump is Putin's puppet, and  his general screw-ups have left a power vacuum that China and Russia are very eager to fill.

Yes! We have as much chance of being right about that as we have with being wrong. The jury is already in on Russia of course and there's really no reason why it would be different with China.

Quote
However, what benefits China and/or Russia does not necessarily benefit Canada (or the U.S. for that matter).Ummm... so?

What benefits China is unmistakable not beneficial to the US but I don't see any negatives with China. As for security from within Nato, there's probably more danger in being aligned with the US. China can be trusted to not be a military aggressor and even if they were, we have M.A.D. for another 75 years most likely. Military aggression by the US will become a thing of the past. For large and powerful countries such as Russia and China because of M.A.D. For small countries such as Venezuela or Iran, because they all will become proxies under the wings of the nuclear powers. Just like Israel.

Quote
First of all, wars are not the only thing that can be a problem for the world. Widespread famine, diseases, abusive dictatorships, environmental problems, etc. can often cause just as much death as your average war. And lets face it, Trump's record on these is not exactly favorable.

Speaking on how that pertains to Trump, it appears we are in agreement. I go a little further and suggest that the Democratic party has talked the hawkish talk on Russia. And as for Biden's military posture? I don't believe he would be allowed anymore than just one more opinion added to the US foreign policy going forward. No more and no less.

Quote
Secondly, the fact that Trump has not engaged in any armed conflict does not make him any better at Biden.

Of course not, they're all Americans.

Quote
After all, he Obama/Biden administration was not particularly militaristic, and I doubt that Biden would suddenly decide to start dropping bombs on random countries. (I could also point out that while Trump hasn't started any wars, under his administration Drone strikes have increased, and oversight has decreased compared to the Obama administration.... not a good combination in my opinion.)

I agree, and I believe we have a better chance of being right on that as opposed to wrong.

Quote
The fact that there hasn't been a war break out in the past 4 years probably has more to do with luck than anything.

My position on that is somewhat different. First, Russia is back now and the US's window of opportunity in the world has been slammed shut! And China is up now as a powerful ally in forces that oppose US military expansionist tactics. Secondly, the countries that the US wishes to conquer and control are also clients of the other nuclear powers here mentioned. I'm suggesting that Iran and Venezuela, for examples of oil rich countries, are considered out of bounds by US hawks. It's too late for the US to do more damage and slaughter for economic gain.
 
Quote
I would also be curious what you consider a "war of aggression". Something like Gulf War 2 could certainly be classified as such... But what about Afghanistan? (I'm sure most people would consider it justified given that the U.S. was attacked from people operating from there.)

Seriously on Afghanistan, with all due respects to your obviously being in touch with reality. An attack by 19 Saudis is the justification for a war that's gone on for 19 years? Seriously? Is there not an abundance of evidence that 911 is being used for US justification for their war? Is there any doubt that Russia and China would now have the opportunity of being invited into Afghanistan as a counter force to US aggression?

Quote
How about Libya? (The U.S. did engage in bombing there, but the U.S. were certainly not the instigators.) Or are you assuming that any war the U.S. fights in is automatically a "war of aggression", regardless of the underlying context?

Petty much! But I'm always open to hearing the counter argument which makes Russia or China to blame.

Quote
Russia may not be a threat in the way of "Large scale invasion/occupation". But that does not mean that they are not a problem....

That's something I can't relate to in the least. Russia is a struggling new democracy that is being set back by US sanctions and dirty tricks no matter what it tries to do. (further discussion might happen on this point)

Quote
They certainly have used their military against neighboring countries.... Afghanistan (back when i was the USSR), Ukraine, etc. And even if they are not a military threat, they certainly have disrupted other countries in other ways.... such as interfering in various elections (most famously the U.S. 2016/2020 elections, but also possibly the 2017 french election, the 2014 Ukraine election, and possibly Brexit)

Yes, Afghanistan when they were the USSR, and when there was a Cold war struggle happening between the US and the Soviet Union, among others. Point to mention would be the struggle by the US for Vietnam, against the other side's struggle to unite that country under communism. And the Ukraine because of US ambitions to bring that country into the Nato fold and encroach further on Russia's borders.

Quote
Russia should not be considered an ally, nor a country that should be trusted.While I don't think China would have any interest in a large-scale war against the U.S., they may decide to flex their muscles and act against Taiwan, or expand their sphere of influence in south east asia. And they have had their recent skirmishes with India. They have used a lot of resources to build their own stealth jets (with data that had been stolen from the F35 program, part of which Canada funded.)

I'm not aware of any reason why Russia shouldn't become a nation that is accepted as an ally.

I haven't really formed a firm opinion on China's willingness to chance reuniting the two China's. I understand completely their ambitions but I feel this is another situation where M.A.D. would be too risky at this point in time. Rather, I see perhaps a possibility of China trading off it's gains throughout the world to the US for China's control of it's sphere of influence. China practically owns Cuba and it's sympathies now, and will undoubtedly be into a negotiating position in the foreseeable future as concerning missile installations. Just as the US was forced to trade off their missile installations in Turkey for Russia's missile installations in Cuba. I doubt you don't know the real story on that!

p.s. the Crimea was a happy status quo situation until the US (nato) tried to take a bridge too far, and consequently got the Crimea stuffed right up nato's ass. Putin/Russia had no choice! Russia would never sit back and allow the loss of it's vital interests in Crimea.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 06:05:04 pm by Montgomery »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.