US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Billy Beer, Splinters RCVD, GenderCop and 22 others
Click to expand...
soy_king said:
with a propane tank? really?

Ngl, I kinda want to see it happen, onnthe off chance this is real and the truck is full of fertilizer or C4
Click to expand...
It would be entertaining true, but even if nobody is hurt, the media, NPCs, and basically all of Western society will make the Jan 6th Reichstag look like a mild disagreement compared to this. Not good long-term for anybody.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: make_it_so, LurkNoMore, OllieOllieKickflip and 4 others
YEP A COORDINATED WHITE TERRORIST ATTACK CONVENIENTLY SCHEDULED FOR RIGHT AFTER THE AFGHAN FALL THAT NO ONE WAS TOLD WAS HAPPENING

DON'T QUESTION IT BIGOTNAZI!!

96437C83-6CF3-4CAF-8E4A-10992BC8E4FD.png.png
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Isaac Clarke, Yamma Damma, DicksOutForChauvin and 48 others
I don't believe for a second that this is not some form of orchestrated distraction for the american public to pull attention off of the Afghan situation.

Any person imo giving this credence otherwise is an idiot. This is too on-the-nose, too fitting for the narrative that's been pushed lately, and much, much too convenient. There's coincidence, then there's what could only be divine fucking providence, and last I checked Biden isn't exactly a Godly enough fellow to deserve that in any measure.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Smith Banquod, Francis York Morgan, AnotherPleb and 24 others
So Biden and everyone of importance conveniently isn't in D.C right now, just as the Taliban completly humiliated this administration causing a national crisis that made Biden look like an impotent hack and conventiently a bunch of white American radicals have perfectly coordinated a bunch of attacks across the nation, huh, I can't wait to hear how all those radicals are a bunch of hardcore Magapedes with hundreds of Confederate flags in their houses, I bet that the MSM is going to conveniently drop the Afganistan story and put all of their focus into this heinous attack on the Sanctity of the Republic(tm).
This whole thing glows brighter than the sun.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Francis York Morgan, ditto, AnotherPleb and 20 others
Cuckoman said:
What I am saying is that that IP might be de-facto worthless now whether GE likes or not.
If the Chineese and Russains have enough samples of the most modern defense technology for us helicopters then that means that they can figure out how they work and build new missiles where the current defense systems are completely ineffective against.
I.e. what if they will soon be able to build missiles that are a 100% guaranteed kill no matter what?
Then the GE IP is worthless.

If your enemy has blueprints for your most modern shield. You desperately need to invent a new shield urgently.
Click to expand...
Likely we didn't provide out most advanced stuff, but rather what the Russians call the "monkey model". That's what the Russians do, keep their most advanced stuff for themselves.

Here's a great article by Dan Crenshaw in today's Wall Street Journal. Don't have a link.

Dan Crenshaw served in Afghanistan. "Crenshaw was commissioned in the United States Navy, and served on SEAL Team 3 in the War in Afghanistan, reaching the rank of Lieutenant Commander. He was wounded in action during his third deployment, losing his right eye to an improvised explosive device" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crenshaw

Biden's Enormous Blunder

By Dan Crenshaw

This op-ed by Dan Crenshaw was published in the August 18th print edition of The Wall Street Journal

Almost everyone agrees that what’s happening in Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster. There is no way to whitewash it, and few are trying. The scenes from Kabul speak for themselves, casting shame and embarrassment on the world’s greatest superpower. There is plenty of blame being passed around, including to the “neocons,” the generals and the Afghans themselves. But what got us here was the widespread belief that American foreign policy should be dictated by a simple slogan: “No more endless wars.” The current spokesman for that belief is President Biden.

The argument for bringing the troops home is an emotional one, arising from exhaustion with overseas conflict. Most people don’t understand the situation in Afghanistan, and that causes distrust and anger. Few deny we needed to take action after 9/11, but few understood what our strategy would be after we got there. Leaders failed to explain that simply leaving would allow the Taliban to re-emerge and again provide safe haven for terrorists. Americans felt stuck and became exhausted over the years with the vast sums of money spent and lives lost, seemingly in a futile attempt to build democracy.

With this growing impatience, the case for cutting our losses grew stronger. But it fails to acknowledge trade-offs—and this simple question: If we evacuate Afghanistan, what will happen? The “no more endless wars” crowd always refused to answer. They prefer to live in a dream world rather than face the reality that our enemies are ideologically opposed to Western civilization and will gladly stage another 9/11 if they have the opportunity and means. They are at war with us whether or not we are at war with them. Leaving Afghanistan would inevitably create a terrorist safe haven.

That simple reality was never properly explained to the public. When Quinnipiac asked in a May survey, “Should we leave Afghanistan?” 62% of respondents said yes. But what if the question was framed more completely: “Should we leave Afghanistan even if it means an increased threat of terrorism to the homeland?”

The “no more endless wars” position has another blind spot: Its advocates are unable to distinguish between wasteful nation building and a small residual force that conducts occasional counterterror operations. As a result, when many Americans hear that there is a single soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, they interpret it to mean “nation building” and “world police.”

That’s wrong. There are a lot of foreign policy options between nation building and giving up. We found the proper balance in recent years—maintaining a small force that propped up the Afghan government while also giving us the capability to strike at Taliban and other terrorist networks as needed. When Echelon asked about the troop presence this way in July, more Americans, Republican and Democratic, supported a small military presence in Afghanistan than ending our presence entirely.

The U.S. presence in Afghanistan was meeting the original strategic goal of denying a safe haven for terrorists and preventing another 9/11. The 18 months before withdrawal saw no U.S. combat deaths. Does that really sound like “endless war” in any traditional sense? More important, does it sound better or worse than the current outcome?

Mr. Biden’s decision was reckless and unnecessary. Policy aside, there wasn’t even political pressure to take such thoughtless action. The facts on the ground didn’t warrant a hasty withdrawal, and intelligence predicted the Taliban would eventually take over. Even worse, this decision was made as the spring fighting season began, all but guaranteeing a Taliban offensive emboldened by the knowledge of an imminent U.S. withdrawal and a collapse of morale by our Afghan allies in uniform and in government.

America didn’t lose a war, or even end one. We gave up on a strategic national-security interest. We gave up on our Afghan allies, expecting them to stave off a ruthless insurgency without our crucial support, which came at minimal cost to us. This administration’s actions are heartless, its justifications nonsensical. The consequences are dire for innocent Afghans and for America’s prestige. Twenty years after 9/11, I pray they don’t become equally dire for Americans at home.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Francis York Morgan, argostug, CarlosDanger and 7 others
Dante Alighieri said:
Amazing how all these "attacks" happen at convenient times and in Democrat strongholds!
Click to expand...
Also incredible how nobody deemed important by the government is anywhere nearby!

It's almost too convenient to take at face value!
Edit:
JosephStalin said:
The “no more endless wars” position has another blind spot: Its advocates are unable to distinguish between wasteful nation building and a small residual force that conducts occasional counterterror operations. As a result, when many Americans hear that there is a single soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, they interpret it to mean “nation building” and “world police.”
Click to expand...
That is nation building and acting as the world's police. We shouldn't have soldiers stationed in Afghanistan for any reason, it's a big part of why they hate us so fucking much. Imagine how people would react to having foreign troops stationed in the U.S., heads would roll.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: madethistocomment, MrJokerRager, OllieOllieKickflip and 11 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back