The Biden Presidency

[goldfly]

Lol

He used “soy boy”

Omg lol

[Tapate50]

The literal definition of bipartisan:

"involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies."

The word that guy is thinking of is "popular."

LOL...

But it was a TWEET 42.

[striker42]

Go woke. Lose your country.

Kind of misleading there. The war game isn't a Chinese attempt to invade the US or anything. It's playing scenarios where China attempts to take Taiwan. Losing would be China occupies Taiwan. Our goal is to have our military ready to stop such an attempt.

If China did occupy Taiwan, there would be a lot of questions on where things go from there. Taking something and holding it are two entirely different things. I'm not sure China could cope with a prolonged war with the US. American naval and air dominance would be difficult for China to deal with and would make holding Taiwan extremely difficult. That would be coupled with crippling economic sanctions from not just the US but the entire western world.

While I agree the US military needs to evolve further away from a cold war mentality and towards a new, more flexible approach, there's a big difference between being unable to stop an invasion of Taiwan and not being able to beat China in a conventional war.

[57Brave]

The literal definition of bipartisan:

"involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies."

The word that guy is thinking of is "popular."

perhaps we are watching in real time the evolution of the definition of "bipartisan"
In the gerrymandered world we live in old notions of "bipartisan" have lost all meaning

Was I think the writers point.

[goldfly]

Go woke. Lose your country.

Lol

[thethe]

Kind of misleading there. The war game isn't a Chinese attempt to invade the US or anything. It's playing scenarios where China attempts to take Taiwan. Losing would be China occupies Taiwan. Our goal is to have our military ready to stop such an attempt.

If China did occupy Taiwan, there would be a lot of questions on where things go from there. Taking something and holding it are two entirely different things. I'm not sure China could cope with a prolonged war with the US. American naval and air dominance would be difficult for China to deal with and would make holding Taiwan extremely difficult. That would be coupled with crippling economic sanctions from not just the US but the entire western world.

While I agree the US military needs to evolve further away from a cold war mentality and towards a new, more flexible approach, there's a big difference between being unable to stop an invasion of Taiwan and not being able to beat China in a conventional war.

Losing any battle to any adversary represents a massive threat. We have survived based on the fact that we deter all others from trying anything. Once that wanes it’s the beginning of the end.

But the real threat is ticker Carlson.

[Jaw]

https://amp.cincinnati.com/amp/47005...mpression=true

Thiel just donated $10 million to a PAC that wants to get J.D. Vance elected to the Senate. I like Vance and he can speak to the same crowd Trump courted, but with more authenticity and eloquence. I'm curious to see if he does that or if he just goes GOP circa 2012.

[sturg33]

Under tyrant Biden, the Capitol city is under military occupation. The military publicly criticized Tucker Carlson bc he offended them. And today they harrased a GOP congresswoman bc she offended them.

This is not good.

But the useful idiots will cheer it on, I'm certain

[cajunrevenge]

China isnt going to invade Taiwan. They might however bomb it into oblivion.

[goldfly]

Under tyrant Biden, the Capitol city is under military occupation. The military publicly criticized Tucker Carlson bc he offended them. And today they harrased a GOP congresswoman bc she offended them.

This is not good.

But the useful idiots will cheer it on, I'm certain

Lol You’re so pathetic lol

[thethe]

The Justice Department’s new brief also makes some inflammatory suggestions about last year’s racial justice protests, including an assertion that demonstrations across the country involved “people receiving payment to participate in protests.” The filing cites a police chiefs group’s report that 29 percent of major city law enforcement agencies reported paid protesters. The claim appears to go beyond the widely reported solicitation of bail funds for people arrested during those demonstrations.

___________

Hmmm......

Conspiracy theory

[goldfly]

man, i really hate actually reading the **** you two link

nearly every single time, it comes nowhere near the level or completely refutes the point you are trying to hope it makes

While less common, over a quarter of major city law enforcement agencies (29%) reported situations with participants that were paid to partake in the protest.

that is the exact quote and only mention of this in the whole report

no details or anything and to say the source material is bias is an understatement lol

i'll never get back my time from reading that

[thethe]

man, i really hate actually reading the **** you two link

nearly every single time, it comes nowhere near the level or completely refutes the point you are trying to hope it makes



that is the exact quote and only mention of this in the whole report

no details or anything and to say the source material is bias is an understatement lol

i'll never get back my time from reading that

Thanks for posting exactly what I did.

Many protestors were paid. You and all your idiot comrades avert your gaze.

[striker42]

perhaps we are watching in real time the evolution of the definition of "bipartisan"
In the gerrymandered world we live in old notions of "bipartisan" have lost all meaning

Was I think the writers point.

I will agree that in our hyper partisan world, bipartisan has changed. What it means now is "you should give up and agree with me." Any side that doesn't just capitulate and support what the other side wants is not acting in a bipartisan manner. It's going to take the parties getting out from under the thumb of their extremes to break this.

However, I don't think that's what the writer was saying. I think he was confusing bipartisan with something enjoying broad support. They are not the same thing.

[sturg33]

Lol You’re so pathetic lol

Just so we are clear, you have no concerns about the US military harassing citizens for holding views that offend them?

[striker42]

Losing any battle to any adversary represents a massive threat. We have survived based on the fact that we deter all others from trying anything. Once that wanes it’s the beginning of the end.

But the real threat is ticker Carlson.

Preventing a major military power from grabbing a relatively small chunk of land a hundred miles off their coast is a tall order. While I have no problem with us working to be able to do just that, it's something I'm not distressed about if we can't. The deterrent isn't always going to be that we'll stop another country from doing something. Sometimes the deterrent is going to be the consequences of doing that thing.

If China attacked Taiwan without attacking US assets in the region, it would make China's job of actually conquering Taiwan very difficult if the US intervened. But they might be able to prevent a full scale war with US by going this direction. There would be massive economic consequences but if at the end of the day, China is in control of Taiwan without any direct aggression towards the US, do we have the appetite for full scale war with China?

If they did attack US assets in the region as part of their offensive, then it's immediate war with China. The deaths of hundreds if not thousands of American soldiers from an unprovoked attack would mean all out conventional war. China might occupy Taiwan but would they be able to keep it. A US led counteroffensive would happen and I'm not sure China could withstand that. I don't see them winning a war when they'd be so over matched at sea and in the air.

This doesn't mean we sit on our laurels. It's definitely in our interest for every country in the world to know they have no chance of going toe to toe with us in a full scale war. It's the best peace keeping tool we have.

[Jaw]

Not coming to Taiwan's aid would be the equivalent of letting the Sovie Union annex West Germany during the Cold War. It would tell Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, and everyone else west of Wake Island that they have to submit to China because the US is an undependable ally. We would lose Cold War 2 in the first confrontation and immediately transition from Pax Americana to Pax Sinica.

[sturg33]

How is this their actual position considering the migrant surge happened immediately after Bidens EO which was an open invitation to storm the border?

[thethe]

The border was as well run as it has been in decades under the Trump administration.

Not even sure what the debate could be on that issue.

Democrat policies are disasters for not only Americans but people around the world.

[Tapate50]