Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biden Presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts



  • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
    After six days away, just want to let everyone know these threads are currently showing up on the front page while we keep working on the site updates. So, try to be friendly / respectful like we would see in a normal thread, and less Thunderdome at least for the time being.
    The dude abides.
    Based Mullet Kid owns

    Comment


    • I guess I need to do better at expressing my sentiment.
      let’s say that a person has the accepted value of 1/4700 chance of being hit by a car. Also the accepted chance of 1/48000 chance of dying from this event. Now what is the chance that person is an immigrant? that person being an immigrant is much small chance than of occurring than a natural born citizen. And still yet an even smaller chance of that person being an illegal immigrant. But to really deep dive into the stats and you would need to look at struck bye per million miles traveled and other such standard traffic stats which is out of my wheel house.

      So in essence, this person was not only unlucky to be struck but to also die and the perpetrator had a much lower chance of committing this crime relative to the general population.

      Does this make any more/better sense?
      "From Chaos comes Clarity"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post

        No its never ok. I explained earlier how my friend, a legal natural born citizen with all the benefits that that entails was allowed to continue on a self destructiv epath until he did the exact same thing you described the illegal immigrant doing. He did the exact same thing taking someone away from their family. His status as an immigrant legal or otherwise is irrelevant. 1+1=2 just the same as 2-0=2 . End result is someone dead that probably shouldnt be.

        I also noticed in your earlier responses that you had a lot more sympathy for my friends situation than what you are showing for the illegal immigrant. Curious as to why? My friend committed multiple crimes (some he he was caught for some he wasnt) like DUIs, hit and runs, etc.
        Your sentiment is very clear, at least to me. Here's the problem. You want to make this a referendum on "ALL" illegals and try to deflect from this incident by stating crime statistics and your own example where a U.S. citizen was involved. I already acknowledged that there are many more incidents like this that involve U.S. citizens. No need to circle back to that. I posted about one guy who was here illegally and the fact that more than likely there wouldn't have been a accident/deaths if he had abided by the laws. Your friends status didn't have any bearing on his accidents because he was here legally. This guy wasn't. That's relevant. Did I really say I had a lot more sympathy for your friend/family? Pretty sure I said
        "Sorry to hear about your friend. Had to be extremely hard on his family."
        How does that mean I don't have sympathy for anyone in the incident I mentioned? I made that comment because I'm conversing with you and your relationship with him and there's a little bit of a symbiotic relationship in play here. This is another example of trying to make this into a larger issue to prove your point. I don't think any statistics would be of any comfort to the families of Jeffrey Monroe and Edwin Jackson.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
          After six days away, just want to let everyone know these threads are currently showing up on the front page while we keep working on the site updates. So, try to be friendly / respectful like we would see in a normal thread, and less Thunderdome at least for the time being.


          I kid. I just love that part.

          Comment


          • I promise not to bring up the Uyghurs. That would not be friendly/respectful to Biden at all.

            Comment


            • If only we could get Christopher Steele to write another fake dossier we could get an investigation. Alas, maybe Steele only takes money from Hillary Clinton.

              Comment


              • The Steele dossier was fake? WTF?!!
                I have invested everything BUT tuition for Notre Dame. I make no apologies.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                  I promise not to bring up the Uyghurs. That would not be friendly/respectful to Biden at all.
                  Not really sure what this means. That situation started years ago during the Trump administration, and it took until 2020 for him to do anything at all. He said that the lack of action and delays were because he thought it was more important to pursue a trade deal with China. That's Trump's own statement on the matter. John Bolton said that Trump gave Xi the green light to do the camps, which Trump denied. Regardless, his legacy is one of -- at best -- tolerating the camps for a very long time with no public statement much less sanctions.

                  Meanwhile, Biden has been speaking out on the topic since before he took office. He has made many unequivocal statements on the Hong Kong and the Uighur situation. The State Department has also been extremely clear on the administration's position. I assume your contention is about the snipped sentence from the CNN town hall where right aligned pundits are trying to pretend that Biden gave tacit approval to Xi. The full quote was:
                  BIDEN: We must speak up for human rights. It's who we are. Look, if you know anything about Chinese history it's that the time when they've been victimized by the outer world is when they haven't been united at home. The central principle of Xi is that there must be a united and tightly controlled China. And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that. I point out to him -- no American President can be sustained as the President if he doesn't reflect the values of the United States. And so the idea that I'm not going to speak out against what he's doing in Hong Kong, with the Uighurs in the western mountains of China, and Taiwan trying to end the One China policy... he gets it. Culturally, there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expect to follow. But my point was, when I came back from traveling with him for 17 thousand miles when I was the Vice President and he was the vice president... that's how I got to know him so well, at the request of President Hu and President Obama... and I came back and said they're going to end their one child policy because they're so xenophobic they won't let anyone in and more people are retired than working. How can they sustain economic growth when more people are retired -- "

                  COOPER INTERJECTS: --but is that as far as the conversation goes on human rights? Or will there be repercussions for China?

                  BIDEN: There will be repercussions for China, and he knows that. What I'm doing is making clear that in fact we are going to continue to reassert our role as spokesperson for human rights at the UN and other agencies that have an impact on their attitude. China is trying very hard to become THE world leader. And to get that moniker and to do that they have to gain the confidence of other countries. And as long as they're engaged in activity that is contrary to basic human rights it's going to be hard for them to do that. But it's much more complicated than that, I shouldn't try to talk China policy in 10 minutes.
                  So all he did was explain what he is dealing with (i.e. Xi's worldview) in the middle of saying that we're going to stand against their actions (start and end of quote). He's explaining that he's dealing with a guy that is reflecting the will of the CCCP and living in a very different country, so it is not easy to get him to change course unilaterally, and that getting China to course correct is complicated politics that will be centered on threatening their global profile. We're at some weird point in political discourse where if you don't talk in soundbites and actually try to have a discussion on a topic below surface level then it's frowned upon or nitpicked to death by whichever orthodoxy it conflicts with. Anyone could easily cherry pick one of the many Trump quotes literally praising Xi or Kim Jong-un and out of context pretend that means he supports them, their actions, communism, taking political prisoners, etc. but what is the point of playing these kinds of games?

                  Comment


                  • LOL - taking anything Bolton says at face value is hilarious. If you think Biden is tougher on China than Trump, we will just have to agree to disagree. I hear a bunch of apologizing and rationalization for pretty abhorrent behavior. If Biden is that "tough" in a town hall he must have a hard time talking to Xi in person with is mouth full of Xi's balls.

                    Bigger laugh is on Disney though - let's can the chick who makes a valid point and keep the dude who has patently false and more offensive statements while filming Mulan in the shadow of literal concentration camps. Won't see that on CNN though.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                      LOL - taking anything Bolton says at face value is hilarious. If you think Biden is tougher on China than Trump, we will just have to agree to disagree. I hear a bunch of apologizing and rationalization for pretty abhorrent behavior. If Biden is that "tough" in a town hall he must have a hard time talking to Xi in person with is mouth full of Xi's balls.

                      Bigger laugh is on Disney though - let's can the chick who makes a valid point and keep the dude who has patently false and more offensive statements while filming Mulan in the shadow of literal concentration camps. Won't see that on CNN though.
                      I don't think we can know yet who will be tougher on China. I will wait and see what "repercussions" and "consequences" there and compare them to what Trump did over the Uighur and Hong Kong situations. I'll also wait to see how each situation unfolds... whether they continue down the path they were on, or whether the situation improves. That's the best way to measure diplomacy.

                      And I'm not taking Bolton at face value, which is why I emphasized Trump's version of events. Trump says he was soft on the Uighur situation because he was focusing on the trade deal. Is what it is. I understand why Trump emphasized the trade situation when he campaigned on a "good and easy" trade war.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post

                        I don't think we can know yet who will be tougher on China. I will wait and see what "repercussions" and "consequences" there and compare them to what Trump did over the Uighur and Hong Kong situations. I'll also wait to see how each situation unfolds... whether they continue down the path they were on, or whether the situation improves. That's the best way to measure diplomacy.

                        And I'm not taking Bolton at face value, which is why I emphasized Trump's version of events. Trump says he was soft on the Uighur situation because he was focusing on the trade deal. Is what it is. I understand why Trump emphasized the trade situation when he campaigned on a "good and easy" trade war.
                        It's pretty tough to take someone seriously when they say Trump will have been "tougher" on China. Trump's China rhetoric was all bark and no bite.

                        If the US was going to take a rising China seriously, you'd expect to see an American President use alliances forged decades ago to build a coalition *of the willing* to stand up to China's power reaches and economic shadiness. I can't name a single time Trump met with allies and even discussed being on the same page when it came to standing up to China.

                        Instead Trump went around and systematically alienated every ally on the books like he was on a warpath to ruin our American-led post-WW2 order.

                        Obama was already trying to get the US out of Middle Eastern commitments, have the US stick around as an "off-shore balancer," and free up resources and attention in a "shift-to-China." I assume Biden will do the same and work to repair relations with Europe and other allies.....without Europe on board and re-committing to a US-led global order, fat chance that China feels corner and bows to international norms.

                        Comment


                        • Biden to keep Trump tariffs on China as leverage against ‘abusive’ trade practices


                          https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bi...on-11605132400

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post

                            I don't think we can know yet who will be tougher on China. I will wait and see what "repercussions" and "consequences" there and compare them to what Trump did over the Uighur and Hong Kong situations. I'll also wait to see how each situation unfolds... whether they continue down the path they were on, or whether the situation improves. That's the best way to measure diplomacy.

                            And I'm not taking Bolton at face value, which is why I emphasized Trump's version of events. Trump says he was soft on the Uighur situation because he was focusing on the trade deal. Is what it is. I understand why Trump emphasized the trade situation when he campaigned on a "good and easy" trade war.

                            If we want to start assigning blame, we could start with Obama, but TBH China has been doing this long before Trump took office. They weren't using special internment camps, but they were going after what they considered militants. Every one of our presidents should be very vocal about what is happening and work with the UN to end this. The NBA and their stars (Looking mostly at you LeBron) had a great opportunity to make a statement against China during the Hong Kong protests, but chose the almighty dollar over human rights.


                            In 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative was announced, a massive trade project at the heart of which is Xinjiang. In 2014, Chinese authorities announced a "People's war on terror" and local government introduced new restrictions and banned "abnormal" long beards; akin to some European countries the wearing of the burka in public places was also forbidden In 2014, the concept of "transformation through education" began to be used in contexts outside of Falun Gong through the systematic "de-extremification" campaigns.[87] Under Zhang, the Communist Party launched its "Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism" in Xinjiang.[88]

                            In August 2016, Chen Quanguo, a well-known hardline Communist Party secretary in Tibet took charge of the Xinjiang autonomous region. Chen was branded as responsible for a major component of Tibet's "subjugation" by critics

                            Comment


                            • I have no idea what Biden did this weeken or what he Tweeted.

                              This is the existence I have so longed for again for the last four years.

                              Now, to the important matters of the day: Is Joe Manchin happy?
                              It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice.

                              Comment


                              • Watching this "migrant child overflow facility" stuff come through the news is absolutely amazing.
                                Based Mullet Kid owns

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X