The Resident Gaffes Again
-
I would have been fine if the White House had not immediately scrambled to walk the statement back and say that was not what he meant, when it clearly was. This is not a good time for creating opportunities for misperception.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 17:03 last edited by AxtremusWell Larry, there is still no objection or denial to what I wrote …
@Mik said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I would have been fine if the White House had not immediately scrambled to walk the statement back and say that was not what he meant, when it clearly was.
… and @Mik seems to have changed his mind, from objecting Biden saying it in the first place to objecting the White House’s walking the statement back afterwards.
-
Well Larry, there is still no objection or denial to what I wrote …
@Mik said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I would have been fine if the White House had not immediately scrambled to walk the statement back and say that was not what he meant, when it clearly was.
… and @Mik seems to have changed his mind, from objecting Biden saying it in the first place to objecting the White House’s walking the statement back afterwards.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 17:20 last edited by@Axtremus said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
Well Larry, there is still objection or denial to what I wrote …
@Mik said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I would have been fine if the White House had not immediately scrambled to walk the statement back and say that was not what he meant, when it clearly was.
… and @Mik seems to have changed his mind, from objecting Biden saying it in the first place to objecting the White House’s walking the statement back afterwards.
Once you shit on the windshield turning on the wipers just makes things worse. Your party is being led by a fool who just shit on the windshield. He is being cleaned up after by fools, and defended by fools. No point in wasting time trying to explain anything to one of the fools.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
So we're ignoring the fact that he threatened to retaliate with chemical weapons if Russia used them first? While we are not actively engaged in this war?
So we're ignoring the fact that he just basically told the 82nd Airborn to get ready to see Hell?
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 18:37 last edited by Renauda@George-K said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
So we're ignoring the fact that he threatened to retaliate with chemical weapons if Russia used them first? While we are not actively engaged in this war?
So we're ignoring the fact that he just basically told the 82nd Airborn to get ready to see Hell?
Biden’s remark of responding “in kind” should Russia use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine is an appropriate statement. Putin should be in doubt that use of chemical weapons could result in an all out NATO military response in support of Ukraine that will prevail. In kind” could mean any number of responses other than chemical, all of which would be swift and severe. From here on it’s up to Putin to govern his actions not the other way round as has been the case.
As for preparing the 82 Airborne for combat, that’s part of what they signed up for when they joined.
-
So you folks generally agree that Putin should not stay in power, but you would just rather Biden not say that out loud, is that right?
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 19:06 last edited by@Axtremus: So you folks generally agree that Putin should not stay in power, but you would just rather Biden not say that out loud, is that right?
My first thought also, Ax. I'd rather Biden hadn't been so shrill, but I agree with Renauda that it needed to be said.
-
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 19:19 last edited by
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
-
@George-K said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
So we're ignoring the fact that he threatened to retaliate with chemical weapons if Russia used them first? While we are not actively engaged in this war?
So we're ignoring the fact that he just basically told the 82nd Airborn to get ready to see Hell?
Biden’s remark of responding “in kind” should Russia use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine is an appropriate statement. Putin should be in doubt that use of chemical weapons could result in an all out NATO military response in support of Ukraine that will prevail. In kind” could mean any number of responses other than chemical, all of which would be swift and severe. From here on it’s up to Putin to govern his actions not the other way round as has been the case.
As for preparing the 82 Airborne for combat, that’s part of what they signed up for when they joined.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 19:57 last edited by Catseye3@Renauda: Biden’s remark of responding “in kind” should Russia use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine is an appropriate statement.
I agree, but not by the likes of Biden. Such a statement should have no scintilla of political suckupery. Anyone who contemplates making such a statement for such a reason proves himself frighteningly incapable of standing up convincingly.
Reagan's 'tear down that wall' rang with power and great credibility. Is this US the same as that US?
Putin should be in doubt . . .
I assume you meant in no doubt.
. . . that use of chemical weapons could result in an all out NATO military response in support of Ukraine that will prevail.
Yes, if we're going to respond, then let's do it unmistakably. But how does this comport with your post the other day that such a response might/would compel Putin to heighten his aggression? What then?
From here on it’s up to Putin to govern his actions not the other way round as has been the case.
Yeah, but what if he doesn't?
I wish I had a clearer idea of where the American people lie in all of this -- without a lot of politicized claptrap about left vs right social shit gumming up the terrain. How well versed are we in the issue? And how prepared are we for whatever may transpire? Plainly, do we have the balls to follow through on whatever our sabre-ratting may lead to? Again, a clear visage without a lot of wish-think.
Who has the wisdom? Who do we listen to?
Also, I'd like to ask Putin, why now? If he's moving on Ukraine because he feels the time is advantageous, how is he framing the advantage in his own mind? I feel like it's important to have a clear understanding of what Putin wants right now.
I wish I knew more.
-
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 20:25 last edited by
Be careful how far you want to go. MAD existed for a reason.
-
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 20:41 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 21:47 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 21:49 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
-
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 21:53 last edited by
I don’t think this war is going to change much based on anything Joe Biden says, to be honest. It could change if the US decides to actually do something concrete.
It’s not really about Biden.
A shocking concept, I know.
-
I don’t think this war is going to change much based on anything Joe Biden says, to be honest. It could change if the US decides to actually do something concrete.
It’s not really about Biden.
A shocking concept, I know.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 22:02 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I don’t think this war is going to change much based on anything Joe Biden says, to be honest. It could change if the US decides to actually do something concrete.
It’s not really about Biden.
A shocking concept, I know.
Well, we have a part to play in that Poots is especially pissed that we involve ourselves in European matters. But overall, yes, this isn't our show.
-
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 22:09 last edited by
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
-
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 22:16 last edited by@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
-
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 22:19 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
What the Commander in Chief says about how America will respond if Russia uses certain weapons seems germane.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
What the Commander in Chief says about how America will respond if Russia uses certain weapons seems germane.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 22:42 last edited by@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
What the Commander in Chief says about how America will respond if Russia uses certain weapons seems germane.
Yes but not your personal opinion on a topic that's unique in its complexity of information that you also don't have access to.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 22:44 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
Unfortunately, neither does Biden.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 22:52 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea. And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
-
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 22:54 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
There's no football on at the moment, so people can't opine convincingly about what a hopeless fool Bill Belichick or somebody is.
I was only joking
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea. And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
wrote on 27 Mar 2022, 22:56 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea.
How so?
And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
If we can presume Trump is smart enough to play 12-D chess without any evidence, then suggesting this might also be a strategy is not out of line. After all, I have just as much evidence for that as you do that he gaffed. Which to say none. Literally at all.
