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.
@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.
@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.
@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?
@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.
The Brad
-
@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.
@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.
@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.
Please love yourself.
-
@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.
@Aqua-Letifer: We don't need no stinkin' evidence, gringo!
-
@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.
@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:
@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.
-
Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
-
Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
-
Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
-
-
@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:
@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.
-
Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
-
Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
-
Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
- Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
Yeah, he does.
- Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
I'm just saying, it's possible.
- Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
I'm not saying you're bad at that, I'm just saying that you and I don't really know much of anything with respect to what's really going on between the U.S. and Russia at this point. We're criticizing animal formations in the clouds in my opinion.
-
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
- Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
Yeah, he does.
- Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
I'm just saying, it's possible.
- Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
I'm not saying you're bad at that, I'm just saying that you and I don't really know much of anything with respect to what's really going on between the U.S. and Russia at this point. We're criticizing animal formations in the clouds in my opinion.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
- Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
Yeah, he does.
- Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
I'm just saying, it's possible.
- Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
I'm not saying you're bad at that, I'm just saying that you and I don't really know much of anything with respect to what's really going on between the U.S. and Russia at this point. We're criticizing animal formations in the clouds in my opinion.
If we’re going to start stop criticizing or having strong opinions about subjects that we are not completely informed on, we may as well shutter the joint or just restrict threads to funny cat videos…
-
@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.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's no football on at the moment,
Just a few minutes ago the US men's team beat Panama 5 to 1, in what you chaps call football.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's no football on at the moment,
Just a few minutes ago the US men's team beat Panama 5 to 1, in what you chaps call football.
@Copper said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's no football on at the moment,
Just a few minutes ago the US men's team beat Panama 5 to 1, in what you chaps call football.
Nah, that's soccer. A game that would be much more interesting if they let the bull back out in that pasture.
-
@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.
Putin should be in doubt . . .
I assume you meant in no doubt.
You are correct, that should read “no doubt”A hazard of typing with one finger on an iPhone.
. . . 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??
Good point. However if he is confident that a NATO response to any use chemical weapons by Russia will not include a military action of “some kind” he can and will escalate as he sees fit. In other words, he maintains the initiative. The situation is changing by the day, if not the hour, and in ways not in his favour. Hence the recent talk of focussing attention on the eastern regions and possible partitioning of Ukraine into east and west. He is creating his own off ramp. Our response should be increasing pressure to continue to draw down his forces and mitigate his imperial designs and rhetoric.
I really do not think Biden is doing that bad of a job of breaking Putin’s confidence and swagger.
-
@George-K said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
Bullshit.
I have it on good authority presidents cannot move markets.
@Jolly said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I have it on good authority presidents cannot move markets.
:couple_with_heart:
-
@Jolly said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I have it on good authority presidents cannot move markets.
:couple_with_heart:
@taiwan_girl said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Jolly said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I have it on good authority presidents cannot move markets.
:couple_with_heart:
Your teachings are catching on here TG. I will try to take a lesson. I feel many of my teachings fall on deaf ears.
