~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[tech37]

I suppose anything is possible. I think the two situations are vastly different so to suppose a similar outcome is not necessarily supported by any facts with regard to the current problem.

Not to belabor this but... yes, the situations are different but the actors making decisions are the same. That is the point.

[MDlaxfan76]

Obviously not. Biden muttered what he was thinking, the reporter didn't hear him, but others did, so Biden called him to apologize within an hour. Good conversation according to reporter. Civility.

It's ridiculous to compare this with Trump's daily barrage of incivility.

Again, how can you possibly say that when Biden has hardly participated in press conferences?

Hilarious. It's not just about press conferences my man, although Biden has done more solo press conferences already than Trump did in his first two years. It's also about statements, tweets, phone calls, etc. The messaging coming from the WH is hardly divisive or uncivil, especially compared to the previous administration.

What's hilarious is you still don't get it. I agree with all the things you've listed about Trump, I didn't like it either, especially the nonstop tweets. But we're discussing Biden now and he showed his true colors. If you believe Biden isn't divisive, you're welcome to that opinion but IMO, you're coming from a different planet.

or perhaps, your view is that one coming from yet another distant planet? Depends where you started, perhaps? or how you arrived at your current view.

As for the question you asked about the Russia-Ukraine decision-making, I suspect that the final call comes from the top when its time to make a decision. I'm no Kreskin so that's all I've got at this point in time. I can only hope its the right one.

As for decorum, I'll take the Biden version over that of the Orange Cheeto anytime, anyplace and anywhere. Not even close.

From the top? Like the Afghanistan pull out debacle? (so that you don't get upset, I believe it was the right decision to get out but was a completely botched undertaking) That was mostly Biden's decision right?

I hope that mdlax is right about Biden receiving good councel re his latest foray into foreign policy.

I don't get your comparison. Sorry.

Like you,, I hope Biden is getting good advice about what to do. I also think his past experience in foreign affairs may be helpful to a good outcome.

The comparison to Afghanistan withdrawal does not seem relevant to this situation so you pretty much lost me there.

No dispute from me that the Afghan withdrawal situation was not well done regardless of withdrawal being the right decision in the first place. .

The discussion focused on decision making and who is involved. Biden made the AFG decision pretty much on his own and that leaves me feeling less than confident re this new situation where the stakes are much higher. Still lost?

I suppose anything is possible. I think the two situations are vastly different so to suppose a similar outcome is not necessarily supported by any facts with regard to the current problem. That said, you are entitled to your opinion.

Appreciating the civil discussion.

Tech, let me be clear that while I (and you and others) hope Biden's getting good counsel, and I suspect he is, the reality is that there are no easy answers as to what will work and what won't in navigating through this crisis...of Putin's making.

A decision appears to have been made to not threaten direct military response, indeed take that off the table altogether, a decision supported by both sides of the aisle and by allies. So, Biden has an array of possible responses to counter Putin's aggression, but these can only be maximally effective if allies work together, and that's a wild card, along with Putin's weighing his own options and trade-offs. Many variables out of the US' control.

So, simplifying, the US is trying to make as clear as possible that there are severe consequences ahead for Putin and Russia is they take the actions threatened. They are trying to rally allies to choices that will cost the allies more than it will cost the US to impose.

Tough gig.

[Kismet]

I suppose anything is possible. I think the two situations are vastly different so to suppose a similar outcome is not necessarily supported by any facts with regard to the current problem.

Not to belabor this but... yes, the situations are different but the actors making decisions are the same. That is the point.

To you perhaps. Not sure that applies to everyone else. But that's my opinion on the situation. You are free to disagree and I understand the source of your skepticism. I just don't share it at this time .

[MDlaxfan76]

I suppose anything is possible. I think the two situations are vastly different so to suppose a similar outcome is not necessarily supported by any facts with regard to the current problem.

Not to belabor this but... yes, the situations are different but the actors making decisions are the same. That is the point.

On this, I think everyone in this discussion currently is agreeing that the basic answer to withdraw was the right one. We can quibble over process, timing, etc and certainly execution tragedies, but we're agreeing that we needed to end it.

And sure, some in the Admin didn't want to end it. No date certain, no final commitment to leave.

And we can't prove any counterfactuals...but what we do know is that the Taliban were prepared to continue to force the issue faster and more than our own preference, given the momentum started during the prior Admin.

In the immediate term, it looks ugly and mismanaged...and surely errors were made. But the test of this action and decision is likely to really be only reasonably assessed a decade or more from now, with more perspective. We may conclude that it was an awful decision, or we may conclude that it was the right one, albeit imperfect, as are nearly any end of war withdrawals. My hunch is that the assessment will be that it should have been done nearly a decade sooner. At least I hope that's the conclusion with more hindsight.

[a fan]

Obviously not. Biden muttered what he was thinking, the reporter didn't hear him, but others did, so Biden called him to apologize within an hour. Good conversation according to reporter. Civility.

It's ridiculous to compare this with Trump's daily barrage of incivility.

Again, how can you possibly say that when Biden has hardly participated in press conferences?

Hilarious. It's not just about press conferences my man, although Biden has done more solo press conferences already than Trump did in his first two years. It's also about statements, tweets, phone calls, etc. The messaging coming from the WH is hardly divisive or uncivil, especially compared to the previous administration.

What's hilarious is you still don't get it. I agree with all the things you've listed about Trump, I didn't like it either, especially the nonstop tweets. But we're discussing Biden now and he showed his true colors. If you believe Biden isn't divisive, you're welcome to that opinion but IMO, you're coming from a different planet.

or perhaps, your view is that one coming from yet another distant planet? Depends where you started, perhaps? or how you arrived at your current view.

As for the question you asked about the Russia-Ukraine decision-making, I suspect that the final call comes from the top when its time to make a decision. I'm no Kreskin so that's all I've got at this point in time. I can only hope its the right one.

As for decorum, I'll take the Biden version over that of the Orange Cheeto anytime, anyplace and anywhere. Not even close.

From the top? Like the Afghanistan pull out debacle? (so that you don't get upset, I believe it was the right decision to get out but was a completely botched undertaking) That was mostly Biden's decision right?

Yes. It was his call.

But I'm wondering if we were asking the impossible (I criticized the pull out at the time). 13 died in the pull out, right?

In the last three years, that was pretty much par for deaths in Afghanistan (21, 11, 13). So if Biden had "taken his time to get it right"? History tells us that an extra year would have led to about the same US deaths from general operations. Yes, it could have been less. But it also could have been more.

And I think we all agree, that if we left if to the US Generals? We would CLAIM we pulled out....and left a residual force.

So maybe we were asking too much? I don't know. I'm not happy about those 13 deaths.

[tech37]

Tech, let me be clear that while I (and you and others) hope Biden's getting good counsel, and I suspect he is, the reality is that there are no easy answers as to what will work and what won't in navigating through this crisis...of Putin's making.

A decision appears to have been made to not threaten direct military response, indeed take that off the table altogether, a decision supported by both sides of the aisle and by allies. So, Biden has an array of possible responses to counter Putin's aggression, but these can only be maximally effective if allies work together, and that's a wild card, along with Putin's weighing his own options and trade-offs. Many variables out of the US' control.

So, simplifying, the US is trying to make as clear as possible that there are severe consequences ahead for Putin and Russia is they take the actions threatened. They are trying to rally allies to choices that will cost the allies more than it will cost the US to impose.

Tough gig.

Not that tough IMHO. Any severe consequences should include anything but military. If non-military measures don't work, then let the chips fall where they will. We're in no position to get into a hot war with nuclear-armed Russia, not over Ukraine anyway.

[MDlaxfan76]

Tech, let me be clear that while I (and you and others) hope Biden's getting good counsel, and I suspect he is, the reality is that there are no easy answers as to what will work and what won't in navigating through this crisis...of Putin's making.

A decision appears to have been made to not threaten direct military response, indeed take that off the table altogether, a decision supported by both sides of the aisle and by allies. So, Biden has an array of possible responses to counter Putin's aggression, but these can only be maximally effective if allies work together, and that's a wild card, along with Putin's weighing his own options and trade-offs. Many variables out of the US' control.

So, simplifying, the US is trying to make as clear as possible that there are severe consequences ahead for Putin and Russia is they take the actions threatened. They are trying to rally allies to choices that will cost the allies more than it will cost the US to impose.

Tough gig.

Not that tough IMHO. Any severe consequences should include anything but military. If non-military measures don't work, then let the chips fall where they will. We're in no position to get into a hot war with nuclear-armed Russia, not over Ukraine anyway.

An awful lot of folks are going to die, lose their homes, lose their liberty if Putin moves forward. So, I'm not dismissing the toughness of the issue at hand.

I'm also not dismissing how difficult it will be to persuade allies to incur more costs from the sanctions response than we do, yet sign on with us enough for them to actually strangle Russia enough to send the message that it was a colossal mistake.

Moreover, the effectiveness of that response and the perception of that effectiveness could be very important in other regions of the world. A whole bunch of adversaries and competitors are watching.

so "tough gig".

[a fan]

Tech, let me be clear that while I (and you and others) hope Biden's getting good counsel, and I suspect he is, the reality is that there are no easy answers as to what will work and what won't in navigating through this crisis...of Putin's making.

A decision appears to have been made to not threaten direct military response, indeed take that off the table altogether, a decision supported by both sides of the aisle and by allies. So, Biden has an array of possible responses to counter Putin's aggression, but these can only be maximally effective if allies work together, and that's a wild card, along with Putin's weighing his own options and trade-offs. Many variables out of the US' control.

So, simplifying, the US is trying to make as clear as possible that there are severe consequences ahead for Putin and Russia is they take the actions threatened. They are trying to rally allies to choices that will cost the allies more than it will cost the US to impose.

Tough gig.

Not that tough IMHO. Any severe consequences should include anything but military. If non-military measures don't work, then let the chips fall where they will. We're in no position to get into a hot war with nuclear-armed Russia, not over Ukraine anyway.

+1

Putin can't do this. If he does, he's done. Because it's not gonna be like Crimea. It's going to be bloody as hell.

And because of that, the West will bring down the economic hammer, imho.

OS is on to something, in that I can see Putin invading a PART of Ukraine, and leaving the rest alone.

[old salt]

OS is on to something, in that I can see Putin invading a PART of Ukraine, and leaving the rest alone.

That's not my prediction, it's just one possibility which must be considered.
We still don't know how capable Ukraine's defenses are & if they will stand & fight.
Russia's latest force disposition would allow for massive air strikes & a quick thrust toward Kyiv, which could draw Ukrainian forces to defend their capital, making it easier for Russia to take the area in E & SE Ukraine which connects Crimea to Russia & has the largest ethnic Russian population.

We still don't know if Ukrainian nationalism is real & if it leads to standing & fighting to defend their nation & then mount an insurgency.
We don't know if Putin's goal is topple the current govt & install his new leader, while taking a bite out of E/SE Ukraine, or gain control of all of Ukraine & annex the entire nation back into Mother Russia. Putin may calculate that this will be his best & only opportunity to go for the full monty. Putin has better intel than we have on the strength of Ukrainian nationalism & their resolve to fight for democracy & independence -- on their own.

[MDlaxfan76]

OS is on to something, in that I can see Putin invading a PART of Ukraine, and leaving the rest alone.

That's not my prediction, it's just one possibility which must be considered.
We still don't know how capable Ukraine's defenses are & if they will stand & fight.
Russia's latest force disposition would allow for massive air strikes & a quick thrust toward Kyiv, which could draw Ukrainian forces to defend their capital, making it easier for Russia to take the area in E & SE Ukraine which connects Crimea to Russia & has the largest ethnic Russian population.

We still don't know if Ukrainian nationalism is real & if it leads to standing & fighting to defend their nation & then mount an insurgency.
We don't know if Putin's goal is topple the current govt & install his new leader, while taking a bite out of E/SE Ukraine, or gain control of all of Ukraine & annex the entire nation back into Mother Russia. Putin may calculate that this will be his best & only opportunity to go for the full monty. Putin has better intel than we have on the strength of Ukrainian nationalism & their resolve to fight for democracy & independence -- on their own.

Makes sense.
Though like you, very hard to predict.

I'm not so sure we can dismiss "Ukrainian nationalism" as non-existent or unworthy if they don't manage to stop the Russian forces in their tracks and/or make it very bloody and costly. given that there's no cavalry coming to the rescue. It's one thing to fight when you think you have a shot at winning, even if only over the long haul, or if you have mountain caves to fall back into, or Pakistan to cross the border into, but quite another if you don't think you have a shot at winning. We're told that they've been training and arming for this since 2014, so maybe they're prepared to fight hard and long. But when all hellfire is raining down and you don't have air superiority...and no caves...

I have zero insight into the resilience of the Ukrainian side, just worry that they are in a very difficult position, and quite agree with you that Putin likely has far better insight....as you say "on their own".


Image result for ukrainian landscape
The country consists almost entirely of level plains at an average elevation of 574 feet (175 metres) above sea level. Mountainous areas such as the Ukrainian Carpathians and Crimean Mountains occur only on the country's borders and account for barely 5 percent of its area.

[a fan]

That's not my prediction, it's just one possibility which must be considered.
We still don't know how capable Ukraine's defenses are & if they will stand & fight.

Got it.

[tech37]

"like reading tea leaves"? That's reassuring

[youthathletics]

"like reading tea leaves"? That's reassuring

What a stupid SOB.

[kramerica.inc]

Biden's federal reserve nominee supports the formation of a US Slavery and Reparations Committee.

https://www.law360.com/articles/1459736 ... -paperwork

[kramerica.inc]

Biden Undermined Faith in Elections
The president is heightening the distrust in democracy that he promised to reduce.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cy/621398/

Joe Biden, who ran for president promising to restore trust in American democracy, recently undermined it. It’s not what he was elected to do, and he needs to repair the damage.

During his marathon press conference last week, Biden was asked whether the failure of voting-rights legislation in Congress would render this year’s elections illegitimate.

“I’m not saying it’s going to be legit, as the increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is a direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,” Biden responded. Because the reforms didn’t pass, by implication the midterm elections later this year may indeed be illegitimate.

The White House tried to clean up the president’s comments on the legitimacy of our elections. Press Secretary Jen Psaki tweeted out a statement saying “@potus was not casting doubt on the legitimacy of the 2022 election.” But the harm was done.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the reforms Republicans have been pushing in several states, the notion that they qualify as “voter suppression” is at best questionable, and Biden’s claim that they amount to a “21st-century Jim Crow assault” is indefensible. The new Georgia law, for instance, left intact no-excuse absentee balloting and actually expanded in-person early voting. In fact, the state has more early-voting days (17) than New York or New Jersey (nine each). According to PolitiFact, liberal New York has, in this and other respects, more restrictive voting laws than Georgia. And according to the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, even after the passage of Georgia’s new election law, Georgia is among the top states in voter accessibility.

[kramerica.inc]

Channeling his best Trump.

Biden: "Germany is completely, totally, thoroughly reliable"
https://www.axios.com/biden-germany-all ... c4ac0.html

[MDlaxfan76]

Biden Undermined Faith in Elections
The president is heightening the distrust in democracy that he promised to reduce.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cy/621398/

Joe Biden, who ran for president promising to restore trust in American democracy, recently undermined it. It’s not what he was elected to do, and he needs to repair the damage.

During his marathon press conference last week, Biden was asked whether the failure of voting-rights legislation in Congress would render this year’s elections illegitimate.

“I’m not saying it’s going to be legit, as the increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is a direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,” Biden responded. Because the reforms didn’t pass, by implication the midterm elections later this year may indeed be illegitimate.

The White House tried to clean up the president’s comments on the legitimacy of our elections. Press Secretary Jen Psaki tweeted out a statement saying “@potus was not casting doubt on the legitimacy of the 2022 election.” But the harm was done.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the reforms Republicans have been pushing in several states, the notion that they qualify as “voter suppression” is at best questionable, and Biden’s claim that they amount to a “21st-century Jim Crow assault” is indefensible. The new Georgia law, for instance, left intact no-excuse absentee balloting and actually expanded in-person early voting. In fact, the state has more early-voting days (17) than New York or New Jersey (nine each). According to PolitiFact, liberal New York has, in this and other respects, more restrictive voting laws than Georgia. And according to the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, even after the passage of Georgia’s new election law, Georgia is among the top states in voter accessibility.

It's not clear that you read/understood the point of the article...or you are trolling with posting just this excerpt...

[kramerica.inc]

It's not clear that you understand what trolling is. I published the headline and lede to an Atlantic article.

[youthathletics]

Just post under a new username and he'll no longer be so accusatory towards you, hell... he may even agree with you, but dont hold your breath.

[kramerica.inc]

Just post under a new username and he'll no longer be so accusatory towards you, hell... he may even agree with you, but dont hold your breath.

It's likely just a reflex. "Gotta respond to them all!"