☆~PoLOLtics~☆

[Otis Nice]

Fair enough. Back to mud slangin' and shitposting I guess.

 

Awww....the ONE time you don't click, "quote".

 

tl;dr

 

: gabe :

 

:gabe:

 

Truth be told work just got busy and if I'm going to read something I want to take in I'd like to be able to focus. I plan on reading it later.

 

Also, this is The Kitchen. It's literally a sub-forum dedicated to shit posting.

[brent1976]

Not claiming anything or taking a stance. Simply sharing a vidjya. Just want to put this disclaimer out to hopefully prevent assumptions from being made.

 

 

Tell me Facebooks back up without telling me Facebooks back up.

[Otis Nice]

Tell me Facebooks back up without telling me Facebooks back up.

 

That was actually posted when it was down yesterday.

[Mace1647545504]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/taiwan-china-invasion-biden-1393d976-6c47-4954-9927-374ae967c1a9.html

 

On another serious matter, we cannot understate the dangerous course the world is going on with China’s promise to “reunify” with a sovereign Taiwan. I’m worried where this will go.

 

It can really bad as we have always said we would defend taiwan. My question is why must we defend them? Is it because they are a democracy?

China continues to push the envelope..where will it all end?

[Mace1647545504]

While it's concerning, I'm more worried about the disaster that will occur at home if another MAGA candidate wins the presidency.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/bannon-fires-shock-troops-next-gop-white-house-n1280591

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

Yes because joe and co. are doing such a great job..smh

[Geeto67]

Yes because joe and co. are doing such a great job..smh

 

Still waiting for you to provide metrics on how he is underperforming.

 

It can really bad as we have always said we would defend taiwan. My question is why must we defend them? Is it because they are a democracy?

China continues to push the envelope..where will it all end?

 

Yes. No. Maybe. It has the potential to be another WWI situation where interests and alliances can drag everybody into the fray. Or it could be something we walk away from wringing our hands and posturing but doing nothing about just to save face. Too early to tell.

 

As to why we would defend them, the US is heavily invested in Taiwan, specifically $17.5 Billion in Foreign Direct Investment from the US to Taiwan, plus the good and services trade which represents $103 billion, and $85 Billion in two way trade (our 10th largest trading partner). Close to half a million jobs directly rely on trade with Taiwan. This isn't political despite the window dressing. China is fucking with our money.

[10phone2]

please show us metrics how he's successful. pic a topic and don't avoid the economy/inflation while your at it. btw I do agree with you regarding china.

[Mace1647545504]

I figured we were heavily invested in them but china has become very capitalistic and do you think china would interfere with that?

Or do you think they would just enjoy the infusion of capital ?

[Geeto67]

I figured we were heavily invested in them but china has become very capitalistic and do you think china would interfere with that?

Or do you think they would just enjoy the infusion of capital ?

 

Both maybe. It's a double incentive for China to keep heading toward reclaiming Taiwan. It fucks with the US, and they get the infusion of capital when they succeed. Plus they are following the US model of weaponizing the trade industry to gain leverage in international treaties. Other than the fact that Europe and the western world may actually try to stop them and lead to a hot war, I don't see a down side for China.

 

we know that they are preparing for the possibility of a hot war because their, and Russia's, weapons programs (including it's nuclear missle program) have been ramping up. If they do try and take Taiwan, best case scenario could be another cold war.

[Geeto67]

please show us metrics how he's successful. pic a topic and don't avoid the economy/inflation while your at it. btw I do agree with you regarding china.

 

I'm not the one commenting whether he is or he isn't, Mace is and I would like to see if it has any actual merit or if it is "just a feeling" because he doesn't like the guy.

 

So far in my experience those taking pot shots at Biden don't really have anything substantive. It's just repeating a conservative talking point because they just don't like the guy. Interestingly They seem to be the same people that accused people of disliking trump just because "orange man bad" despite a large body of objective metrics.

 

Like you Chris, you were exactly that guy who accused people of just not liking the guy despite many of us actually laying out real metrics as to how he was doing poorly, and now you are going to join that club?

 

I am really looking for a real answer here because I really want to understand what's important and what's not from a policy perspective from his detractors. So this question from you above (which I hope to god you didn't think you were being clever when you wrote because that would be really sad) is not just pointless, it's intellectually dishonest.

[Mace1647545504]

Kerry..it isn't that i don't him..i do ...he seems like a genuinely nice guy whereas trump didn't seem like a nice guy but you knew where he stood.

But biden seems like a puppet...doing whatever his handlers tell him he must do

Where is he failing ..

 

The withdrawal of troops..it needed to happen but was poorly planed

 

The continual gaffes in speaking,,this is why his handlers don't let him improvise

 

The 3.5 trillion the dems are trying to push on us..he need to figure out what we need and don't need but from what i hear isn't directing it

 

I won't blame the drone strike but if a pub had been in office they would have..as this is a military failure not a prez failure..imho..but as i said before miley needs to work more on his military and less on his book deals

[Furloaf]

Anyone know what makes hunter bidens art worth $75,000 to $500,000?

 

Because someone will pay that much?

 

What would make someone pay that much for a crack head's crappy art? He's not an established artist or has any prior art from what I know. Seems sus.

[Geeto67]

But biden seems like a puppet...doing whatever his handlers tell him he must do

 

What "Handlers"? This has been debunked many times that the office of the president doesn't have "handlers", they have a staff that answers to the president. This is part of a bogus myth that only conservative media is pushing to undermine his authority while continuing the fear of a deep state after the last administration actually proved that there not only isn't a deep state but that if one needed to be formed it would be impossible to hide.

 

There is no evidence to support this at all, and honestly repeating this nonsense hurts anybody's credibility. I mean, how can you take anybody seriously when they repeat a known and obvious lie.

 

 

Where is he failing ..

 

The withdrawal of troops..it needed to happen but was poorly planed

 

The continual gaffes in speaking,,this is why his handlers don't let him improvise

 

The 3.5 trillion the dems are trying to push on us..he need to figure out what we need and don't need but from what i hear isn't directing it

 

I won't blame the drone strike but if a pub had been in office they would have..as this is a military failure not a prez failure..imho..but as i said before miley needs to work more on his military and less on his book deals

 

thank you. Are these 4 items all that is important to you and no other metrics matter? or are these the only items you see and looking at other metrics might sway your opinion?

[Mace1647545504]

Again the 4th unless he knew about it isn't presidential

 

The debt is the major one..

 

Who has debunked the handler theory..the people in charge?? not credible.. imo

[Geeto67]

Again the 4th unless he knew about it isn't presidential

 

The debt is the major one.[/Quote]

 

So the debt is pretty much the crux of what you care about? The Debt Ceiling was raised 18 times under Ronald Reagan, does that mean you consider him a failure in his presidency?

 

Who has debunked the handler theory..the people in charge?? not credible.. imo

 

Is this a serious statement? At the top executive level, every employee is a matter of public record, you can research it for yourself, here I will make it easy for you, here is a list of Biden's Cabinet and Staff: just point to the people who are "handlers"

 

https://www.akingump.com/a/web/wkdSnZXdawTidmrGBQs16M/biden-administration-cabinet-and-staff.pdf

 

in fact here is what some of them make:

https://ballotpedia.org/Biden_White_House_staff

 

Also, probably should ask this question - what do you think a "Handler" is or does?

[Gergwheel1647545492]

So the debt is pretty much the crux of what you care about? The Debt Ceiling was raised 18 times under Ronald Reagan, does that mean you consider him a failure in his presidency?

 

 

 

Is this a serious statement? At the top executive level, every employee is a matter of public record, you can research it for yourself, here I will make it easy for you, here is a list of Biden's Cabinet and Staff: just point to the people who are "handlers"

 

https://www.akingump.com/a/web/wkdSnZXdawTidmrGBQs16M/biden-administration-cabinet-and-staff.pdf

 

in fact here is what some of them make:

https://ballotpedia.org/Biden_White_House_staff

 

Also, probably should ask this question - what do you think a "Handler" is or does?

 

LMGTFY:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/552492-jen-psaki-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud-about-joe-biden

[Geeto67]

LMGTFY:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/552492-jen-psaki-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud-about-joe-biden

 

"BY JOE CONCHA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/10/21 08:00 AM EDT 1,609THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL"

 

 

She didn't say "handler", that's again someone's opinion (albeit wrongly) about what Jen Psaki's job role is.

[Gergwheel1647545492]

"BY JOE CONCHA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/10/21 08:00 AM EDT 1,609THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL"

 

 

She didn't say "handler", that's again someone's opinion (albeit wrongly) about what Jen Psaki's job role is.

 

I'm sorry you didn't like the answers to your questions.

[Geeto67]

I'm sorry you didn't like the answers to your questions.

 

you didn't answer the question - you just shared more of the myth.

 

If you do want to answer the question: Tell me what the official job role of a handler is.

 

Jen Psaki is the White House Press Secretary. She is a spokesperson and advisor to the president and she reports to him. there is nothing in her job role that suggests she is even an informal "handler" (whatever that means).

[Gergwheel1647545492]

you didn't answer the question - you just shared more of the myth.

 

If you do want to answer the question: Tell me what the official job role of a handler is.

 

Jen Psaki is the White House Press Secretary. She is a spokesperson and advisor to the president and she reports to him. there is nothing in her job role that suggests she is even an informal "handler" (whatever that means).

 

I'm not sure why you are playing dumb, but I will keep feeding you I guess.

 

A handler isn't just 1 person for all of his presidency, its the person that has asked him to be somewhere specific. Like if he is speaking to house democrats then it would make sense that Nancy Pelosi has asked him to be there and has asked him to speak on certain things and weather or not to take questions or not. So in this case Nancy would be the "handler". That's just my opinion though, I could be wrong, which I have no problem admitting, unlike some other people.

[Mallard]

It's just ironic at this point that a Trump fan thinks Biden is failing as a President because of speaking gaffs and government spending. Keep in mind that the debt limit needs to be raised again because of all of Trumps spending, nothing Biden is proposing is contributing to that. All this Republican outrage over the debt limit is political grandstanding and if they fail to do anything the effects could be disatrous.

 

Also, Trump used the stock market as a measure of his own success, but the market under Biden's first 9 months has trounced the returns under Trunp during the same period in his presidency. (FWIW, I don't use the market as the measure of a president)

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[greg1647545532]

So in this case Nancy would be the "handler".

 

You and Mace aren't making your point particularly well, and Kerry is being obtuse about it anyway.

 

Any executive is going to be surrounded by assistants, advisors, and speech writers, and no executive is going to be surrounded by more people than the president. So yeah, he's "handled," in the sense that a team of people tell him where to go, who he's meeting with, what he's wearing, how he's getting there, and in many cases, they're putting either crib notes or a straight up pre-written speech into his hand.

 

At the end of Reagan's presidency, there's a good chance he had no idea where he was at any given point and was just a talking head for this apparatus.

 

The argument you and Mace are trying to make is that Biden is currently at Reagan levels of puppetry. I don't think there's any evidence of this, which makes this a baseless accusation, but that's what you're trying to say.

 

People said the same thing about Bush. I didn't buy it then, either. Trump was a puppet about half the time -- you could 100% tell when he was regurgitating what his swarm of handlers wanted him to say, and when he'd go off script. Some people liked that about him, that he would "get real" from time to time. Of course, every time he went off script he sounded like an idiot, so your MMV.

[Gergwheel1647545492]

You and Mace aren't making your point particularly well, and Kerry is being obtuse about it anyway.

 

Any executive is going to be surrounded by assistants, advisors, and speech writers, and no executive is going to be surrounded by more people than the president. So yeah, he's "handled," in the sense that a team of people tell him where to go, who he's meeting with, what he's wearing, how he's getting there, and in many cases, they're putting either crib notes or a straight up pre-written speech into his hand.

 

At the end of Reagan's presidency, there's a good chance he had no idea where he was at any given point and was just a talking head for this apparatus.

 

The argument you and Mace are trying to make is that Biden is currently at Reagan levels of puppetry. I don't think there's any evidence of this, which makes this a baseless accusation, but that's what you're trying to say.

 

People said the same thing about Bush. I didn't buy it then, either. Trump was a puppet about half the time -- you could 100% tell when he was regurgitating what his swarm of handlers wanted him to say, and when he'd go off script. Some people liked that about him, that he would "get real" from time to time. Of course, every time he went off script he sounded like an idiot, so your MMV.

 

I am just trying to answer dumb questions while I'm bored at work. I am in no way a Trump or Biden fan, I hate them both equally

[Geeto67]

You and Mace aren't making your point particularly well, and Kerry is being obtuse about it anyway.[/Quote]

 

I'm being a little intentionally obtuse because I am trying to lead them to the point that "Handler" isn't a real job, or job title, or anything with a standard set of expectations. It's one of those terms people use without knowing anything real about it, but they kinda sorta think they have the jist of it, which is why it is ripe for conspiracy bullshit. You can shove any activity you don't like in there and blame the "handlers" because nobody really knows what a "handler is or does" because there isn't one. It's nonsense.

 

 

Any executive is going to be surrounded by assistants, advisors, and speech writers, and no executive is going to be surrounded by more people than the president. So yeah, he's "handled," in the sense that a team of people tell him where to go, who he's meeting with, what he's wearing, how he's getting there, and in many cases, they're putting either crib notes or a straight up pre-written speech into his hand.

 

This, only I will add that the term "handler" as it is colloquially used usually means the person has some authority over the person they are handling. for instance, on a movie set a studio might assign a project manager, sometimes referred to as a "handler", to a particular celebrity whose job it is to hold that celebrity to schedule. In that case the "Handler" is enforcing a contractual obligation on the Actor and therefore has leverage over their decisions.

 

 

At the end of Reagan's presidency, there's a good chance he had no idea where he was at any given point and was just a talking head for this apparatus.

 

The argument you and Mace are trying to make is that Biden is currently at Reagan levels of puppetry. I don't think there's any evidence of this, which makes this a baseless accusation, but that's what you're trying to say.

 

People said the same thing about Bush. I didn't buy it then, either. Trump was a puppet about half the time -- you could 100% tell when he was regurgitating what his swarm of handlers wanted him to say, and when he'd go off script. Some people liked that about him, that he would "get real" from time to time. Of course, every time he went off script he sounded like an idiot, so your MMV.

 

This is the insidiousness of use of the term "handler" - despite not having an official definition or role, there is this popular misconception that a "handler" is keeping information from the person, or somehow otherwise interfering with the decision making of the person they are handling. This is just patently false, but it isn't stopping Fox news and other conservative news sources from furthering that narrative.

 

Basically if you are talking about how Biden is a puppet of his "handlers", it's a pretty big red flag that you are a sucker regurgitating conservative propaganda and not someone with a in informed or credible opinion.

[Mace1647545504]

I'm not talking about the debt ceiling..I believe i specifically mentioned the 3.5 trillion.

 

WHY can't either party write a singular bill..(example..we need highways fixed) a bill for it.

 

Yes, I know why because you need to include pork to get others to sign on but it isn't right.

 

I don't know how much the 3.5t bill will actually help people. like the 1t bill is only 20% for the infrastructure..the rest pork.