-->
@n8nrgmi
The world either sees Biden as a clown to laugh at, or nuclear war is inevitable.
Which side is divisive?
Posts
Total:
57
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump was literally laughed at on the world stage, and was the subject of late night satire globally his entire presidency, but sure, Biden is the one they are laughing at.
The ability to make up a preferable reality is quite impressive.
-->
@Double_R
Hope you are ready to pay to protect Taiwan then.
-->
@Double_R
Biden is the one they are laughing at.
Only the people that matter globally are laughing at Biden, I really don't care about actors and celebrity's opinions.
We can only pray Xi Xin Ping is laughing off the threat to launch American nukes over Taiwan.
-->
@Greyparrot
We can only pray Xi Xin Ping is laughing off the threat to launch American nukes over Taiwan.
Let me guess… suddenly, you have a problem with a president threatening nuclear war?
-->
@Double_R
Only when the country he is threatening can effortlessly stomp us back to the stone age.
Again, is Taiwan worth losing your Nation over? Because that's who you elected. You already see from the gas prices that he keeps his promises.
This is one presidential promise I would rather he lied about or was making a clown funny. Threatening to invade another major country over a small territory that has no Americans in it isn't what I expect from an American president. Defend America First.
When America responds to Chinese launching test missiles with the intent to destroy Americans on American soil, then I can get behind that president to defend America first, but I absolutely do not support starting a war with China over Taiwan, or any other non-American territory that we have no military alliances with.
-->
@ILikePie5
This is why you should never order your president through the mail.
8 days later
-->
@Greyparrot
is Taiwan worth losing your Nation over? Because that's who you elected.
This is exactly why, despite being so absurd, the right wing is also effective. Facts and logic just don't matter.
Biden didn't wake up one day deciding he would threaten China. He was asked, unprovoked, 'would you uphold US policy?'. His answer was "yes". There's nothing controversial about that. There's nothing news worthy about that. And yet every right wing propaganda outlet had a field day with it for a week. It's like watching a bunch of monkeys laughing cause one of them smeared their shit over a windshield. So pathetic.
He was asked, unprovoked, 'would you uphold US policy?'. His answer was "yes". There's nothing controversial about that.
He wasn't asked that. You are gaslighting and lying for political power like all Marxist leftists.
He was asked if he would get involved militarily over Taiwan. This is why the left can never again be trusted.
Gaslighters like you are the reason why Civil war is looming.
-->
@Greyparrot
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA; enacted April 10, 1979; H.R. 2479) is an act of the United States Congress. Since the recognition of the People's Republic of China, the Act has defined the officially substantial but non-diplomatic relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan.
This is the current agreement the USA has with Taiwan.
Biden is correct in what he said. Even after administration officials attempted to “clarify” Biden’s remarks, reporters followed up with Biden himself about strategic ambiguity. He said that strategic ambiguity was not “dead,” but would not elaborate further. However, the president did say, “The policy has not changed at all. I stated that when I made my statement yesterday.” His own clarification implies that US policy has always been to defend Taiwan. It is not entirely clear what the president meant by that. It is likely Biden’s personal interpretation of the Taiwan Relations Act, which he voted for while in the Senate in 1979. There are two key points in the Act that Biden could be referring to—even though neither explicitly commit the United States to defend Taiwan:
It is the policy of the United States . . .
to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States. . .
to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.
These two elements of the Taiwan Relations Act are not ironclad security guarantees like the United States has with NATO members and certain Asian allies (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand). However, the language is framed in a way that resembles a security treaty. Biden could very well be interpreting them as such. The second point, in particular, which says US policy is to “resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan,” sounds an awful lot like a traditional military guarantee. In Biden’s own view, the Act commits the United States to get involved in a Taiwan conflict, and that has been the policy since 1979. Presidents from different parties have made varying interpretations about the US commitment to defend Taiwan. Until at least 2024, Biden’s interpretation is the final word on the matter.
-->
@FLRW
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA; enacted April 10, 1979
Nowhere in that act states the US is obligated to defend Taiwan with military force. Warmongers like you should be sent to the front lines of every battle and war started by a Marxist president.
-->
@Greyparrot
I can't be drafted, I have bone spurs.
-->
@FLRW
Too bad Biden doesn't. Maybe then we wouldn't be starting new wars in the hopes of killing off Americans who don't like Biden.
-->
@Greyparrot
Gaslighters like you are the reason why Civil war is looming
The reasons civil war is looming is because ignoramuses like yourself continue to get your news from sources whose entire business model depends on you not caring enough about reality to learn how to use Google, and being more than willing to be spoonfed whatever reality is most convenient to support you're tribalism. Below is the actual exchange:
Reporter: "You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons, are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”
Biden: "Yes, that’s the commitment we made”
So what commitment was he talking about??? Enter Google:
The Republican Party Platform of the 2016 Republican National Convention mentions the Six Assurances, stating, "We salute the people of Taiwan, with whom we share the values of democracy, human rights, a free market economy, and the rule of law. Our relationswill continue to be based upon the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, and we affirm the Six Assurances given to Taiwan in 1982 by President Reagan. We oppose any unilateral steps by either side to alter the status quo in the Taiwan Straits on the principle that all issues regarding the island’s future must be resolved peacefully, through dialogue, and be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China were to violate those principles, the United States, in accord with the Taiwan Relations Act, will help Taiwan defend itself. We praise efforts by the new government in Taipei to continue constructive relations across the Taiwan Strait and call on China to reciprocate.
So when Biden said yes and then reiterated that his answer was based on the commitment the US made to Taiwan, he was in effect saying "the US will uphold US Policy". That was his answer, no matter how inconvenient it is to your psychological need to find something about Biden to whine about.
And what's most remarkable is that the people who are now gaslighting you into thinking Biden is some war monger are the same people who were in full support of this to the point they put it in their party platform.
When are you going to realize that you are the sheep?
-->
@Double_R
ignoramuses like yourself continue to get your news from sources whose entire business
I got my information from the only source that matters. Joe Biden himself.
The question was whether he would get involved militarily to defend Taiwan.
Biden's response to that question was Yes.
Unless you think the press conference was a fabrication, you are clearly gaslighting what was said at the press conference.
He was NOT asked: , 'would you uphold US policy?'.
You made that up. Lies, fabrication, and gaslighting.
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank you for proving my point.
I just quoted the question and Biden's full answer. I then showed you the full context of Biden's answer and explained how all of it added up to the opposite of what you are claiming. Your response was to ignore every single inconvenient fact I just brought to your attention and repeat your original claim as if I did not address every single word you said.
This is why a civil war is looming. On one side we have people who care about reality. On the other we have people who are too lazy to think, dont have the bandwidth to process any kind of nuance, and care only about upholding their own delusions. There is no common ground here.
This exchange is the perfect example of why the republican party wins elections, and why this country is so fucked.
The reporter even followed up the question with "you are?' As if she was doing a double take.
Clearly she could not believe the bullshit answer coming from President Biden to suggest a policy of an explicit military response to China, to which Biden responded with a nod.
This is NOT a nuanced statement that needs context. The simple answer of yes is more than enough to set back Chinese diplomacy way back. America does not need any more military enemies and certainly does not need to give China a concrete reason to militarize against the USA.
Honestly, there are divisive Republicans and divisive Democrats. And then there are those will to have a calm discussion without trying to label those whose disagree, which can be from both parties.
I will forever respect a non-divisive Democrat over a divisive Republican.
Why? Because barring extremism, individual attitude towards politics is something I value more than what your actual beliefs are.
Once again, there will always be individuals who want to debate for the purpose of reaching a conclusion and those who just want to debate for whatever stupidity they consider a win. If you don’t know what category you fall into, ask yourself if you’ve made a pointless pissing competition of a thread recently.
If you feel insulted by this, good. You should consider it a callout. I have grown tired of threads that only increase polarization and do nothing but draw party lines instead of calmly discussing the issues, and it’s why I rarely stray into the Politics forum anymore.
If biden fights china over taiwan, militaristically, he is a silly ass fool.
-->
@Greyparrot
You are correct, he is gaslighting here. It is gonna be another case of big talk Biden threatening grand and doing much less when the time comes.
The guy just reads from a script, he can barely understand the situation with his mild to moderate dementia.
-->
@Double_R
why this country is so fucked.
Only for 2 more years.
-->
@oromagi
As a rapidly shrinking minority party, the GOP is objectively the more divisive. Strategically, their only hope for continued relevance is to split the Democratic party into 2 factions.
That would never happen. Democrats are basically a hive mind while the Republican party is a big tent of ideals.
-->
@Incel-chud
They are also chickenshits when it comes to individual responsibility to society, passing along every issue to the government.
-->
@Greyparrot
This is NOT a nuanced statement that needs context.
It is if you care about reality, and basic English.
Again, your claim is that Biden was "Threatening to invade another major country over a small territory that has no Americans in it" [GP post 36]. This is not only what I've been responding to, it's what most of the political right has been portraying his comment to be. So let's look at how this actually works with a basic lesson in English.
Again, Biden answered in two parts; "yes", and "that's the commitment we made". So here we have part 1; the answer, and part 2; the explanation. Let's use an analogous example to see how this works.
Question: "hey Joe, game 7 is on tonight, are you still going to that Broadway play?"
Answer: "yes, I promised my wife I would take her"
Translation: "while I would love to watch game 7, I value my commitment to my wife more so I'm taking her to the play not because that's where I would rather be, but because I am not backing down from my promise"
So why does this matter? Because the explanation shows what the person's value in the matter is, and by extension, if the goal was to get the person to change their mind, shows what would be necessary to accomplish this. In this example, to get Joe to watch game 7, he would only need to be convinced that his wife didn't care about the play.
So let's apply this simple English back to the example. What is Joe Biden saying when he said he would defend Taiwan? Was he"threatening" China? No, the explanation, being the thing that shows his values, tells us that he was declaring the US stands by it's commitments. These are two very different statements.
And because honoring US commitments is his concern, the only thing needed to get him to change his mind is to show him that the US did not actually commit to defending Taiwan militarily.
Now I assume this would be the very next argument; that the US never said they would militarily defend Taiwan. Well, this is a bit vague, Im not sure how else the US would defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion if not militarily, but even in this worst case scenario for Biden, the most you can say is that Biden doesn't understand US foreign policy.
I could barely imagine a more blatantly, cartoonishly hypocritical argument you could make coming from a guy who thinks Donald Trump would make a better president. I mean do you seriously think Trump has ever even heard of the six assurances? Only the most depraved partisan hack would attempt to argue that.
And not for nothing, but the hypocrisy of complaining about Biden being tough on China is also amazingly entertaining.
So now this is the part where you respond by telling me where I am wrong. Did you not say what I quoted from post 36? Is there no difference between declaring that the US will stand by it's commitments vs "threatening China"? In English, does the explanation following an answer not tell you what the answer means?
Somehow I suspect you either won't read a word of this or will ignore every point I made. Bandwidth overload.
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, the guy is a chickenshit gaslighter.
-->
@Double_R
. Did you not say what I quoted from post 36? Is there no difference between declaring that the US will stand by it's commitments vs "threatening China"? In English, does the explanation following an answer not tell you what the answer means?
Semantics. Both mean the exact same thing.