Democrats, stand by your president. Do not be fooled by Republicans

Except its not.

 

Biden asked Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on July 23 to lie for him.... an obvious quid pro quo just like what the fake impeachment of Trump was about, will Biden be impeached for it?

 

Trump was President, did you forget, Trump was the one that signed the Trump\Taliban deal

 

Incompetent rebuttal; non argument. A boiler plated inventory of incompetent rebuttals/non arguments, below, highlighted pertains to your comment. Note that I do give individualized replies to weak or bad or arguments I disagree with. Here, I'm defining an incompetent argument as a 'non argument', (because generalities as you have used them are 'weasel words' ) details below.

Incompetent rebuttals are arguments where the salient premise is based on: [highlighted pertains to your comment]
non arguments, a non argument isn't really debatable or it's not worthy of debate owing to any of the following types, they come in many different flavors, especially those which contain vacuous declarations and/or allegations (which may or cannot be substantiated, i.e., 'making stuff up'), rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities such as 'some people are saying' 'everyone knows' 'well-established fact' and there are other types) ad hominems, loaded terms & phrases,, off topic/irrelevant deflections, sentiments (words that reveal emotional attitude devoid of fact, logic and reason) off point arguments/deflections (off point is a sibling to off topic, where off topic is attempting to highjack the thread. It's done a lot in internet forums, and if the person to whom you directed the topic change accepts it, then you're off into a new direction, but, as such, of course, doesn't refute the original premise offered), egregious strawman arguments, egregious cynicism, off-the-charts ill-logic, 'kill the messenger" tactics, i.e., attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument, itself ( the only time kill the messenger is valid is for a well-established discredited source, such as Alex Jones, David Duke, etc, ), childish remarks, trivialising your opponent's argument -- cheap shot, childish or sophomoric comments/logic arising from ignorance (for example, NYTimes is a 'radical leftist rag' -- that's a remark born out of ignorance, it's also an 'kill the messenger' tactic) and then there is the classic thought-terminating cliché; these are cult-tropes, born out of groups who have a demagogue leader who is the master of implanting them in his flock. See, the demagogue doesn't like dissent, so when anyone challenges someone in his flock, he, being a master mind manipulator, will have planted a number of thought-terminating clichés into the minds of his subjects ( via repetition) so they will toss it up to the opponent in an attempt to kill the conversation ( wrongfully thinking it improves their argument ) so TTCs are simple terms catch phrases or words whose sole purpose is, to kill the conversation, such as 'TDS' "NeverTrumper" "Leftist Loony" (noting that the terms are not necessarily devised by the demagogue himself, they could be created by other believers, or have already been around and adopted by and they catch on with the group ) etc., pithy aphorisms assumed to be always true ( aphorisms exist because empirical observations tend to be true, but cannot be used as the salient premise to refute an argument as they are not, nor cannot be, absolute axioms), last, but not least, and a significant debate sin, is posturing; posturing type comments, come in two basic categories, one is where you flaunt, i.e, for example, your education, your age, military service, etc., but of course if the argument can be improved by your qualifications of expertise in a field, that is okay, what I mean is something like 'I served while you were dodging the draft" whereupon your service doesn't improve your argument about whether dodging the draft was moral, or not, or flaunting your education, age or authority of some kind, unless it's pertinent to the argument, noting that relying solely on 'authority' is considered a logical fallacy ( but can be appropriate if pertinent and used to supplement other more corroborative items used to buttress the argument ) and the other type of posturing are those comments which are motivated by puffing oneself up, and this is done by shaming, belittling, mocking, patronizing, 'mansplaining', flaming, where one talks down to ones opponent in order to puff oneself up under the misguided notion that doing so improves one's argument, which, of course, it most certainly does not. In fact, these inventory of debate sins are so common, even those who are skilled in debates still make them, (yes, I'm guilty at times, though I strive not to be, being mindful of such things) but the point is always, 'is the pseudo debate trick the salient part of the argument, is the premise of the argument based on any of them? That's when you get this boiler plated prewritten response because it doesn't deserve an individualized response.


Note, that IF you had offered specific criticisms of Biden and gave examples, linked to articles, etc., and based conclusions on them that would open the conversation for serious discourse, that would be the argument, properly framed. But, you didn't do that, you took the low and lazy road.

 

And Biden is the one that broke it. This all falls on his shoulder... Biden has the blood of many people on his hands...many of his actions were treasonous to say the least.

 

No, it's not about me, sir, it's about the argument, the premise, the discourse, the subject, the conversation, the debate.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

no he did not, he just extended the date for us to leave

 

ANYONE can buy a suit. NOBODY can buy the illusion of being literate, or being a good communicator. Understanding & using proper grammar & spelling, i.e., language skills, are one of the most apparent signs of one's general intelligence.

 

Auto-correct works too

 

exactly.... he broke the original deal and date..DUHHHH... the deal the Taliban signed said nothing about Aug 30... May 1 was the date...
do you do deals in your life where you just change the rules to the deal to suit you.... you and your stuff would be out on the street corner and a sale sign in the yard if you tried it with a bank... Biden is not God and does not get to do as he pleases.... Maybe not in your world but it means something when you put your John Henry on the dotted line to most...

 

Sorry the Trump deal was contingent on Taliban behavior. In fact Trump actually sent air u it's in support if the Afghan Army after the deal was signed.
Further the 5k were.chump change compared to the thousand Biden released when he abandoned Bagram.

 

Which voided the agreement...

 

yea but he "just" extended the date... no big deal when you use the "just" word... do it every day..

 

If the premise of you argument is that Biden just inherited this mess so don't blame him I would remind you that the prior VP who was in charge of the Iraq/Afghanistan policy because he was so experienced in these matters is the current President

I'll skip the baseless invective and get to the heart of the matter. Incompetence. Would you please explain how Biden's handling of this, his total disaster he created, his lies and deceit about it shows he is more competent than Trump and his handling of it?

What has he succeeded at exactly? He even totally screwed up his retreat here. And don't just toss a number which is simply all persons who managed by all who were desperately evacuating them, other countries and NGO's the NGO's who were actually rescuing people. Biden failed by his own declared measure.

SIOW Biden and Obama can buy you off no matter all their failures even ones as serious as this. Biden get you more money to heck with our national security and his total incompetence.

 

Lol, how was that not breaking the deal??

 

that is hardly breaking the deal, that is just extending the date, common sense

 

Yes it is...

 

Trump never had a plan to get people out of Afghanistan cause he did not plan to honor his deal per Chris Miller

 

nope

 

the deal never broke

 

Yep

 

Yes because the Talban weren't keeping there part of the.bargain. Given that reality Biden pulling out without informing friends and allies and leaving them high and dry is an act of abject cowardice and betrayal

 

Trump disagrees, he says he should get some credit, which means he should also get some blame.... right

"Trump complained on a radio show that the media spent 'all night' Sunday covering the devastation wrought by Hurricane Ida instead of his 'great agreement' with the Taliban"

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-complained-radio-show-media-030247850.html

 

yeah, Trump was as faithful in this deal as he is in all the deals with the women he married

 

Mitch McConnell already said he would not support impeachment. It should not be used except in rare occasions but the Democrats already lowered the standards of impeachment so they can't complain if Republicans try it. Still Biden won't be impeached. Not enough support.

Biden obviously felt he needed more time to get out so he changed the date. I don't blame him for doing so but I feel after extending his stay he did nothing. Why extend the date and then do nothing?

He had 7+ months to plan this out and get our people out. I feel like he was to preoccupied with other stuff. The Afghan army did unexpectly surrender for the most part but Biden still could have secured Kabul before the terrorists came and took it. Also the airport should have been built bigger.

People had plenty of time to get it out so maybe money or getting a visa was an issue.