Welcome to Thunderdome

Every single day for the past few weeks, CNN has at least one anti-Biden analysis piece as a headline.

The cynic in me wonders if it is because people at CNN are farther left (the extreme left is pissed that Biden isn't doing more of their agenda) or if it has to do with the "They gave me a list. I was instructed to call on..." from his press conference. The implication being that perhaps CNN has been demoted a bit in their press room status by the Biden admin.

The far left of Twitter (most of them according to stats) had their heads exploded again today thanks to Ann Coulter. She was trending for the tweet below.

She is not wrong.

No she is not. Trump was only sound bites for approval. No action behind anything substantial.

Biden did bring them home. Albeit in the absolute worst way possible, but he did get it done.

Leisher wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:01 am Albeit in the absolute worst way possible, but he did get it done.

I don't know what people expected. Or how this is the worst possible way. I can think of many worse ways, and not many better.

I expected a last effort ruse in which when we began to pull out, and they finally stopped hiding in neighboring states, and organized their convoys to move in, they were then easily plinked targets for a bunch of drones. We could have knocked them back ANOTHER 10 years, if not wiped them completely.

But no one could have known, except a million armchair generals with a rudimentary understanding of tactics.

I still say he couldn't have done a worst job than if he were on the Taliban payroll.

TheCatt wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:33 am don't know what people expected. Or how this is the worst possible way. I can think of many worse ways, and not many better.

We controlled over 80% of the country and gave it all up within days. THEN began evacuations once our troops were stuck at a single airport.

Biden's team was extremely arrogant with their predictions about the country's stability or blatantly lying.

The sole thing Trump did right was negotiate with the Taliban because they were only not in power while we were there. Biden's team should have negotiated a safer withdrawal plan with them to avoid the rapid takeover and the shitty situation at the Kabul airport.

Leisher wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:41 pm We controlled over 80% of the country and gave it all up within days.

We controlled almost nothing, it was all an illusion. We had 13,000 troops in early 2000, but, thanks to Trump, by the time Biden was in office, we had 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. I'm guessing it's hard to control jackshit with 1 troop per 100 square miles.

TheCatt wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:11 pm

Leisher wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:41 pm We controlled over 80% of the country and gave it all up within days.

We controlled almost nothing, it was all an illusion. We had 13,000 troops in early 2000, but, thanks to Trump, by the time Biden was in office, we had 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. I'm guessing it's hard to control jackshit with 1 troop per 100 square miles.

Horseshit Clark. (movie quote)

Nothing happened until August 2021. They had all the time in the world until Biden ordered "last one to Kabul buys dinner". Also, Biden did absolutely jack shit diplomatically until after his terrible plan caused so much chaos, and even then it was just threats.

Also, Trump pulled out 13K troops, signed a deal to leave, and set a date; you keep pointing this out and using as your evidence that he's to blame for everything, but then Ann Coulter tweets that Biden had to balls to pull us out and not Trump and you claim she's right? So he gets all the blame, but zero credit? Seems to be a bit biased. (And to be clear, fuck Trump. Not defending him, just have to point this out as part of the argument.)

And for the zillionth time, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden (and everyone else in government at the time who had any sort of hand in it) all deserve blame for the failure in Afghanistan, but only Biden came up with that terrible rushed retreat plan.

And that's all I've been saying. I don't blame Biden for everything, just how it ended. That sucked. But so did everything else.

He was supposed to be smarter than Trump.

Leisher wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:36 pm And that's all I've been saying. I don't blame Biden for everything, just how it ended. That sucked. But so did everything else.

It's like people watched the first 75% of WW1984, and then expected a great ending. It's all garbage, the whole way down. (I assume, not having watched it)

I really would enjoy a commission to investigate why Afghanistan went the way it went, but I know everyone on the commission would be bought and paid for.

Corporations ran that occupation.

Leisher wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:55 am I really would enjoy a commission to investigate why Afghanistan went the way it went, but I know everyone on the commission would be bought and paid for.

Well, the Republicans will say that the Democrats fucked it up, and the Democrats will say the Republicans fucked it up.

Look, I just saved the country $20 million.

TheCatt wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:30 am

Leisher wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:55 am I really would enjoy a commission to investigate why Afghanistan went the way it went, but I know everyone on the commission would be bought and paid for.

Well, the Republicans will say that the Democrats fucked it up, and the Democrats will say the Republicans fucked it up.

Look, I just saved the country $20 million.

What makes you think saving money is any kind of incentive for them? If there were hearings, someone, somehow, would be profiting from it.

TheCatt wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:30 am Well, the Republicans will say that the Democrats fucked it up, and the Democrats will say the Republicans fucked it up.

American politics in a nutshell. The funny part is neither would acknowledge that at various times they were both solely in charge of the situation.

GORDON wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:31 am What makes you think saving money is any kind of incentive for them? If there were hearings, someone, somehow, would be profiting from it.

Someone is always making money.

"The American Families Plan."

That sounds nice.

From what I can tell, it was proposed by Biden to use the IRS catch not-rich people from getting paid under the table, by monitoring every personal bank transaction over $600, in or out.

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/ ... Agenda.pdf

President Biden recently proposed the American Families Plan, advancing comprehensive and necessary investments in American
children and families. To help support this important agenda and increase fairness in the tax system, the President also proposed a
set of tax compliance measures to foster a tax system where Americans pay the taxes they owe.

I haven't read all 24 pages, I was just directed to this by a rumor that it was happening. I found that page when I tried to google it.

This article is shilling hard in favor of it, claiming only the rich will get hit. The $600 threshold of transaction reporting seems to refute that, but who know. Besides, who would ever vote against something with the awesome name of "American Families Plan?" Do you hate American Families???

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... usinesses/

Under the American Families Plan (AFP), only a small fraction of Americans—those with very large untaxed gains—would be affected, mainly because the plan exempts the first $1 million of untaxed gains per person.2 And while critics of the president’s plan have argued that it would harm family farms and businesses, these claims are unfounded. As this issue brief explains, many of these claims are based on flawed studies, including some that do not even analyze the actual Biden proposal.

I guess we'll need to pass it before we can see what's in it.

So your objection is that people can't hide income from the government? Or that it might hit other people?

My first objection is the name, because it's purposely deceptive.

I'm not sure if I have a second objection of now, as a) I'm not going to read the original document, and b) any analysis that breaks it down is bound to be dishonest. So I don't know if it is aimed at the middle class, or the rich.

GORDON wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:39 pm My first objection is the name, because it's purposely deceptive.

I'm not sure if I have a second objection of now, as a) I'm not going to read the original document, and b) any analysis that breaks it down is bound to be dishonest. So I don't know if it is aimed at the middle class, or the rich.

I think the name is reasonable given what it plans to do.

he plan contains $1 trillion in new spending and $800 billion in tax credits (both over ten years).[11] This includes:

>$200 billion in spending on childcare,
~$200 billion to make pre-kindergarten universally available for free,
>$200 billion towards government-subsidized paid family and medical leave,[12]
~$300 billion towards making community college free for all Americans, and
~$200 billion on health insurance subsidies available through the Affordable Care Act healthcare exchanges.[2][4][13]

Then they have to pay for all of that.

It would be at least partially funded by a number of tax hikes on high-income Americans and investors,[2] including restoring the top marginal income tax rate to its pre-2017 level of 39.6% and nearly doubling the capital gains tax for people earning more than $1 million, as well as eliminating a provision in the tax code that reduces capital gains on some inherited assets, like vacation homes.[4][11] It would also raise revenue by boosting the budget of the Internal Revenue Service by $80 billion (distributed over ten years), which the White House estimates could raise over $700 billion in revenue that otherwise would have been lost to tax evasion.[17][18]

What you are pointing out is the final point there, about tax evasion, and how you close the gap is increase monitoring.