November 3rd Led to February 24th

 

The Russian attack on Ukraine can be traced to the 2020 presidential election. Leaving aside the question of voter fraud, the replacement of Trump by Biden strengthened Russia’s economy. One of the first actions Biden took was to cancel the Keystone pipeline. He also discouraged drilling. Gas and other fossil fuel prices jumped. Russia depends heavily on energy exports so this was a huge cash infusion into its economy.

Biden appointed incompetent people such as Austin who became secretary of defense. When he wasn’t chowing down, he appeared to think that his most crucial issue was to root out conservatives in the defense department. A friend of mine knew a young man who joined the Air Force to work on cyber defense. With the emphasis on transgenders getting surgeries, he’s getting out as soon as his enlistment ends.

Austin also thinks that forcing people who are not at risk from COVID to get a leaky vaccine is critical. When push came to shove in Afghanistan, no one stood up to Biden and said that we should hold Bagram Air Base until the very end. It’s much more secure than Kabul but none of our generals were willing to put their careers on the line on behalf of the safety of our military. And in the debacle we left tens of billions of dollars of weapons behind.

Biden was always a gaffe machine, but by Election Day 2020 he was clearly unfit to be president. He barely campaigned. In his few press conferences since he’s become president, he calls on specific reporters and has the answers written out on 3×5 cards. His recent performance shows a man who is almost comatose.

 

Putin attacked Georgia when Bush was president. He then seized Crimea during Obama’s presidency. Now he’s attacking Ukraine. The only president he appears to have respected was Trump. The people who supported Biden are to blame for this debacle. And the escalation which is being pushed by Bill Kristol and other war hawks is dangerous. It’s good for Raytheon but no so good for Ukraine. We need to encourage de-escalation rather than ramping up the rhetoric.

Published in Foreign Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 154 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    The purpose of this war, speaking of the causes of it, is to beat Russia down until those who work toward one world government can force a change in Russia’s government to one that is amenable and subservient to a higher Word Order in which, as they put it, No one will own anything, and everyone will be happy.

    Or the purpose of the war, instigated by Russia, was to eliminate the fictive notion of Ukrainian exceptionalism, and that’s what the Ukes are fighting, not WEF Ted-talk blather.

    We have centuries of evidence of Russian inability to countenance Uke independence, a reflorescence of messianic Russian nationalism, expressed through Duganism, coinciding with a moment when the West seems weak, emboldening an old troll’s desire to get the band back together, figuring that the West would quaver and see the invasion through the sphincter-prism of its own irrelevant obsessions.

    Nah, not with this one.  Times have really changed.  This is not about Russia and Ukraine.  It’s about the globalists and the nationalists.

    But I’m not arguing, just saying it out loud for anyone with an open mind to consider.

    • #91
  2. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Nah, not with this one.  Times have really changed.  This is not about Russia and Ukraine.  It’s about the globalists and the nationalists.

    But I’m not arguing, just saying it out loud for anyone with an open mind to consider.

    Okay. I’m in the sometimes a cigar is really a cigar camp. Big international secret-society string-pulling chess-masker machinations seem less likely than the usual mess that results from the terrible and familiar intersection of history, culture, opportunity,  and personality, but maybe this time is different. 

    • #92
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Nah, not with this one. Times have really changed. This is not about Russia and Ukraine. It’s about the globalists and the nationalists.

    But I’m not arguing, just saying it out loud for anyone with an open mind to consider.

    Okay. I’m in the sometimes a cigar is really a cigar camp. Big international secret-society string-pulling chess-masker machinations seem less likely than the usual mess that results from the terrible and familiar intersection of history, culture, opportunity, and personality, but maybe this time is different.

    I don’t think you’re serious.  “Secret-society”?  I’m not talking about any secret society.  That’s coming out of your own preconceptions and biases.  They’re quite open about it, giving lectures and writing books.

    • #93
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Now it is a case of it has been too costly for both sides

    That is a judgement call and it depends on the decision makers to decide what “too costly” means. In a world run by oligarchs, the opinions of the little people don’t seem to matter much.

    I don’t actually think it is much of a judgment call. Russia’s losses in equipment, troops, and prestige are pretty dramatic. Oligarchs may chose to continue, but it still takes billions of dollars and multiple years to replace a Moskva class cruiser. Ukraine will have to spend billions to replace its cities and infrastructure. Also both sides have lost a huge number of absolutely irreplaceable human beings. The opinions of the little people may matter little to the powerful but that doesn’t reduce the butcher’s bill.

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Now it is a case of it has been too costly for both sides

    That is a judgement call and it depends on the decision makers to decide what “too costly” means. In a world run by oligarchs, the opinions of the little people don’t seem to matter much.

    I don’t actually think it is much of a judgment call. Russia’s losses in equipment, troops, and prestige are pretty dramatic. Oligarchs may chose to continue, but it still takes billions of dollars and multiple years to replace a Moskva class cruiser. Ukraine will have to spend billions to replace its cities and infrastructure. Also both sides have lost a huge number of absolutely irreplaceable human beings. The opinions of the little people may matter little to the powerful but that doesn’t reduce the butcher’s bill.

    The powerful think your butcher’s bill should be zero cuz you shouldn’t be eating meat anyway.

    • #94
  5. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    it’s hard enough to figure out one’s own interests, very difficult to figure out local, state and national interests, so its insane to begin with global interests which are unknowable, and not much better to move to national interests.  We have always sort of figured national interests out when things were important enough to do so and it wasn’t easy.  Think of the big wars, the civil war as well;   The Cold War was figured out through time by a brilliant FSO and only took us a couple of decades .  Foreign policy and international and national interests aren’t easy.  The idea that a handful  of self absorbed folks who haven’t really been engaged in the real world for long can guide a nation of 320 million of the most diverse richest folks in history is beyond belief, but that’s where we are.  And we think we can just get rid of these folks with elections?  And if not then what?  Are we going to just let it end?  In history how many countries or places recuperated and became strong again after settled centralization?  Rome fought if off and on longer than any, but the end was the same and Italy is really a great place but that’s the most we can hope for but without a vibrant market economy leading the way into an unknown future, the Italy solution will follow many decades of starvation and chaos, and if luck absence of nuclear war.   These folks don’t have a clue but they think they’re in charge.  

    • #95
  6. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I Walton for Dictator Of Everything. 

    I think that’s why I find it upsetting that it seems to me the simplest and most obvious thing is for all of those countries to be defensively armed and planned to the teeth 10 X Switzerland. All of the Ivy League ruling class propeller heads are going to MAYBE think of SOME useful things very secondary to that in efficacy. 

    Why in the hell are they cutting and welding caltrops and hedgehogs after the damn thing starts? 

    • #96
  7. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Roberto (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    The best case we and Ukraine can probably hope for would be something like this:

    1. Return to the prewar borders and formal recognition of the breakaway states
    2. Ukraine excluded from joining NATO but free to join the EU and arrange other security arrangements.

    Both of those were on the table in early attempts to negotiate the peace. Not sure what happened to spike those efforts but that was about the same time Biden started babbling about regime change and “This man cannot remain in power!”

    Might have had something to do with certain Russian atrocities, IIRC. The problem I have with parts of this discussion is it seems to deny agency to the Ukrainians, eastern European NATO allies, the EU, and even the Russians. We can make things harder or easier on the Ukrainians, but we can’t stop the war unless we’re willing to use our own strategic means, and I am certainly not advocating that. From a completely cynical, realpolitik point of view, it likely makes sense to bleed the Russians dry using our weapons and Ukrainian bodies. A wrecked Russian military will require a lot less of an arms build up to deter in the future (I share the opinion that Putin is likely going nowhere and unlikely to change his ways).

    I am not advocating just analyzing. I will say that Ukraine depends on NATO and the EU to continue to supply their war machine. That means NATO and the EU have a say in how long this war continues. Again this is analysis not a value judgement.

    Even that obscures the issue, US aid to Ukraine dwarfs even the most generous EU and NATO member by orders of magnitude.

    Fascinating chart. Thank you for reproducing it here. 

    The only thing I would say is that the relative populations of the countries listed need to be considered. 

    The civilized world is in a difficult position. If we push Putin so far that he uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine to retaliate in his anger against us, it won’t help Ukraine. In other words, he will take out his anger at us on the Ukrainians. It would be very typical of this kind of madman to do that, just to say, “It’s all your fault these people are suffering.” 

    • #97
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I Walton for Dictator Of Everything.

    I think that’s why I find it upsetting that it seems to me the simplest and most obvious thing is for all of those countries to be defensively armed and planned to the teeth 10 X Switzerland. All of the Ivy League ruling class propeller heads are going to MAYBE think of SOME useful things very secondary to that in efficacy.

    Why in the hell are they cutting and welding caltrops and hedgehogs after the damn thing starts?

    Military spending during “peacetime” never seems very politically popular.  Especially in countries where any money spent on defense is money that can’t be spent on “free” healthcare etc.

    • #98
  9. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Military spending during “peacetime” never seems very politically popular.  Especially in countries where any money spent on defense is money that can’t be spent on “free” healthcare etc.

    If we make a nuclear bomb and are never allowed to use it, what if we just say we made one?

    • #99
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Military spending during “peacetime” never seems very politically popular. Especially in countries where any money spent on defense is money that can’t be spent on “free” healthcare etc.

    If we make a nuclear bomb and are never allowed to use it, what if we just say we made one?

    The other sides seem to have ways of finding out.

    • #100
  11. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    The purpose of this war, speaking of the causes of it, is to beat Russia down until those who work toward one world government can force a change in Russia’s government to one that is amenable and subservient to a higher Word Order in which, as they put it, No one will own anything, and everyone will be happy.

    Or the purpose of the war, instigated by Russia, was to eliminate the fictive notion of Ukrainian exceptionalism, and that’s what the Ukes are fighting, not WEF Ted-talk blather.

    We have centuries of evidence of Russian inability to countenance Uke independence, a reflorescence of messianic Russian nationalism, expressed through Duganism, coinciding with a moment when the West seems weak, emboldening an old troll’s desire to get the band back together, figuring that the West would quaver and see the invasion through the sphincter-prism of its own irrelevant obsessions.

     

    Once again [REDACTED] rolls downhill.

    • #101
  12. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Military spending during “peacetime” never seems very politically popular. Especially in countries where any money spent on defense is money that can’t be spent on “free” healthcare etc.

    If we make a nuclear bomb and are never allowed to use it, what if we just say we made one?

    The other sides seem to have ways of finding out.

    Well then, we could do a good job of making one up, but just without the naughty bits.

    • #102
  13. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Now it is a case of it has been too costly for both sides

    That is a judgement call and it depends on the decision makers to decide what “too costly” means. In a world run by oligarchs, the opinions of the little people don’t seem to matter much.

    I don’t actually think it is much of a judgment call. Russia’s losses in equipment, troops, and prestige are pretty dramatic. Oligarchs may chose to continue, but it still takes billions of dollars and multiple years to replace a Moskva class cruiser. Ukraine will have to spend billions to replace its cities and infrastructure. Also both sides have lost a huge number of absolutely irreplaceable human beings. The opinions of the little people may matter little to the powerful but that doesn’t reduce the butcher’s bill.

    Russia considers the loss of 25 million citizens in WWII to be a great victory.    Here in Texas we consider the Alamo a great battle, despite that fact that it was a massacre.   It is hard for outsiders to judge the cost and value of fighting.   Money-wise, Russia’s national income has risen thanks to high energy and commodity prices, so there is that.    Asymmetrical warfare is cheap.  Both sides (Axis and Allies) can fund guerilla warfare forever.   It really is amazingly inexpensive to fight with Molotov cocktails and rifles, when you have a large supply of people willing to kill and die.   Enforcing peace is harder than allowing a civil war to fester.   Look around the globe and you will see festering civil wars all over the place.   In the long run we are seeing a emerging alignment of ascending countries fighting descending countries.  Time is not on our side.

    • #103
  14. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Military spending during “peacetime” never seems very politically popular. Especially in countries where any money spent on defense is money that can’t be spent on “free” healthcare etc.

    If we make a nuclear bomb and are never allowed to use it, what if we just say we made one?

    The other sides seem to have ways of finding out.

    Well then, we could do a good job of making one up, but just without the naughty bits.

    Like Doc Brown did for the Libyans?

    • #104
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Now it is a case of it has been too costly for both sides

    That is a judgement call and it depends on the decision makers to decide what “too costly” means. In a world run by oligarchs, the opinions of the little people don’t seem to matter much.

    I don’t actually think it is much of a judgment call. Russia’s losses in equipment, troops, and prestige are pretty dramatic. Oligarchs may chose to continue, but it still takes billions of dollars and multiple years to replace a Moskva class cruiser. Ukraine will have to spend billions to replace its cities and infrastructure. Also both sides have lost a huge number of absolutely irreplaceable human beings. The opinions of the little people may matter little to the powerful but that doesn’t reduce the butcher’s bill.

    Russia considers the loss of 25 million citizens in WWII to be a great victory. Here in Texas we consider the Alamo a great battle, despite that fact that it was a massacre. It is hard for outsiders to judge the cost and value of fighting. Money-wise, Russia’s national income has risen thanks to high energy and commodity prices, so there is that. Asymmetrical warfare is cheap. Both sides (Axis and Allies) can fund guerilla warfare forever. It really is amazingly inexpensive to fight with Molotov cocktails and rifles, when you have a large supply of people willing to kill and die. Enforcing peace is harder than allowing a civil war to fester. Look around the globe and you will see festering civil wars all over the place. In the long run we are seeing a emerging alignment of ascending countries fighting descending countries. Time is not on our side.

    Seems like we’d be safe if only so many of “us” weren’t apparently intent on descending.

    • #105
  16. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    kedavis (View Comment):

    In the long run we are seeing a emerging alignment of ascending countries fighting descending countries. Time is not on our side.

    Seems like we’d be safe if only so many of “us” weren’t apparently intent on descending.

    It will take a lot of work.  Look at it by generation:
    * Boomers/Gen-X — are looking at Social Security trust fund going bust in 10 years
    * Gen-Y/Gen-Z — leading cause of death is overdose; not having babies or owning stuff
    * Gen-alpha — 25% are having a Queer identity crisis; debt/GDP ratio heading toward 200%

    We are in a cold war with the Atlanticists/Marxists that run our country and institutions.  

    • #106
  17. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I don’t think the Ukraine war is a war between Russia and Ukraine. It’s not even a war between totalitarian Russia and China and the West with it’s democratic culture. It’s not just a proxy war between Russia and the US with China watching. This is a war between the totalitarian globalists and the totalitarian nationalists. To the globalists, every nation state with borders and a unique civilization and culture must be subsumed into One World Government, one which is owned by financiers or central bankers (the Davos crowd) and administered by multinational corporations. This is largely what they say, and it is what I see.

    The purpose of this war, speaking of the causes of it, is to beat Russia down until those who work toward one world government can force a change in Russia’s government to one that is amenable and subservient to a higher Word Order in which, as they put it, No one will own anything, and everyone will be happy. But this One World Order will be no more dispositive of the population of the earth than Xi or Putin are now said to be.

    Here Nanocelt writes in The Nuclear Umbrella :

    The damage to the globe would be such that a nuclear attack, to civilized people, is unthinkable. Not so for the architect of the Shanghai lockdown. Or the author of the depopulation of Ukrainian cities. No human interest would be dispositive to such individuals as Xi and Putin. They are peas in a pod and joined at the hip. Together they stand against humanity and the world. They are willing to sacrifice the entire world to their personal concerns, it appears.

    Depopulation may be an insignificant result to Xi and Putin, but it is a specifically desired result for the globalists. They have written advocating it for decades. This is not merely human idiocy couched in pseudo-science, or an aspect of evolutionary psychology toward culling an overgrown population, but the desire of the malignant one who rules this world. To use a popular expression, depopulation is not a bug, it’s a feature.

    Might one say it is a pursuit of the Galtonian Eugenic vision of humanity as prize sheep on a well tended moot

    • #107
  18. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Might one say it is a pursuit of the Galtonian Eugenic vision of humanity as prize sheep on a well tended moot

    Moot?

    • #108
  19. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Roberto (View Comment):
    A war that lasted over 10 nearly 20 years, which appears to have cost well over a trillion dollars and which in the end achieved absolutely nothing, nothing. 

    FTFY.

    Plu$, of ¢our$e it a¢hieved $omething. Real neocons with multiple yachts depended on that war!

    • #109
  20. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Flicker (View Comment):

    “Secret-society”? I’m not talking about any secret society. That’s coming out of your own preconceptions and biases. They’re quiet open about it, giving lectures and writing books.

    It’s been interesting watching people insist that there’s no such thing as the Great Reset, even if you wave the actual plan in front of their eyes.

    • #110
  21. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    MarciN (View Comment):

    If we push Putin so far that he uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine to retaliate in his anger against us, it won’t help Ukraine. In other words, he will take out his anger at us on the Ukrainians. It would be very typical of this kind of madman to do that, just to say, “It’s all your fault these people are suffering.”

    Why would he do that, when he can just attack us directly?

    When the bombs start falling on the U.S., at least I’ll be able to say “I told you so” as radiation takes my life. Cold comfort in that, at least.

    • #111
  22. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    kedavis (View Comment):

    The powerful think your butcher’s bill should be zero cuz you shouldn’t be eating meat anyway.

    With what they’re doing to drive up the price of food through shortages, they’re making sure we don’t.

    They will keep eating steak, anyway.

    We get bug paste.

    Maybe.

    • #112
  23. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    It’s been interesting watching people insist that there’s no such thing as the Great Reset

     

     

    “The State wants you to own nothing and be happy.” This interview with Vince Lanci, Owner of Echo Bay Partners and a regular contributor to Zero Hedge, covers a lot of ground. Jay and Vince discuss Modern Monetary Theory, the Cantillon Effect, and fortifying yourself from the government’s growing control over our economies.

    Look up Russell Napier as well.

    • #113
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    ?

     

     

     

    • #114
  25. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Richard Easton: One of the first actions Biden took was to cancel the Keystone pipeline. He also discouraged drilling. Gas and other fossil fuel prices jumped.

    In very blue Seattle you can no longer get a permit to build a house with natural gas — all must be electric –much to the chagrin of cooks who prefer gas stoves.  The world has gone crazy under Biden’s anti fossil fuel policies.

    • #115
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Richard Easton: One of the first actions Biden took was to cancel the Keystone pipeline. He also discouraged drilling. Gas and other fossil fuel prices jumped.

    In very blue Seattle you can no longer get a permit to build a house with natural gas — all must be electric –much to the chagrin of cooks who prefer gas stoves. The world has gone crazy under Biden’s anti fossil fuel policies.

    Because they think all-electric houses can be powered by solar panels and windmills.  But they can’t.

    • #116
  27. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes. Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it. He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm. And he repeated virtually a whole sentence. It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning. She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events. But who knows.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is several uncoordinated groups. It doesn’t seem to me as if it is groups that require compromise. Well they do but they aren’t if you take my meaning. It is simply a reactive exercise with no coordination.

    Okay. :) So who spearheaded Biden’s candidacy? A schlemiel in the back who who shouted out Joe Biden! Or the guy on the dais?

    My view: A coalition of Dem-aligned bigwigs and donors saw a Bernie Sanders candidacy as the most likely outcome of the gaggle of candidates struggling to emerge during the Democratic primaries, or at best a cantankerous convention (nobody does cantankerous better than Bernie!), and they foresaw Sanders would be demolished by Trump, riding high on his successful policies despite all the flak.  So the deal was struck: coalesce behind Biden as the “moderate” consensus candidate while his campaign gave quiet assurances that his policies will reflect those of  Sanders and his Sandernistas. 

    • #117
  28. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes. Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it. He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm. And he repeated virtually a whole sentence. It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning. She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events. But who knows.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is several uncoordinated groups. It doesn’t seem to me as if it is groups that require compromise. Well they do but they aren’t if you take my meaning. It is simply a reactive exercise with no coordination.

    Okay. :) So who spearheaded Biden’s candidacy? A schlemiel in the back who who shouted out Joe Biden! Or the guy on the dais?

    My view: A coalition of Dem-aligned bigwigs and donors saw a Bernie Sanders candidacy as the most likely outcome of the gaggle of candidates struggling to emerge during the Democratic primaries, or at best a cantankerous convention (nobody does cantankerous better than Bernie!), and they foresaw Sanders would be demolished by Trump, riding high on his successful policies despite all the flak. So the deal was struck: coalesce behind Biden as the “moderate” consensus candidate while his campaign gave quiet assurances that his policies will reflect those of Sanders and his Sandernistas.

    ***1000%***

    My brother-in-law is an ignorant PhD old time Democrat. All he cared about was getting Trump out of office. He literally had a Red Bernie sign on his lawn and he caucused for Biden just to get Trump out of office. 

    I can assure you he’s very thoughtless about the consequences of Bernie seizing power.

    He literally told me he’s not going to discuss public policy with me anymore because he doesn’t know anything about it.

    • #118
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes. Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it. He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm. And he repeated virtually a whole sentence. It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning. She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events. But who knows.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is several uncoordinated groups. It doesn’t seem to me as if it is groups that require compromise. Well they do but they aren’t if you take my meaning. It is simply a reactive exercise with no coordination.

    Okay. :) So who spearheaded Biden’s candidacy? A schlemiel in the back who who shouted out Joe Biden! Or the guy on the dais?

    My view: A coalition of Dem-aligned bigwigs and donors saw a Bernie Sanders candidacy as the most likely outcome of the gaggle of candidates struggling to emerge during the Democratic primaries, or at best a cantankerous convention (nobody does cantankerous better than Bernie!), and they foresaw Sanders would be demolished by Trump, riding high on his successful policies despite all the flak. So the deal was struck: coalesce behind Biden as the “moderate” consensus candidate while his campaign gave quiet assurances that his policies will reflect those of Sanders and his Sandernistas.

    ***1000%***

    My brother-in-law is an ignorant PhD old time Democrat. All he cared about was getting Trump out of office. He literally had a Red Bernie sign on his lawn and he caucused for Biden just to get Trump out of office.

    I can assure you he’s very thoughtless about the consequences of Bernie seizing power.

    He literally told me he’s not going to discuss public policy with me anymore because he doesn’t know anything about it.

    But people like that vote anyway.  Sigh.

    • #119
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):
    He’s sending to Congress “a comprehensive package to accommodate the Russian oligarchs”!? “Accommodate”?

    Yes. Just as I personally want to know who is running the government (whether one person, one group, or generally agreeing groups, or groups in conflict that requires compromise, whatever) I really want to know who Biden was responding to, not only when he tried to correct his use of “kleptocrats” but when he riffed on “accommodate”.

    It really looks like he does have a piece in his hear, and gets directions and corrections through it. He stopped and looked around, and repeated the word “accommodate” with a faint smile, as if a smirk of sarcasm. And he repeated virtually a whole sentence. It sounds to me as if he was fed the correct sentence and still got the word “accommodate” wrong again.

    If this is so, my guess is that the wording was spoken by White House press official Meghan Hays, part-time Easter Bunny and the administration’s director of message planning. She is also the one regarded as being responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events. But who knows.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is several uncoordinated groups. It doesn’t seem to me as if it is groups that require compromise. Well they do but they aren’t if you take my meaning. It is simply a reactive exercise with no coordination.

    Okay. :) So who spearheaded Biden’s candidacy? A schlemiel in the back who who shouted out Joe Biden! Or the guy on the dais?

    My view: A coalition of Dem-aligned bigwigs and donors saw a Bernie Sanders candidacy as the most likely outcome of the gaggle of candidates struggling to emerge during the Democratic primaries, or at best a cantankerous convention (nobody does cantankerous better than Bernie!), and they foresaw Sanders would be demolished by Trump, riding high on his successful policies despite all the flak. So the deal was struck: coalesce behind Biden as the “moderate” consensus candidate while his campaign gave quiet assurances that his policies will reflect those of Sanders and his Sandernistas.

    ***1000%***

    My brother-in-law is an ignorant PhD old time Democrat. All he cared about was getting Trump out of office. He literally had a Red Bernie sign on his lawn and he caucused for Biden just to get Trump out of office.

    I can assure you he’s very thoughtless about the consequences of Bernie seizing power.

    He literally told me he’s not going to discuss public policy with me anymore because he doesn’t know anything about it.

    But people like that vote anyway. Sigh.

     

     

     

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.