Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

He plans on defense spending increases, spending more on unmanned capabilities, and wasting more money on the wars in the Middle East.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/biden-says-us-must-maintain-small-force-in-middle-east-has-no-plans-for-major-defense-cuts-1.644631

Definitely no different than the Obama years

So which right-wing, pro-war, anti-Brown people, pro-Military Industrial Complex, Democrats are going to be voting for Biden in November?

This is an important question. Definitely needs pro-Biden folks to answer it so I can understand it better.

Originally posted by carthage
He plans on defense spending increases, spending more on unmanned capabilities, and wasting more money on the wars in the Middle East.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/biden-says-us-must-maintain-small-force-in-middle-east-has-no-plans-for-major-defense-cuts-1.644631

Definitely no different than the Obama years


Of course. He is is an establishment candidate, after all.

Will he keep Space Force?

The public deserves to know.

Biden's going to turn NASA, or at least in part, into a climate change fighting machine. Humanism + Humanitarian

And don't worry, Trumpers, he's going to get Mexico and China to pay for it.

Lol, but yeah, go NASA protecting the envyament.

Sorry, wanted to sound like JFK.

Mexico will pay for the wars.

Originally posted by BackFire
Mexico will pay for the wars. I saw what you did there

Originally posted by BackFire
Mexico will pay for the wars. Funny thing is, I can see Biden say "we're gonna win wars in the middle east and Mexico will pay for them!" then do that cheeky grin he's famous for.

Originally posted by Robtard
Biden's going to turn NASA, or at least in part, into a climate change fighting machine.

What an utter waste of money and scientific minds on such a bullshit agenda like "climate change." It's certainly not as bad as Trump putting money into a useless wall, though.


How about funding NASA to do what NASA's original mission is to do which is related to super awesome amazing Sci-Fi space exploration?

Originally posted by BackFire
Mexico will pay for the wars.

Right after we all keep our doctors if we like them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What an utter waste of money and scientific minds on such a bullshit agenda like "climate change." It's certainly not as bad as Trump putting money into a useless wall, though.


How about funding NASA to do what NASA's original mission is to do which is related to super awesome amazing Sci-Fi space exploration?

You've gone full retard.

Originally posted by carthage
He plans on defense spending increases, spending more on unmanned capabilities, and wasting more money on the wars in the Middle East.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/biden-says-us-must-maintain-small-force-in-middle-east-has-no-plans-for-major-defense-cuts-1.644631

Definitely no different than the Obama years

I love this. I love it because I know nobody here will be able to give a valid spin on this, but they will try.

#SoEasy

Originally posted by Blakemore
Funny thing is, I can see Biden say "we're gonna win wars in the middle east and Mexico will pay for them!" then do that cheeky grin he's famous for. I like how Democrats both hate the military and do nothing but defense cuts, while simultaneously boosting the military for more wars. I mean, come on, Trumpets, pick one.

Took 3 minutes to prove me right. Damn.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've gone full retard.

But he's right. NASA shouldn't have anything to do with climate change. Set up a new agency but don't convert one that has an entirely different purpose.

Originally posted by ares834
But he's right. NASA shouldn't have anything to do with climate change. Set up a new agency but don't convert one that has an entirely different purpose.

I'd love to believe Rob is trolling, cuz this seems like pure common sense.

Especially since Rob is a leftist and they bang the drum about climate change more than anyone. So you'd think they would want a place *solely* dedicated to it.

NASA needs to stick to space and space stuff and all that jazz. They need to be studying the climate on Jupiter and shit.

Seems Trumpers don't know what NASA stands for, it's not just "space".

I understand just fine and think if you think climate change is this yuge threat you'd want a place dedicated solely to that.

How did that negate what I just said?

If the sun is the main engine of the climate and that's in space and NASA does space then...

NASA Vision

NASA's Vision: To discover and expand knowledge for the benefit of humanity.

WEEEEE, look at all the neat stuff they do:

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/benefits/index.html

I say we boost their budgets, I like these guys....ALOT

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If the sun is the main engine of the climate and that's in space and NASA does space then...

Then...this negates that if climate change is so serious it should have an agency solely dedicated to it because...?

Originally posted by dadudemon
What an utter waste of money and scientific minds on such a bullshit agenda like "climate change." It's certainly not as bad as Trump putting money into a useless wall, though.


How about funding NASA to do what NASA's original mission is to do which is related to super awesome amazing Sci-Fi space exploration? Like Reagan's proposed "star wars" plan that meant having turrets in space?

Originally posted by Surtur
I understand just fine and think if you think climate change is this yuge threat you'd want a place dedicated solely to that. We've got astronauts to help our globe stay nice and healthy. Idiot.

Originally posted by Surtur
Then...this negates that if climate change is so serious it should have an agency solely dedicated to it because...?

Maybe Space Force will do it. Like attack the sun for causing climate change or something.

Originally posted by Surtur
Then...this negates that if climate change is so serious it should have an agency solely dedicated to it because...?

The agency should be to ban the pollution and trash from Asia while prevent them from further populating..........that would do more for global warming than anything NASA could hope to produce:P

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Maybe Space Force will do it. Like attack the sun for causing climate change or something.

So with no valid answer you resort to humor. Noted.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The agency should be to ban the pollution and trash from Asia while prevent them from further populating..........that would do more for global warming than anything NASA could hope to produce:P

Yeah I think scientists have said that we won't make so much as a dent in this climate change endeavor unless EVERYONE pitches in, including places in Asia like China.

But they are supposedly building more coal plants, etc.

Originally posted by Surtur
So with no valid answer you resort to humor. Noted.

Did you not note it the first time?

What people like makes better neighborhoods so that business will invest. Instead of the separate party pretense.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Did you not note it the first time?

Stop policing my notes!

Originally posted by Surtur
Stop policing my notes!

Stop noting my joking.

If the sun is the cause of all this "climate change" nonsense that the left keeps pushing (yeah, I know, 99.99999999999% of all scientistis supposedly say it's "real" or whatever as I'm sure some snowflake lefty will remind me of) then I guess there isn't shit we can do about stopping it is there?



If jaden now replies that he never said or implied that then why bring up the sun as being the main source of our climate when people are arguing about whether or not NASA should be the ones to monitor climate change or whatever?

WOOOOSSHHHH

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
WOOOOSSHHHH


I edited and that's not an answer. Let's see if you can actually answer without using insults.


You're not nearly as bad about doing that as most leftists on this forum are so I hope you don't disappoint me now.

Maybe Biden is just biding his time.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I edited and that's not an answer. Let's see if you can actually answer without using insults.

You didn't get it.

Ok, fine... whatever. "Man made" climate change is nonsense and just a money-making racket anyway so I don't really care.... carry on.

That's nice.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've gone full retard.

It's been more than 10 years of me arguing about this, including pages and pages with inimalist, and you still can't remember that I've never supported the bullshit "climate change" agenda?

Amazing! Aren't you supposed to have a legendary memory about this?


Also, before you try to strawman me, not supporting the woke climate change money grab political agenda is not the same thing as being a climate change denier. The best you can do to my position is point out when I question the pro-climate change science when it is too extreme or of terrible quality.

Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe Biden is just biding his time. Ha. You made a funny!

I just want Biden to tell us more stories about Corn Pop.

Biden has been supporting the Military Industrial Complex his whole career.

Love how Democrats say they hate war and want to defund the military and then now they support Biden.

More bs from the Left.

Historically 2 or more people choose to talk about God is what the Presidency and Vice Presidency stand for.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've gone full retard.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
Historically 2 or more people choose to talk about God is what the Presidency and Vice Presidency stand for. "Put your hand on the Bible and promise to tell the truth so help you god"

Err, can I put my hand on a Winnie the Pooh book and swear to tell the truth so help me piglet?"

oihV9yrZRHg

Originally posted by ares834
Love it. When someone disagrees with you they are "Trumpers".




So you've proved yourself that NASA is not the right agency for combating climate change?

They're dedicated to research involving space and aircraft not looking into alternative sources of energy or improving fuel burning ones. They can and do research the change in climate/atmosphere, but turning them into a "climate change fighting machine" is a terrible idea. That's well outside their purview.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/26FLgGTPUDH6UGAbm/giphy.gif

.............. Okay, a few things.

Rockets need fuel which may or may not harm the environment. Space crafts can access the world at an efficient rate.... That's why we have satellites. It's downright necessary for NASA to look after the environment for their own sake, let alone all humans. You people are stupid!

Originally posted by Blakemore
.............. Okay, a few things.

Rockets need fuel which may or may not harm the environment. Space crafts can access the world at an efficient rate.... That's why we have satellites. It's downright necessary for NASA to look after the environment for their own sake, let alone all humans. You people are stupid!

^This is why parents need to be extra careful not to drop newborns on their heads.

Originally posted by Surtur
^This is why parents need to be extra careful not to drop newborns on their heads. It's funny. When someone debates Kent Hovind and points out something he can't argue without looking like a dumbass, he just insults the person. This is akin with your post.

I'm being kind to you by merely mocking you instead of tearing apart what you said. I feel like your psyche is fragile enough as it is. Do I really need point out you're dumb as f*ck if you believe what you typed? Is that a thing you truly want to get into?

go for it.

Lots of things use fuel einstein. Which is why it'd make more sense to have an agency solely dedicated to studying climate change as opposed to diverting resources at NASA to do so.

Yes. NASA, power plants, aeroplanes and the military should be working on climate change for their own sake and humanity's sake.

Lemme say something I've said before, rocket fuel is mostly Hydrogen and Oxygen exploding into H2O, which is a big contributor of the greenhouse effect.

Lol. See the problem is what if ALL those places do what you just said and end up with different results? What then?

If NASA and the military come to different conclusions, what then? Who do you defer to? The one whose results better fit your narrative?

No, the sane thing is a non-partisan agency solely dedicated to studying it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol. See the problem is what if ALL those places do what you just said and end up with different results? What then?

If NASA and the military come to different conclusions, what then? Who do you defer to? The one whose results better fit your narrative?

No, the sane thing is a non-partisan agency solely dedicated to studying it. THEY ALREADY DO!

Originally posted by dadudemon
So which right-wing, pro-war, anti-Brown people, pro-Military Industrial Complex, Democrats are going to be voting for Biden in November?

This is an important question. Definitely needs pro-Biden folks to answer it so I can understand it better.
I will, for the sake of keeping an even more right-wing, even more pro-war, even more anti-brown people, even more pro-military industrial complex Republican out of office. I think that's the natural course of action to take, for someone who cares about these things.
Of course, in the case of someone who doesn't care about these things, I can see how they might be perfectly happy to throw their hands in the air and proclaim "it's a wash" because neither option conforms perfectly to the ideal. Then they can proceed to vote on the basis of the things they actually care about, and not have to take responsibility for the other stuff.

Originally posted by Blakemore
THEY ALREADY DO!

One more time: who would you defer to?

If NASA concludes climate change is a yuge issue and the military does not, what would you say?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
I will, for the sake of keeping an even more right-wing, even more pro-war, even more anti-brown people, even more pro-military industrial complex Republican out of office. I think that's the natural course of action to take, for someone who cares about these things.
Of course, in the case of someone who doesn't care about these things, I can see how they might be perfectly happy to throw their hands in the air and proclaim "it's a wash" because neither option conforms perfectly to the ideal. Then they can proceed to vote on the basis of the things they actually care about, and not have to take responsibility for the other stuff.

Just to pick one, how is he more anti-brown?

Note: do not respond with lies about him calling all mexicans rapists please, and thank you in advance.

Originally posted by Surtur
One more time: who would you defer to?

If NASA concludes climate change is a yuge issue and the military does not, what would you say? I'd look at the facts, then make my conclusion as to which side I like if they disagree.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I'd look at the facts, then make my conclusion as to which side I like if they disagree.

But both places would have also looked at the facts, yes? They would have interpreted them differently.

Or do you feel NASA would reach a conclusion without doing so? Or the military?

Originally posted by Surtur
But both places would have also looked at the facts, yes? They would have interpreted them differently.

Or do you feel NASA would reach a conclusion without doing so? Or the military? You can't disagree with science! That's why it's called science.

In other words, if NASA and military disagreed you'd just go with whatever one supported the climate change narrative you already believe.

No, I'd go with the side that can be mathematically calculated scientifically and verified by me.

Edit: Or someone I trust.

Lol. That still comes down to you feeling one of those places just plain didn't apply math then.

Originally posted by Blakemore
No, I'd go with the side that can be mathematically calculated scientifically and verified by me.

Edit: Or someone I trust.

Yea, but you trust racists(Biden).

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol. That still comes down to you feeling one of those places just plain didn't apply math then. Sometimes, that is the case.

Originally posted by Blakemore
You can't disagree with science! That's why it's called science.

You can disagree with science. You just have to have a better explanation with more and better evidence. That's why we no longer go with geocentrism, heliocentrism. Or we no longer think the universe is composed of aether. Or that phrenology is a valid science. Or any of a multitude of other old science.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You can disagree with science. You just have to have a better explanation with more and better evidence. That's why we no longer go with geocentrism, heliocentrism. Or we no longer think the universe is composed of aether. Or that phrenology is a valid science. Or any of a multitude of other old science. Well, that's from using better maths, which what I was trying to get at. Like Einstein, Hawking, Newton, Darwin and many others did. **** Hobbs!

Also, iMIKzUAY8n4 Trump's can't do maths!

This is not a road you wanna go down. Cuz see then I bring up imbeciles on the left trying to argue 2+2 can equal 5 and u don't want that.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just to pick one, how is he more anti-brown?

Note: do not respond with lies about him calling all mexicans rapists please, and thank you in advance.
Surt, there isn't anything I can tell you that you haven't heard before. You know perfectly well what Trump has come under fire for saying and doing with regards to brown people, and I know perfectly well that you will not object to any of them so long as a racist motive is plausibly deniable. I'm not interested in wasting time rehashing these points in order to try and prove that Trump isn't virtuous; it's a futile pursuit, and to begin with, I don't even care about the answer to that question. I only care about the candidates' character insofar as it is likely to inform their actions and rhetoric.

I will say this, though: for the most part, I expect both candidates to act in solidarity with their party (Biden particularly); and, for the most part, I expect the parties to try to act in a manner that appeals to their respective bases. 'Brown people' have a much stronger presence in the Democratic party (in terms of both voters and representatives) than the Republican party, so I'm honestly comfortable predicting that Biden will be a more 'pro-brown people' president than Trump (whose incentive is to court the alt-right) on that basis alone.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Surt, there isn't anything I can tell you that you haven't heard before. You know perfectly well what Trump has come under fire for saying and doing with regards to brown people, and I know perfectly well that you will not object to any of them so long as a racist motive is plausibly deniable. I'm not interested in wasting time rehashing these points in order to try and prove that Trump isn't virtuous; it's a futile pursuit, and to begin with, I don't even care about the answer to that question. I only care about the candidates' character insofar as it is likely to inform their actions and rhetoric.

I will say this, though: for the most part, I expect both candidates to act in solidarity with their party (Biden particularly); and, for the most part, I expect the parties to try to act in a manner that appeals to their respective bases. 'Brown people' have a much stronger presence in the Democratic party (in terms of both voters and representatives) than the Republican party, so I'm honestly comfortable predicting that Biden will be a more 'pro-brown people' president than Trump (whose incentive is to court the alt-right) on that basis alone.

I know the main thing, which is the rapists thing. Which was about criminals coming over the border illegally, not all mexicans.

Other than that I can not think of any specific policy, etc. targeting mexicans.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Surt, there isn't anything I can tell you that you haven't heard before. You know perfectly well what Trump has come under fire for saying and doing with regards to brown people, and I know perfectly well that you will not object to any of them so long as a racist motive is plausibly deniable. I'm not interested in wasting time rehashing these points in order to try and prove that Trump isn't virtuous; it's a futile pursuit, and to begin with, I don't even care about the answer to that question. I only care about the candidates' character insofar as it is likely to inform their actions and rhetoric.

I will say this, though: for the most part, I expect both candidates to act in solidarity with their party (Biden particularly); and, for the most part, I expect the parties to try to act in a manner that appeals to their respective bases. 'Brown people' have a much stronger presence in the Democratic party (in terms of both voters and representatives) than the Republican party, so I'm honestly comfortable predicting that Biden will be a more 'pro-brown people' president than Trump (whose incentive is to court the alt-right) on that basis alone. Delaware is 6th on terms of % of black people and Biden has worked with a lot over his career. For example, Barack who?

Originally posted by Surtur
I know the main thing, which is the rapists thing. Which was about criminals coming over the border illegally, not all mexicans.

Other than that I can not think of any specific policy, etc. targeting mexicans. Build wall?

The wall targeted illegals, not mexicans.

I never saw him say build some magical wall that only stops brown people but lets illegal immigrants of other races through.

Source me.

Originally posted by Surtur
The wall targeted illegals, not mexicans.

I never saw him say build some magical wall that only stops brown people but lets illegal immigrants of other races through.

Source me. I don't need to. "We're going to build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it!" - Trump

"I'm not going to pay for that f*cking wall!" - Mexican president

Originally posted by Surtur
The wall targeted illegals, not mexicans.

I never saw him say build some magical wall that only stops brown people but lets illegal immigrants of other races through.
This is what I'm referring to when I say that all you're concerned with is having plausible deniability.

(I'll be harsh in my reply but I really need you to not take it personally. Pretend I'm attacking an archetype instead of you. You just so happen to respond with the archteypical talking points of the pro-Biden voters so you'll be the punching bag for my reply.)


Originally posted by NewGuy01
I will, for the sake of keeping an even more right-wing, even more pro-war, even more anti-brown people, even more pro-military industrial complex Republican out of office.

This is factually wrong, though. Trump has reduced our foreign war and troop presence and not started a new war.

Trump's track record with warmongering is better than any recent president and you have to go back to Carter to find a better track record.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/483676-donald-trump-is-ending-endless-war

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/trump-announce-reduction-troops-iraq-200909020116968.html

And you're forgetting how many brown people, how much war, and how pro-military industrial complex Biden was during Obama's 8 years. It's too late to try and back-track and shill for Biden over Trump.

Your only choice, if you hold these positions to be important, is to NOT vote for either Biden or Trump. You must vote fore Green Party or Libertarian. If you do not, you're a hypocrite playing partisan politics to the detriment and murder of more brown people.

My personal position is: neither Trump nor Biden - to hell with these dumbasses.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
I think that's the natural course of action to take, for someone who cares about these things.

To vote for someone with a much worse warmongering and murderous track record than Trump? You're going to vote for the dude that was pro-drug war, anti-black, pro-war, and anti-gay-marriage? Do you see why I think that's hypocritical and stupid as f*ck?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Of course, in the case of someone who doesn't care about these things, I can see how they might be perfectly happy to throw their hands in the air and proclaim "it's a wash" because neither option conforms perfectly to the ideal. Then they can proceed to vote on the basis of the things they actually care about, and not have to take responsibility for the other stuff.

There's a better option than being a hypocrite: stop voting for Democrats and Republicans until a truly good candidate comes along. Instead, vote for people with proven records and good positions (that's neither Trump nor Biden) that don't require you to compromise your personal morals.

If you are anti-warmongering and anti-racist, you don't have to vote for Biden or Trump.

What if a simple majority of Americans stopped buying into the bullshit notion that you MUST vote for R or D in November? What would happen if we saw a massive change to what goes to Capitol Hill? What if neither a Democrat nor a Republican occupied the white house in 2021? Imagine if we all voted for a candidate that was going to actually end our foreign warmongering, give us an affordable UHC, end the drug-war, fixed our broken tax system, and fought for term limits? Did you know there are no less than 3 candidates - not Biden and Trump - who hold most of those positions?

No need to compromise your personal morals. You can have your cake and eat it, too. Seriously.

Originally posted by dadudemon
(I'll be harsh in my reply but I really need you to not take it personally. Pretend I'm attacking an archetype instead of you. You just so happen to respond with the archteypical talking points of the pro-Biden voters so you'll be the punching bag for my reply.)




This is factually wrong, though. Trump has reduced our foreign war and troop presence and not started a new war.

Trump's track record with warmongering is better than any recent president and you have to go back to Carter to find a better track record.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/483676-donald-trump-is-ending-endless-war

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/trump-announce-reduction-troops-iraq-200909020116968.html

And you're forgetting how many brown people, how much war, and how pro-military industrial complex Biden was during Obama's 8 years. It's too late to try and back-track and shill for Biden over Trump.

Your only choice, if you hold these positions to be important, is to NOT vote for either Biden or Trump. You must vote fore Green Party or Libertarian. If you do not, you're a hypocrite playing partisan politics to the detriment and murder of more brown people.

My personal position is: neither Trump nor Biden - to hell with these dumbasses.



To vote for someone with a much worse warmongering and murderous track record than Trump? You're going to vote for the dude that was pro-drug war, anti-black, pro-war, and anti-gay-marriage? Do you see why I think that's hypocritical and stupid as f*ck?



There's a better option than being a hypocrite: stop voting for Democrats and Republicans until a truly good candidate comes along. Instead, vote for people with proven records and good positions (that's neither Trump nor Biden) that don't require you to compromise your personal morals.

If you are anti-warmongering and anti-racist, you don't have to vote for Biden or Trump.

What if a simple majority of Americans stopped buying into the bullshit notion that you MUST vote for R or D in November? What would happen if we saw a massive change to what goes to Capitol Hill? What if neither a Democrat nor a Republican occupied the white house in 2021? Imagine if we all voted for a candidate that was going to actually end our foreign warmongering, give us an affordable UHC, end the drug-war, fixed our broken tax system, and fought for term limits? Did you know there are no less than 3 candidates - not Biden and Trump - who hold most of those positions?

No need to compromise your personal morals. You can have your cake and eat it, too. Seriously. https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/699/Screen_Shot_2017-08-17_at_3.57.59_PM.jpg

^I wish the election ended up like that. But the system is corrupt and their names are not even on the ballots in many states.

Ddm. If it had been Sanders as the nominee this year would you have voted for him instead of third party?

Originally posted by BackFire
Ddm. If it had been Sanders as the nominee this year would you have voted for him instead of third party?

Yes and I stated I would do so, multiple times. We share 72% of policy overlap. A pretty high score. The stuff I don't agree with him on are usually the retarded SJW BS, "unfettered free college tuition", and ridiculously expensive UHC (no copays, 100% free), and overly generous immigration.

For me if the dems had chosen Tulsi or Yang I would have voted for them.

Originally posted by Surtur
For me if the dems had chosen Tulsi or Yang I would have voted for them.

Samsies. Bernie + Tulsi or Yang + Tulsi.

They would have beaten Trump, guaranteed.

America will never vote for a Socialist.

Originally posted by BackFire
Ddm. If it had been Sanders as the nominee this year would you have voted for him instead of third party?

I woulda gone for a bernie too even though he is so old he pisses dust.





I hope Yang stays in the game though and gets more political power so he can develop some of the ideas he has.

I like Yang and Tulsi.

Yang was an interesting candidate; I do think countries need to seriously look at UBI.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I woulda gone for a bernie too even though he is so old he pisses dust.





I hope Yang stays in the game though and gets more political power so he can develop some of the ideas he has.

Same for Tulsi. Hell she isn't even 40 yet, there is time for her. And Yang is only 45.

Originally posted by ares834
Love it. When someone disagrees with you they are "Trumpers".




So you've proved yourself that NASA is not the right agency for combating climate change?

They're dedicated to research involving space and aircraft not looking into alternative sources of energy or improving fuel burning ones. They can and do research the change in climate/atmosphere, but turning them into a "climate change fighting machine" is a terrible idea. That's well outside their purview.


Was I talking to you?

Answer: No. But please feel free to interject your feelings some more.

"They can and do research the change in climate/atmosphere," -you We also seem to disagree on very little

Originally posted by Blakemore
It's funny. When someone debates Kent Hovind and points out something he can't argue without looking like a dumbass, he just insults the person. This is akin with your post.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/X6lrsqspAJIcybTo9L/giphy.gif

Originally posted by carthage
He plans on defense spending increases, spending more on unmanned capabilities, and wasting more money on the wars in the Middle East.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/biden-says-us-must-maintain-small-force-in-middle-east-has-no-plans-for-major-defense-cuts-1.644631

Definitely no different than the Obama years

How embarrassing for you.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How embarrassing for you.

This thread aged poorly for KMC's Trumpers. Biden's pulling the US out or Iraq and Afghanistan. Which were campaign promises in 2019.

Go Joe!

Originally posted by dadudemon
(I'll be harsh in my reply but I really need you to not take it personally. Pretend I'm attacking an archetype instead of you. You just so happen to respond with the archteypical talking points of the pro-Biden voters so you'll be the punching bag for my reply.)




This is factually wrong, though. Trump has reduced our foreign war and troop presence and not started a new war.

Trump's track record with warmongering is better than any recent president and you have to go back to Carter to find a better track record.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/483676-donald-trump-is-ending-endless-war

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/trump-announce-reduction-troops-iraq-200909020116968.html

And you're forgetting how many brown people, how much war, and how pro-military industrial complex Biden was during Obama's 8 years. It's too late to try and back-track and shill for Biden over Trump.

Your only choice, if you hold these positions to be important, is to NOT vote for either Biden or Trump. You must vote fore Green Party or Libertarian. If you do not, you're a hypocrite playing partisan politics to the detriment and murder of more brown people.

My personal position is: neither Trump nor Biden - to hell with these dumbasses.



To vote for someone with a much worse warmongering and murderous track record than Trump? You're going to vote for the dude that was pro-drug war, anti-black, pro-war, and anti-gay-marriage? Do you see why I think that's hypocritical and stupid as f*ck?



There's a better option than being a hypocrite: stop voting for Democrats and Republicans until a truly good candidate comes along. Instead, vote for people with proven records and good positions (that's neither Trump nor Biden) that don't require you to compromise your personal morals.

If you are anti-warmongering and anti-racist, you don't have to vote for Biden or Trump.

What if a simple majority of Americans stopped buying into the bullshit notion that you MUST vote for R or D in November? What would happen if we saw a massive change to what goes to Capitol Hill? What if neither a Democrat nor a Republican occupied the white house in 2021? Imagine if we all voted for a candidate that was going to actually end our foreign warmongering, give us an affordable UHC, end the drug-war, fixed our broken tax system, and fought for term limits? Did you know there are no less than 3 candidates - not Biden and Trump - who hold most of those positions?

No need to compromise your personal morals. You can have your cake and eat it, too. Seriously. dur

Nutty!

Trump on drone strikes is highest.

Originally posted by Robtard
This thread aged poorly for KMC's Trumpers. Biden's pulling the US out or Iraq and Afghanistan. Which were campaign promises in 2019. didn't every thread!

Trump.

Yes, the most senior people in politics are dumber than dumb dude Mayan.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
didn't every thread!


Yeah, kinda

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, kinda didn't the facts and the world kind of turn out badly for them too?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, kinda

Originally posted by Robtard
This thread aged poorly for KMC's Trumpers. Biden's pulling the US out or Iraq and Afghanistan. Which were campaign promises in 2019.


Maybe the reason he is pulling those troops out is because he wants to use every available soldier the US has to fight against actual American citizens on our own turf who won't submit to his tyranny like the upcoming forced vaccinations which are probably inevitable.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason he pulled them out was because he soon planned on instituting total martial law and he wanted every soldier available to use here. The way he has labelled anti-vaxxers, people who doubt results of 2020 election, and people who are against lockdowns "terrorists" it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that were what he was up to.


Him pulling troops out of Afghanistan doesn't prove he is against wars. He just wants to use those troops to intead start a war here on our home turf. Ffs, Biden and other dems are more worried about the mythical problem of "white supremacy" than they are actual, legitimate terrorists and our southern border being overrun... smh.

So, nah, the premise of this thread has not been debunked yet in the slightest.

Which you/we will.

Originally posted by cdtm
Well, it wasn't really a war though. We weren't fighting against the Afghan government.


I'm with Robtard, we have a responsibility to clean up our mess.


Most Americans didn't support our troops being in Afghanistan. Our country should not have to suffer even more by letting a bunch of unvetted Afghans flood our country.... we have enough problems with our southern border being overrun while Biden sits around twiddling his thumbs and Harris cackles incessantly like a demon-possessed witch..

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Maybe the reason he is pulling those troops out is because he wants to use every available soldier the US has to fight against actual American citizens on our own turf who won't submit to his tyranny like the upcoming forced vaccinations which are probably inevitable.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason he pulled them out was because he soon planned on instituting total martial law and he wanted every soldier available to use here. The way he has labelled anti-vaxxers, people who doubt results of 2020 election, and people who are against lockdowns "terrorists" it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that were what he was up to.


Him pulling troops out of Afghanistan doesn't prove he is against wars. He just wants to use those troops to intead start a war here on our home turf. Ffs, Biden and other dems are more worried about the mythical problem of "white supremacy" than they are actual, legitimate terrorists and our southern border being overrun... smh.

You and people just like you said similar about Obama declaring marshal law and using the military and his "drone army" to stay in power or overturn the 2016 election and put Clinton in power. None of that was true, you people are mental.

#jadehelm #neverforget

Originally posted by cdtm
Well, it wasn't really a war though. We weren't fighting against the Afghan government.



Yes you were. As the Taliban were the government before you went in.

Anyway semantics. It was a long ass occupation then (after you invaded the country of course).

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Maybe the reason he is pulling those troops out is because he wants to use every available soldier the US has to fight against actual American citizens on our own turf who won't submit to his tyranny like the upcoming forced vaccinations which are probably inevitable.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason he pulled them out was because he soon planned on instituting total martial law and he wanted every soldier available to use here. The way he has labelled anti-vaxxers, people who doubt results of 2020 election, and people who are against lockdowns "terrorists" it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that were what he was up to.


Him pulling troops out of Afghanistan doesn't prove he is against wars. He just wants to use those troops to intead start a war here on our home turf. Ffs, Biden and other dems are more worried about the mythical problem of "white supremacy" than they are actual, legitimate terrorists and our southern border being overrun... smh.

Weird. Because Afghanistan has about 4,000 of roughly 200,000 foreign stationed US troops. It would have far easier and cause far fewer problems to get them from....well...literally any other US base on the planet.

The Afghanistan war was clearly about opium. ****ing China is going to get involved now.

Chinas gonna make business ties with them. That probably would have been the smart thing for the US to do in the first place. But the military complex likes to eat up that taxpayer money.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Chinas gonna make business ties with them. That probably would have been the smart thing for the US to do in the first place. But the military complex likes to eat up that taxpayer money.

For what, Opium?

Originally posted by cdtm
For what, Opium?


Theres a lot of mineral wealth there.

Lithium is the big one in demand nowadays.

Lithium, opium, oil, gas, cannabis etc.

Now that's Biden's has ended the US' involvement in two wars. which right-wing, pro-war, anti-Brown people, pro-Military Industrial Complex, Republican candidate are you going to nominate and vote for come November 2024?

This is an important question. Definitely needs pro-Right folks to answer it so I can understand it better. Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Lithium, opium, oil, gas, cannabis etc. Cannabis is not a mineral

Originally posted by Robtard
Now that's Biden's has ended the US' involvement in two wars. which right-wing, pro-war, anti-Brown people, pro-Military Industrial Complex, Republican candidate are you going to nominate and vote for come November 2024?

This is an important question. Definitely needs pro-Right folks to answer it so I can understand it better. Thanks in advance. Roll up rightists, roll up!

Originally posted by Robtard
Now that's Biden's has ended the US' involvement in two wars. which right-wing, pro-war, anti-Brown people, pro-Military Industrial Complex, Republican candidate are you going to nominate and vote for come November 2024?

This is an important question. Definitely needs pro-Right folks to answer it so I can understand it better. Thanks in advance.

Stop being dense and pretending wars are just a Republican thing. Wars is big money for both sides.

Originally posted by SquallX
Stop being dense and pretending wars are just a Republican thing. Wars is big money for both sides. War is or Wars are.

Originally posted by SquallX
Stop being dense and pretending wars are just a Republican thing. Wars is big money for both sides.

You dodged the question by making a "both sides are bad" comment, amazing how you only do that when a Republican f**ks up or a Democrat does something the majority of American's want.

(*sigh* f

Originally posted by Robtard
Now that's Biden's has ended the US' involvement in two wars. which right-wing, pro-war, anti-Brown people, pro-Military Industrial Complex, Republican candidate are you going to nominate and vote for come November 2024?

This is an important question. Definitely needs pro-Right folks to answer it so I can understand it better. Thanks in advance.



Well, Obama already served two terms so I guess he's out.

Biden didn't end anything, except maybe America itself, or al least he probably will before he is removed from office (probably too late then).

He's simply doing what his chinese overlords want him to do.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Biden didn't end anything, except maybe America itself,

You think the coming fall of America is funny?

Ok.

Oh yeah, I forgot you have commie political views so of course you think it's funny.

2 in a row laughcry

Cry more.

Originally posted by NewGuy01


They claimed for years that Obama was going to "end America" as well, it was dubbed the Obamapocalypse.

It was secretly Biden, all along!

Wait, Biden was the secret Muslim who wanted to destroy the Constitution and replace it with Sharia law (or Shakira, depending who you asked), replace the stars on our flag with crescents and Jade Helm was the fuse that was going to set it all into motion?

No, he was in charge of Star wars and wanted black people in us politics lol

^ Wait ? Hes responsible for Finn ! That b***tard !

I actually liked Finn in Force Awakens

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Wait ? Hes responsible for Finn ! That b***tard !

I actually liked Finn in Force Awakens I never watched the force awakens but I thought Finn was a good character.