President Biden

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Link

Bidens debating is better than your comprehension, that’s for sure.

[jfman]

So some of the CNN commentary is highlighting that Plan B is Harris, the implication being that Biden and former Presidents would endorse her, with Biden instructing "his" delegates to vote for her.

Could be reading too much into it, but certainly it's a signal to Governors with their own ambitions that there would be significant amounts of party apparatus leaning against them. There's also the problem that Harris polls badly.

I wonder if a few weeks of an enhanced profile will be used to "test" her polling numbers to see if they can get dragged up.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Bidens debating is better than your comprehension, that’s for sure.

Reality …………is departing.

---------- Post added at 23:20 ---------- Previous post was at 23:16 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

So some of the CNN commentary is highlighting that Plan B is Harris, the implication being that Biden and former Presidents would endorse her, with Biden instructing "his" delegates to vote for her.

Could be reading too much into it, but certainly it's a signal to Governors with their own ambitions that there would be significant amounts of party apparatus leaning against them. There's also the problem that Harris polls badly.

I wonder if a few weeks of an enhanced profile will be used to "test" her polling numbers to see if they can get dragged up.

Harris is not plan B for the DNC

Unless, conspiratorially (hi Hugh), she’s in someone’s pocket. Nobody likes Harris, even Harris thinks Harris is an idiot.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Bidens debating is better than your comprehension, that’s for sure.

If somebody is unable to debate/discuss a known subject, they are not going to be able to debate/discuss a new subject that can come up before a President. Somebody will put forward proposal X, and a President, CEO, etc, should be able to debate/discuss the pros and cons. The alternative is to have to blindly accept proposal X without understanding why.


A good example of blindly accepting something without debate/discussion is Paula Vennells and the Horizon scandal at the Post Office.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If somebody is unable to debate/discuss a known subject, they are not going to be able to debate/discuss a new subject that can come up before a President. Somebody will put forward proposal X, and a President, CEO, etc, should be able to debate/discuss the pros and cons. The alternative is to have to blindly accept proposal X without understanding why.


A good example of blindly accepting something without debate/discussion is Paula Vennells and the Horizon scandal at the Post Office.

Blindly accepting things like injecting yourself with disinfectant can cure covid? Or any other thing you read on the interweb/your fave social feed, like a certain Presidential candidate does?

Most serious negotiations are done behind the scenes by one's officials. Public speaking/personalities/fake tans is just window dressing.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If somebody is unable to debate/discuss a known subject, they are not going to be able to debate/discuss a new subject that can come up before a President. Somebody will put forward proposal X, and a President, CEO, etc, should be able to debate/discuss the pros and cons. The alternative is to have to blindly accept proposal X without understanding why.


A good example of blindly accepting something without debate/discussion is Paula Vennells and the Horizon scandal at the Post Office.

Directly from you quote

‘don’t debate as well as I used to’

Now, not being able to do something as well as you could before does not equate to that you’re unable to do it. Which is what you claimed

Make sense ? Or do we need to get the crayons out ?

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well he might have joked about it, but then what if the opportunity actually presented itself


Anyway, like I say, who do you think it calling the shots?


Because it isn’t Joe, and if you think it is, I doubt your stories of military intelligence in Germany during the 80’s, because I would expect that would need a level of critical thought and i don’t think anyone, anyone with a brain, believes Joe Biden is in charge of that administration.

Doubt away, it doesn’t change reality… (and it was in the 70s and 80s - you know, when you said we didn’t have RAF aircraft carrying nuclear weapons…).

Once again, you descend to ad-hominem attacks…

[jfman]

Well, I’ve stuck a tenner on Harris to win in November at 4/1. She’s going to be the nominee in a 50/50 election so the odds are still decent even if last week she was 20/1.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Doubt away, it doesn’t change reality… (and it was in the 70s and 80s - you know, when you said we didn’t have RAF aircraft carrying nuclear weapons…).

I refer you to my previous answer.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1960

Also it wasn't an ad-hominem attack.



Do you think Joe's in charge then?

Two old men...I'm wondering why the strong and healthy young don't stand...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Two old men...I'm wondering why the strong and healthy young don't stand...

American politics is rigged from the top to ensure they don’t, and if they do they lose.

Just look at the state of Congress.

Harris is their definition of passing the torch to the “next generation”. Even though she’d be 64 by the end of a hypothetical Biden second term, and 72 by the end of the two that followed.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I refer you to my previous answer.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1960

Also it wasn't an ad-hominem attack.



Do you think Joe's in charge then?

Your previous answer was incorrect - you focused on Vulcans, and ignored Buccaneers, Jaguars, and Tornados, which carried the free-fall WE177s…

You tried to move the goalposts from "Bombers as a delivery mechanism for nuclear warhead ended in the 60's." to " They stopped being primary delivery mechanism in the 60’s", even though your link and post stated " The Vulcan continued to carry nuclear weapons through to the end of the 1970’s in a tactical role.".

Pretty sure the 70s were after the 60s…

Anyhoo, Buccaneers, Jaguars, and Tornadoes carried nuclear bombs in the 80s…

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bri...clear-weapons/

In the tense decade of the 1980s, those strategic weapons comprised the Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) deployed on four Resolution-class nuclear-powered submarines. One of these submarines was to be on patrol at any one time according to the doctrine of "continuous at-sea deterrence" (CASD). Each had sixteen vertical-launch missile tubes with a Polaris A3 missile carrying three thermonuclear warheads, each of these in turn having a reported destructive power of 200 kilotons (about sixteen times that of the Hiroshima bomb, dropped by the United States over this Japanese city on 6 August 1945).

Polaris was far from alone in Britain's nuclear arsenal. The Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, and the army each had its own nuclear forces. In the RAF, three different aircraft types could deliver tactical nuclear free-fall bombs, variants of the WE-177 comparable with the ones in the Dean Hill accident. Their destructive power was reputed to be similar to, or rather more powerful than, Hiroshima. These nuclear-capable aircraft were the elderly but robust UK-based Buccaneer, potentially for low-level attacks against land and marine targets; the Anglo-French Jaguar single-seat aircraft; and the new Panavia Tornado, with up to 220 of the GR1 nuclear-capable version on order. In time the Tornado would replace the Buccaneer and Jaguar, and like the Jaguar be based both in the UK and West Germany.

In addition, the RAF deployed the Nimrod long-range maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine strike-aircraft from St Mawgan in Cornwall and Kinloss in Scotland. The Nimrod could carry the US B57 nuclear depth-bomb, which was normally under US custody but could be made available for the RAF to use under a dual-control arrangement.

All the navy’s tactical nuclear weapons were of the British-developed WE-177 type, of two variants: either free-fall bombs for delivery against land targets by Sea Harrier jets operating from aircraft-carriers (HMS Illustrious, HMS Invincible, or HMS Ark Royal) or nuclear depth-bombs for delivery by Sea King or Lynx helicopters.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Your previous answer was incorrect - you focused on Vulcans, and ignored Buccaneers, Jaguars, and Tornados, which carried the free-fall WE177s…

You tried to move the goalposts from "Bombers as a delivery mechanism for nuclear warhead ended in the 60's." to " They stopped being primary delivery mechanism in the 60’s", even though your link and post stated " The Vulcan continued to carry nuclear weapons through to the end of the 1970’s in a tactical role.".

Pretty sure the 70s were after the 60s…

Anyhoo, Buccaneers, Jaguars, and Tornadoes carried nuclear bombs in the 80s…

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bri...clear-weapons/

I'm not interested we've had that discussion

do you think Joe's in charge then?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by jfman

American politics is rigged from the top to ensure they don’t, and if they do they lose.

Just look at the state of Congress.

Harris is their definition of passing the torch to the “next generation”. Even though she’d be 64 by the end of a hypothetical Biden second term, and 72 by the end of the two that followed.

Wasn't always seen that way just more recently it's gotten so bad.

The median age at inauguration of incoming U.S. presidents is 55 years. The youngest person to become US president was Roosevelt, who, at age 42, succeeded to the office after the assassination of McKinley. The oldest person inaugurated president was Biden, at the age of 78.

[Itshim]

Family seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet, They don't want Jill Biden, hadn't thought of it that way!