And 7 children.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
And 7 children.
Looks like he blew himself up along with the women and the children.
Read that the leader was killed, perhaps by suicide vest.
'Just last month, the Pentagon released video footage of a US drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, which it initially said killed an Islamic State extremist.
In fact, after news organisations raised doubts, a Pentagon investigation found the 29 August drone strike had killed 10 civilians.
Victims of the strike included Zemari Ahmadi, who worked for a US-based aid organisation, and nine members of his family, including seven children.
The strike was an “honest mistake”, the Pentagon said. It recommended no legal or disciplinary action.'
Oh that's ok then.
In fact, after news organisations raised doubts, a Pentagon investigation found the 29 August drone strike had killed 10 civilians.
Victims of the strike included Zemari Ahmadi, who worked for a US-based aid organisation, and nine members of his family, including seven children.
The strike was an “honest mistake”, the Pentagon said. It recommended no legal or disciplinary action.'
Oh that's ok then.
This will still be labelled as Biden killing women and children by certain people.
read her bio first before spouting nonsense.
Official statement by Biden: Thanks to the skill and bravery of our Armed Forces, we have taken off the battlefield Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi—the leader of ISIS. All Americans have returned safely from the operation.
Not mentioned: 6 dead kids.
Not mentioned: 6 dead kids.
So you don't think wages should rise to match inflation? In other words, you want everyone to take a pay-cut?
Reducing this Princeton Professor to "Woke Twitter" seems... dumb.
Not everyone, just "those" people.
e. To be clear, "those" people refers to the poor. Don't want this to be misconstrued as a race thing. To the affluent all poor are lesser.
We need some more woke liberal madness compilations.
it feels absolutely insane to still hear people barely on 15 quid an hour when I remember that being a talking point back in 2010.
To be fair... they were killed by al-Qurayshi blowing himself and them up with a suicide vest.
That is what is being reported - doesn't mean that is actually what happened though.
Oh, well if we're going that route, I could just argue none of them are actually dead.
We dont need to go that route, but the very recent afghan droning is still very fresh in people's minds, hence the suspicions.
What I mean is - as I shared above - sometimes the 'facts' turn out to be incorrect and it can take some time to hear the real story. This has only just broken, lets give it a while till the dust settles and we have independent verification of what occurred.
That should tick up his numbers.
Cool, we can wait and see.
Worth mentioning... the suicide vest thing is exactly what al-Baghdadi did too.
At this point I wouldn't be suprised if they kept kids around specifically for the propaganda purpose
.I've been hugely critical of the drone strikes over the years but it's worth remembering that the people targeted will do/ have done almost anything imaginable.
Wouldn’t be surprised either.At this point I wouldn't be suprised if they kept kids around specifically for the propaganda purpose
I've been hugely critical of the drone strikes over the years but it's worth remembering that the people targeted will do/ have done almost anything imaginable.
The whole point of inflation is that there aren’t enough goods to meet demand. In this case, the solution is to ease the supply chain crisis in the short term to unclog the shipping process and reduce supply chains to local rather than global purview to avoid this in the longer term. Adding more purchasing power to the public is the absolute wrong thing to do and at that point, Biden can well handover the midterm elections to republicans, who are running on the agenda that the third stimulus directly caused the inflation to good effect.
Pick up a textbook instead of wanking over someone’s credentials on their Twitter bio.
It's not that simple, though. Inflation is a challenge, but it's not the only thing that matters. If you start paying everyone less (which is what you're doing if wages don't match inflation), then a lot of people are suddenly going to have problems paying their rent, buying enough food, and certainly they're going to be buying much less The solution to inflation isn't to immediately depress the economy, even if you ignore the human element here.
I don't know if you're Danish or just live in Denmark, but I assume the Danish system of collective bargaining is similar to the Norwegian one. We've also got some inflation concerns, but there is still a very strong demand from the unions that wages have to rise by more than inflation this year. There is no great clamour for austerity.
Insulting another member
her work literally deals with inflation you ignorant slut. that’s why I said read her bio first and familiarize yourself with her work before posting nonsense.
Why can't you just admit you were wrong about the "Woke Twitter" part? You're doubling down instead, focusing on someone's "credentials on their Twitter bio".
You can raise wages across the board if you think this is the new standard of living or if it continues in the longer term but this is a unique short term situation caused by broken supply. Otherwise, increasing wages without increasing supply, simply adds more fuel to the fire. You can increase someone’s wages by 10 percent but all that’s going to do is increase demands for consumer goods, which once again price adjust themselves higher.
If you want to help the people struggling to make ends meet, you can always do other things like eliminating student debt, putting a freeze on rent hikes, increasing interest rates and costs of borrowing etc. Most people have enough in savings from lack of spending during the pandemic, these liberal economists are the same ones that said all along that inflation is just a blip and we absolutely needed a third stimulus and look how it turned out.
You can eliminate freezes but you cannot reduce someone’s wages once you increase them collectively and it only makes these price marks permanent.
Last edited:
Let’s use the same logic when dealing with legal advice from Rudy Guliani, he’s an expert and a lawyer too.
Just because someone has credentials doesn’t mean they don’t also have an agenda.
Ok, so maybe that person has read an economics textbook, that was a wrong assumption on my part although I disagree with their opinion.
At this point I wouldn't be suprised if they kept kids around specifically for the propaganda purpose
I've been hugely critical of the drone strikes over the years but it's worth remembering that the people targeted will do/ have done almost anything imaginable.
Surely they keep them around not for propaganda but as shielding? The idea being the good guys won't risk kids lives.
Although perhaps that's a naive assumption given how many children have been killed by drone strikes.
They'd have to use American kids for that to work.
That might work, but you'd have to keep cops away from the controls.
Nah, we don’t even care when our own children are gunned down here.
Who talked about raising wages across the board though? You're jumping to all kinds of conclusions here, basically pushing them onto that person on the basis of a tiny little sentence, and then you're attacking those conclusions. While continuing to attack their credentials. 'Doubling down' is mild way of putting it.
For example: what if she just meant raising wages for the poor, who will suffer most from basic stuff becoming more expensive quickly? Also, if you wait for supply chains to unclog before taking any action, people will suffer in the meantime. Something has to happen now. Plus, we're unlikly to see significant negative inflation when this is over, meaning that wages, especially for the lowest income categories, will need to rise anyway. Why not make that happen right now, when people are already getting in trouble? And finally, taking action to guarantee a better basic income for the lowest income categories is not going to increase demand to the point where it will significalty further drive up inflation.
I know that's not all within Biden's power, but again, while we don't know what she meant exactly, why only interpret it negatively?
If they meant otherwise, they could have simply said, put a moratorium on loan repayment and freeze rent increase. Those are things Biden can do and has done at different times in the pandemic. Instead it’s a blind rage tweet intended to push an agenda.
You could easily say the same thing about the very tweet itself. Responding to a announcement about the person he will appoint being a black woman which has never happened before with that kind of response comes across snarky. He made that pledge before getting elected and is fulfilling it - what would have been the response if he decided to step away from it?
I think a fundamental problem with twitter obsessed experts is they make everything out to be a massive existential matter but the solutions are super simple and able to fit into a tweet. There's a lot of complexities to it so if you have studied the matter deeply why not make the point properly. Perhaps because a properly explained answer isn't catchy enough? That is what I assume @Wednesday at Stoke is making a point of.
The tweet doesn't speak to inflation specifically though; it's about the tokenism of installing a supreme court judge from a certain population group while not actioning anything that would actually substantially improve circumstances for that group. In that context, it would only distract to go into detail on each example of an area that sees no action. And as much as you can defend Biden's action in isolation (this nomination wouldn't be a bad thing, obviously), it's part of a wider pattern, and that's what I think the tweet points out.
Of course, the underlying issue remains that Twitter is pretty unsuitable to make any more nuanced point, but I don't think that's what we were discussing here. Specifically, @Wednesday at Stoke did seem to attack that simple point and dismiss the writer as an another woke idiot who lacks actual substance. And I will continue to think that this perspective is undeserved, even if the tweet is taken in isolation.
I’m frustrated by this jingoistic notion from the liberal left that the solution to every problem is a government hand out. It plays right into the stereotype of democrats as proponents of unlimited welfare. The fact that such a throw away comment comes from an economist, in response to a completely unrelated gesture and a campaign promise Biden is keeping makes it even worse.
You don’t need an opposition if you have friends like these.
You don’t need an opposition if you have friends like these.
The term "government handout" is such bullshit right wing corporatism propaganda. Where do you think the money comes from that the government is spending?
Wow.
"Government Hand Out"? So I hope you have refused your government health plan, after all that's a handout. You should give up your pension when you retire as that's a disgusting handout too.
When you live in a country with no national health plan, no free education post high school, limited social programs to assist in times of need, crippling costs of childcare, etc. those things you call "government handouts" amount to giving a starving man a packet of saltines and wishing him luck.