all 16 comments

[–]RightousBob 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

There isn't a chance in hell that this bumbling half-tard has access to the codes. Not only is PedoJoe completely senile but there is also a good chance that his degenerate crack-head son would sell access to the Chinese if they were in the Big Guy's possesion.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

B4$3D BIDEN

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

He's probably doing something right, if one has to stoop this low to make up something about him. Perhaps we could discuss instead the voting rights bill that the corrupt anti-democracy Republicans filibustered to death.

[–][deleted]  (21 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

    Oh FFS - anyone knows that's not what he's saying, and this has nothing to do with communism or shills or whatever. And as right-wing propaganda, you have to admit it's really stupid and pathetic to assume that anyone should believe this.

    [–][deleted]  (18 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

      Did you not understand the argument?:

      Oh FFS - anyone knows that's not what he's saying, and this has nothing to do with communism or shills or whatever. And as right-wing propaganda, you have to admit it's really stupid and pathetic to assume that anyone should believe this.

      Put simply:

      1) No, the video does not show that, "Tyrant Biden is threatening to use nuclear weapons against the American people."

      2) It would be dumb for anyone to assume this

      These are "central point refutatations"

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

      These are "contradiction" and "name-calling".

      No. I made an argument. I have not called you a name (though you call me one). I say that "It would be dumb for anyone to assume this."

      opposing case with zero evidence.

      The evidence is obviously the video. (Biden does not indicate that he would nuke Americans. He notes that anyone attacking the US shoul dbe prepared with nukes.)

      You are dragging the discussion down the pyramid of debate.

      That did not happen. I did not call you names. You are calling me names. I am refuting the argument about the video, obviously.

      Again I ask you to provide some sort of evidence or reasoning for your position. Just saying "anyone knows" is neither evidence nor reasoning.

      The evidence is in the video you provided.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]NodeIndependent 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        He notes that anyone attacking the US [should be] prepared with nukes.

        It's really unfortunate that they've infiltrated our government to that extent. But we should take his recommendation to heart.

        [–][deleted]  (11 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

          Look - AXXA - I am sorry to bother you with disagreement on this, as you seem to be annoyed that I don't see Biden's comments the way you do. But for most people the obvious fallacy here is that Biden is not "threatening to use nuclear weapons against the American people." It's "low hanging fruit" for anyone who wants to coment on the video, wondering it the headline is correct. His argument is quite clearly against the fallacy that the 2nd amendment people who claim that they need weapons to take on the government is really stupid, because those people who claim that they need those weapons would actually need F15s and nuclear weapons to take on the government. He is not threatening those people with the same weapons. He's saying that they would need those weapons. I think it's really that simple.

          [–][deleted]  (8 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

            u/socks

            Answer his question there at the end.