US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Matt]

44 minutes ago, StevO said:

Wasn’t even leaked, Cambridge Analytica put it out there to get more business. Just the backlash shut them down.  

A cleverly disguised leak then. Publicity sells, regardless. 

[StevO]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

A cleverly disguised leak then. Publicity sells, regardless. 

Oh too right it did, it was good for them until the negative press got out then they were fucked, gladly! Shame the damage was already done. 

[Ghoat]

I would be curious for people's thoughts on this - accepting the premise that "The Russians" interfered with the 2016 election as fact.

It's been widely speculated that it was orchestrated by Putin, or the Russian State, and it was to elect Trump. Without any other provable facts toward motive, that doesn't pass my "sniff test" off the bat, and here is why:

Democrat administrations tend to be more "doves" and Republican administrations tend to be more "Hawkish". A Hillary Clinton administration would have been much more predictable, especially in foreign policy. There is a lot of reference points to predict the direction her foreign policy would take - from Bill's presidency, her time in the senate, her campaign foreign policy plans that were similar to the Obama administrations and especially from her tenure as Sec of State during the Obama administration. I am not saying these actions are good or bad, or should have been handled differently, but during the the Obama Administration - split between her and a like-minded John Kerry as SOS the following occurred:

• The Arab Spring. With notable exceptions (like Libya and eventually Syria) - the US remained disengaged.
• The withdrawal/reduction of US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worth noting that this drastically reduced US influence in "The Stans". These regions have been part of Russia/USSR since they were finally conquered and assimilated by Catherine The Great in the 1700's until the fall of the USSR.
• The Russian invasion, occupation and annexation of The Ukraine/Crimea, which went unopposed. 

 

You have Hillary who seems to favor continuing Foreign Policy as is - advocating less direct involvement, and more international diplomacy. 

You have The Donald, a wildcard with no historical data points to indicate the direction he would take US Foreign Policy, besides his campaign. Candidate Trump tried to invoke a bit of Ronald Reagan, without the tact or polish - far more combative and confrontational. He is advocating a radical shift - threatening to bring North Korea, Iran, Syria  and other "rogue states" to heel (due to lack of better words), with military if necessary.  He is advocating pouring US Forces back into the Middle East to stabilize fledgling or developing democracies. Most all of these areas are historically, directly or indirectly, client-states of USSR/Russian military hardware or "aid", dating back to the Cold War. 

(Editorializing here) The Russians have not forgotten the US 1980 election. They had a dovish candidate running for reelection against an unknown GOP candidate with hell-bent hawkish campaign rhetoric - and they misjudged his foreign policy. They realized it wasn't campaign rhetoric, he truly wanted to resign the USSR, politically, to the scrapheap of history and the Kremlin went into panic. That misstep was and is historically relevant. It was a key factor in a chain of events and policy mistakes that saw over two centuries of a proud nation being a "Great Power" crumble in less than a decade. Over 600 years of a being an authoritative empire came apart under Gorbachev and was replaced by the most Un-Russian of system - Yeltsin's democracy.  Power to the serfs. Needless to say, that failed, and Russia got THAT shit fixed after a decade or so of stumbling around. It's a decade-long embarrassing aberration in the Russian Empire's history that nationalists (and probably patriots in general) wont forget, and don't want to repeat. 

Obviously I am a bit of history buff. Yeltsin was followed in 2000 by another Russian patriot and the head of Yeltsin's FBS/KGB - Putin. Who knew he was a lot closer to Nikita Khrushchev than Boris Yeltsin? A wolf in sheep's clothing that fooled Bush, Obama and the rest of The West. If  Putin sees himself as a Tsar, or General Secretary (and I think he does), he is all about restoring Russian (and personal) influence and prestige that was lost. Starting during the Bush Administration, and more so during the Obama administration (not BECAUSE of) Russia began to reasserted it's influence it what it considers historically "theirs" - the Stans, the Ukraine, Syria at the expense of NATO/Western influence.  Someone new is about to take charge of the country, and with it, "Leadership of the Free World" (just bear with me on that, it's iffy I know) backed by the most advanced military on the planet. Putin knows the routine, he's basically run Russia and been consolidating his power since the tail end of Bill Clinton's presidency.

I have yet to ever hear any reasonable explanation of why Russia wanted Trump in the White House instead of Clinton. The closest I have heard is "They have something on Trump" or "he is a political neophyte they can take advantage of". Even if there was some vast conspiracy of collusion and then they would "own" Trump, a hawkish administration would still represent a much greater risk than a status quo in my eyes. Nations don't tend to willingly choose a risky unknown over "The Devil You know" when it comes to National Self-interest. Especially a nation that has a recent painful reminder of what that can cost. Why would Russia/Putin rig an election against a more known commodity in favor of a wildcard who is a risk to their policy and influence?  

 

Not looking for an argument at all, but for logical counterpoints. I'm far more interested in "what's right" than "who is right", so I'm open to changing my views when it's apparent I may be somewhat misguided. 

(And Dear God, I've been pecking away at this for hours between phone calls, emails and work in general, and one accidental deletion of all the text! Apologies in advance for length, grammar, readability and any repetitiveness. Or redundancy.)

 

 

 

[Chach]

On 07/08/2019 at 04:45, Ghoat said:

Long post is long

 

have you read the executive summaries of the Mueller report?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

Putin's primary goal is the break up of the EU and the destruction (inc sowing discord) of as many liberal democracies as possible, there's no 4D chess game going on and Clinton would have seen straight though him and united the west against him. 

 

 

[Matt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49310259

I was actually close to agreeing with Trump until he carried on being, well... Trump. 

Satirical or not, the concept is fucking ridiculous and would only reaffirm the polarised (because they’re usually the ones too blind to see anything, let alone satire). 

[Chach]

8 hours ago, Matt said:

Satirical or not, the concept is fucking ridiculous and would only reaffirm the polarised (because they’re usually the ones too blind to see anything, let alone satire). 

Agreed, would have ended up being porn for some tortured soul.

[Chach]

Has Joe Biden's run been as much of a train wreck up close as it looks from afar?

I can't believe he's still out front.

[markjazzbassist]

1 hour ago, Chach said:

Has Joe Biden's run been as much of a train wreck up close as it looks from afar?

I can't believe he's still out front.

there are no good candidates for the dems.  Bernie is great but too old, Biden too old, Warren had the native american snafu, Kamala Harris too unknown, etc.  I think Trump will win again.

[Chach]

1 minute ago, markjazzbassist said:

there are no good candidates for the dems.  Bernie is great but too old, Biden too old, Warren had the native american snafu, Kamala Harris too unknown, etc.  I think Trump will win again.

I think it has to be Warren, at the time I thought the native american thing was a show stopper but she seems to have shaken it off. She's whip smart and people will warm to her.

[markjazzbassist]

3 minutes ago, Chach said:

I think it has to be Warren, at the time I thought the native american thing was a show stopper but she seems to have shaken it off. She's whip smart and people will warm to her.

she and harris are probably the best bets.  i just think sanders and biden's age and being old white guys really hurts them.  unless either of them were able to get a real powerhouse VP (showing even if they die it would be in possibly better hands) i just think age will be their downfall.

[Ghoat]

On 09/08/2019 at 01:53, Chach said:

have you read the executive summaries of the Mueller report?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

Putin's primary goal is the break up of the EU and the destruction (inc sowing discord) of as many liberal democracies as possible, there's no 4D chess game going on and Clinton would have seen straight though him and united the west against him. 

 

 

Didn't realize that was forgone conclusion and an inescapable fact. So that's that!

[Ghoat]

21 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

there are no good candidates for the dems.  Bernie is great but too old, Biden too old, Warren had the native american snafu, Kamala Harris too unknown, etc.  I think Trump will win again.

I agree at this point. It seems to be a battle of who will out-socialize the other. That being said, I think someone will eventually settle into a coherent policy. I'm not sure if a more moderate or more "extreme" candidate would be a stronger candidate, but I do think someone will emerge, maybe even like Bill Clinton who came from nowhere to unseat a incumbent president. Tulsi Gabbard maybe?

[markjazzbassist]

maybe i'm just pessimistic but i think the dems have been in disarray for a while now.  the repubs i can't stand but they had a strategy when obama was in office.  win the governors seats and win the judges seats.  they did that soundly.  trump is in office and its a cluster, they couldn't get the senate and trump is nominating judges at an unprecedented rate, they will have their majority there too.  by the time the dems get their act together the organization of the repubs will have set them back greatly.  

 

i'd rather a green party or something candidate get some hot press and start getting the 5%+ votes to get government funding.  Left Center Right would be more fun. 

[Ghoat]

It's ironic but not that long ago Nancy Pelosi was considered the standard-bearer of the liberal-left. Now she is the one trying to pull the party back toward, relatively speaking, the center. The progressives, led by the freshman congresswomen, are becoming  the news makers in the party, and  face of the party. The right is more than will to promote that as well. Now personally I believe they are way too far to the left for most of America, but have appealed to and get tremendous support from the youngest voters,. 

If Pelosi can pull them back under her leadership and get a focused message going into 2020, I think the Democrats are still in pretty good shape. But if she can't, they could be a huge liability that could cost many contested house elections and relegate Pelosi to minority leader again. Nancy Pelosi might have the most difficult and unenviable tenure that Majority leader has faced. While I am no particular fan of hers, she is a political force to be reckoned with - a very seasoned, shrewd politician that has been a leading voice and face of Democrats for a while. That her leadership is being challenged, if not outright threatened, largely from a handful of first-time Congressional Democrats is pretty fascinating political theater.

 

 

 

[markjazzbassist]

6 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

It's ironic but not that long ago Nancy Pelosi was considered the standard-bearer of the liberal-left. Now she is the one trying to pull the party back toward, relatively speaking, the center. The progressives, led by the freshman congresswomen, are becoming  the news makers in the party, and  face of the party. The right is more than will to promote that as well. Now personally I believe they are way too far to the left for most of America, but have appealed to and get tremendous support from the youngest voters,. 

If Pelosi can pull them back under her leadership and get a focused message going into 2020, I think the Democrats are still in pretty good shape. But if she can't, they could be a huge liability that could cost many contested house elections and relegate Pelosi to minority leader again. Nancy Pelosi might have the most difficult and unenviable tenure that Majority leader has faced. While I am no particular fan of hers, she is a political force to be reckoned with - a very seasoned, shrewd politician that has been a leading voice and face of Democrats for a while. That her leadership is being challenged, if not outright threatened, largely from a handful of first-time Congressional Democrats is pretty fascinating political theater.

 

 

 

a good thing for me.  far too long both sides of the aisle have been characterized as led by old white guys, i'm ready for something different.  obama was young and non-white when he started his rise, lets get some other people in the mix as well.  Honestly i think they should amend (it wil never happen) the senate to 8 year max and same with house.  these old fogies are just collecting checks adn servers their donors they don't care about small people like you and me.

[Ghoat]

Just now, markjazzbassist said:

a good thing for me.  far too long both sides of the aisle have been characterized as led by old white guys, i'm ready for something different.  obama was young and non-white when he started his rise, lets get some other people in the mix as well.  Honestly i think they should amend (it wil never happen) the senate to 8 year max and same with house.  these old fogies are just collecting checks adn servers their donors they don't care about small people like you and me.

Totally agree. I think two years isn't long enough for the House. make it in work for a year and basically spend a significant part of their second year on re-election. I would rather see that as a 4-year term with a two-term limit. The Senate is a little bit trickier. Either limited to two terms as is, or change it to four your terms with a 3 term limit. But if the President can only have 8 years, it doesn't seem logical the congressman or senators can stay almost indefinitely and become the institution within the institution like Byrd or Thurmond. Fuck those guys, get a real job!

[markjazzbassist]

8 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Totally agree. I think two years isn't long enough for the House. make it in work for a year and basically spend a significant part of their second year on re-election. I would rather see that as a 4-year term with a two-term limit. The Senate is a little bit trickier. Either limited to two terms as is, or change it to four your terms with a 3 term limit. But if the President can only have 8 years, it doesn't seem logical the congressman or senators can stay almost indefinitely and become the institution within the institution like Byrd or Thurmond. Fuck those guys, get a real job!

yeah good point, also the supreme court its judge for life.  that is stupid.  some of them are way past it and yet there they are.  force a retirement at age 70 or 75 or something and stop these lifelong gigs.  

 

none of this will ever happen because it takes the very people that have those jobs to do it, and they wont vote against their own interests.

[Ghoat]

Yeah 70/75 or 20 years on the bench, whichever comes first,  would seem reasonable. That would give them the same distance/insulation from party changes in the other two branches they currently have, and still be an unprecedented term length. Federal judges are 8 or 10 years I think? Regardless,  I'm not aware of any position, elected or appointed outside the judiciary that exceeds 6 years, besides the Federal Reserve members.  The intention was an interruption of a career to serve the people, not to make a career from the people.

[Chach]

12 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

she and harris are probably the best bets.  i just think sanders and biden's age and being old white guys really hurts them.  unless either of them were able to get a real powerhouse VP (showing even if they die it would be in possibly better hands) i just think age will be their downfall.

Bernie is great and from an outsiders point of view a US national treasure and I'm sure Biden is a great guy who can work with conservatives, but surely now they are just taking up space. You think how fast illness can overtake you at that age, its irresponsible to be taking on/aiming for such a high office surely?

[Chach]

12 hours ago, Ghoat said:

Didn't realize that was forgone conclusion and an inescapable fact. So that's that!

If you told me a few years ago that the POTUS would be cosying up to Putin and admiring other tinpot dictators while simultaneously smack talking the leaders of Europe I would have told you to go and have a cup of tea and a lay down.

[Ghoat]

8 hours ago, Chach said:

If you told me a few years ago that the POTUS would be cosying up to Putin and admiring other tinpot dictators while simultaneously smack talking the leaders of Europe I would have told you to go and have a cup of tea and a lay down.

If you had told me several years ago that these would be our two nominees for the 2016 presidential election, I would have asked if you were smoking your tea instead of drinking it

 

[Ghoat]

9 hours ago, Chach said:

Bernie is great and from an outsiders point of view a US national treasure and I'm sure Biden is a great guy who can work with conservatives, but surely now they are just taking up space. You think how fast illness can overtake you at that age, its irresponsible to be taking on/aiming for such a high office surely?

What makes you say that? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, if for no other reason I have no outsiders point of view.

From an "insider's" POV,  for me he was fairly unknown until the last presidential election. The main reason I even knew his name is because he was the only independent in the Senate. Even though he is obviously in line with the Democrats and always has been counted as such, what I knew him most for was being the only (I) when the makeup of the US Senate was discussed.

But to your point, and MJB's, I agree his age (79 on Election Day) this cycle is a liability, fairly or unfairly. 

 

[Matt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49367792

 

[Ghoat]

Trump Tower Nuuk is going to be an amaaaaazing hotel.

[Chach]

12 hours ago, Ghoat said:

What makes you say that?

Because from the outside its seemed like the US had two centre right parties (you did) before the 2016 election and Bernie really changed the conversation in a sensible "non woke" way that was appealing to people of all ages. 

[Chach]

13 hours ago, Ghoat said:

If you had told me several years ago that these would be our two nominees for the 2016 presidential election, I would have asked if you were smoking your tea instead of drinking it

TrumpClinton.JPG

I'm not sure where you are going here trying to equate Trump with Clinton? Seemed she was always going to be a presidential candidate and has dedicated the majority of her life to public service.

 

[Chach]

13 hours ago, Matt said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49367792

 

It's cute how he BBC covers every one of his brain farts so dispassionately. 

This on the other hand I find quite disconcerting, unlikely many right wing free speech warriors will be up in arms about this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49373269

[Ghoat]

1 hour ago, Chach said:

I'm not sure where you are going here trying to equate Trump with Clinton? Seemed she was always going to be a presidential candidate and has dedicated the majority of her life to public service.

 

No wasn't going anywhere with it at all. I was reiterating your point about "who saw this coming"

Trump always seemed  moderate-left (Like Bill), which makes sense for an entrepreneur in New York City. So when you look at that picture to think that a few years later those chubby buddies would be the protagonists in the most antagonistic acrimonious US presidential election to date...I don't think that was expected outcome 11-12 years removed from that picture

[Ghoat]

53 minutes ago, Chach said:

It's cute how he BBC covers every one of his brain farts so dispassionately. 

This on the other hand I find quite disconcerting, unlikely many right wing free speech warriors will be up in arms about this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49373269

On one hand, the fact that a democratic nation will tell our democratically elected leaders they are not allowed into their country is a little disconcerting, I won't lie.

On the other hand if you spent the last year consantly publicly telling Israel to go suck a dick, I think Israel has the right to say no, fuck you.

I'm very concerned about the precedent it sets. But Free Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences. (As anyone married welln knows). I am legitimately torn on this.

 

[Ghoat]

1 hour ago, Chach said:

Because from the outside its seemed like the US had two centre right parties (you did) before the 2016 election and Bernie really changed the conversation in a sensible "non woke" way that was appealing to people of all ages. 

I will agree, he absolutely change the conversation and was drastically different from his opponent in the party and the opposing party. So is that what made him an American Hero in your eyes? That is a clarifying question, because regardless of your answer I don't have a follow-up question