2020 US Election (Part 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Napoleon saw the UK as his prime enemy
And selling Lousiana was handing over to the US to prevent the Brits getting it. The money welcome. And had Napoleon not lost... he could always come back on that deal by force ?

I don't think Britain would be holding on to Louisiana. Afaik US was already in so many words threatening to go to war with France (to which it owed its own independence...) for control of the Mississippi.

Besides, if Britain hadn't destroyed the entire fleet of neutral Denmark, Napoleon would probably have been able to invade and subjugate it.

Not that even that would mean much for the future. Little over half a century later you saw a side with no naval power at all (Prussia) defeat France.
 
I don't think Britain would be holding on to Louisiana. Afaik US was already in somany words threatening to go to war with France (to which it owed its own independence...) for control of the Mississippi.

Besides, if Britain hadn't destroyed the entire fleet of neutral Denmark, Napoleon would probably have been able to invade and subjugate it.

Take my first line first: "Napoleon saw the UK as his prime enemy"
Do you think that is a wrong assessment ?

"
 
I think Trump's strategy of loudly claiming fraud and then having nothing to back it up has torpedoed any legal maneuvering he might try now. His credibility is completely shot and he's been stopped at every turn by the courts so far.

If he had just kept his mouth shut for a few days, he could have pushed a November surprise but instead he blew his legal shot early and fruitlessly.

ha, you fools. just wait till trump unveils the secret QR codes he planted in all legitimate ballots

OK, maybe there was a bit too much Kirsch in my Fondue.
 
I mean, that one is obvious :) Everyone else signed peace at some (or more) points.

ok
So our Napoleon sees himself as the savior of the world to bring enlightnment in all the dark places of the world, just like Charlemagne by territorial conquest & no limits & imposing.

The UK is behind that big wall of water and has a powerful navy.
How to buy time and neutralise the UK without engaging by an invasion ?
Selling off was the convenient solution to simplify the situation at hand... or not ?
 
Last edited:
Iirc the Japanese only surrendered in WW2 because if they hadn't Russia would take more land from the north. I've seen it argued that the nuclear bombings didn't really matter in their decision.
Close, but not quite. Japan has issued several surrender letters, but required that emperor be left in power and not executed for the war. US demanded an unconditional surrender. Japan kept the war effort up, as pointless as it was, because they still had an ace up their sleeve. They knew that US and USSR were enemies. And USSR had, despite the enemy status, kept its promise of the non-aggression pact signed with Japan throughout the whole war. In turn, Japanese hoped they could be step in and in return for battling the US influence, stamped out a more Japanese-favorable peace treaty. Unbeknownst to them, USSR has already agreed to attack Japan and was doing preparations for the invasion.
Some attempted coups, nukes and USSR taking all of Manchuria, Korea, Sakhali and most Kuril islands later, Japan finally agreed to surrender unconditionally and US instantly backed down on the whole emperor execution thing, painting him as a mere powerless pawn under a super-military government. The reason for this change of mind on the US side should be obvious, but 25 kilometer distance between Japan and Russia is a good reminder of it.
 
Right above a tweet of "king of the uneducated." :lol: It was a good one, but twitter is still for assfaces. ;)
I noticed that and I considered not linking, precisely because I knew you'd notice that, but I didn't feel like seaching all of twitter for a link of the video that didn't have such a comment (there are many at this point). I guess there are sore winners as well as sore losers. No surprise there... FWIW, I dont have a twitter account.
 
ok
So our Napoleon sees himself as the savior of the world to bring enlightnment in all the dark places of the world, just like Charlemagne by territorial conquest ^no limits & imposing.

The UK is behind that big wall of water and has a powerful navy.
How to buy time and neutralise the UK without engaging by an invasion ?
Selling off was the convenient solution to simplify the situation at hand... or not ?

I am certainly not well-read on this issue. I do know of one quote by Napoleon (but I am not sure when he said it), that by giving those territories to the US he ensured that Britain would never again be #1.
Not that this meant much for France, cause it would never be #1.

Prior to WW1 both Napoleon cult (for french) and the 1870 war cult (for germans) were very strong.
 
A lot. There is the surface damage that can be easily mended (Trump insulting people and countries is more eye-rolling than a true cause for offense toward a whole nation), but there is a lot of much deeper stuff that will have consequences for years or even decade (Europe suddenly realizing that the USA might abandon it some day lead to some discreet but fundamental shift in overarching policy). He seriously hurt the USA standing and credibility in the world, in ways that will probably not really heal until a new crisis that will test them.

On internal american politics and Trump's clear appeal to about half the population (just look at this election result) I won't comment, other than to point out that it can not be easily dismissed.

But on the international standing of the US: the worst that happened during the past 4 years was Russia's alliance of necessity with China being strengthened. And this was not due to Trump (we wanted the opposite, to split these governments and isolate China) but due to the whole power machinery of DC deciding on attacking him with "russiagate". Without any regard for the damage that did to US foreign policy, where they arrogantly assume that the US holds a unique and unassailable position.

These same arrogant people will now have a freer hand at implementing their foreign policy agendas and it's not going to be less sanctions and coups around the world. It's going to be even more, as they wished. The USA's standing and credibility will continue to fall as a consequence because the USA simply does not have the might to ramp up the imperial agenda. It's one thing to destroy more countries, quite another to manage to control them afterwards. That takes treasury and willing bodies to man the occupation. And the US population is ripe for rebellion against the costs of Empire. Trump was a symptom. Thinking he was a cause and believing to have got him out of the way... figure out what is likely to happen.

People talk of the danger of "fascist populism" in the US, but populist isolationism is imo the most likely winner within 4 years. European countries would do well to cease counting on alliance with the US for the medium term already.
 
China is certainly in a position to be stronger than the US - they don't lack anything to achieve it, their population is four times larger, they have enough scientists and infrastructure, resources, industrialism, tech and endless supply of money. I think the world has officially three poles, and if anything the Eu stopped being a pole (it became some laughable sustaining mechanism for german exports).
I am not sure if US is done trying to be the sole superpower, though. But if it isn't, then things will be more fired up in the future.
 
I noticed that and I considered not linking, precisely because I knew you'd notice that, but I didn't feel like seaching all of twitter for a link of the video that didn't have such a comment (there are many at this point). I guess there are sore winners as well as sore losers. No surprise there... FWIW, I dont have a twitter account.

I knew you wouldn't have one of those. Link Panther memes anyday. Now that your chosen party won and my chosen enemy lost, all the bile comes the other way. I have more clearance to give the yuppies ****. Especially considering who gets dispatched out first to deal with the crazypants we both know are likely to be all riled up. We're supposed to keep a lid "on our own(that aren't us despite poor visual acuity)," rite?
 
For those who'd like to take some time to actually read and aren't lawyers who get paid to read by the pixel:

Ding-dong, the jerk is gone. But read this before you sing the Hallelujah Chorus
Thomas Frank
Trump’s defeat is a time for celebrating – let us praise God for victory. But let us also show some humility in our triumph, and think about how we got here

Ding-dong, the jerk is gone. Finally, we have come to the end of Donald Trump’s season of extreme misrule. Voters have rejected what can only be described as the crassest, vainest, stupidest, most dysfunctional leadership this country has ever suffered.

Congratulations to Joe Biden for doing what Hillary Clinton couldn’t, and for somehow managing to do it without forcefulness, without bounce, without zest, without direction and without a real cause, even.

It is a time for celebrating. Let us praise God for victory, however meagre and under-whelming. But let us also show some humility in our triumph. Before we swing into a national sing-along of the Hallelujah Chorus, I urge you to think for a moment about how we got here and where we must go next.

Spoiler :
We know that 2020 has been a year for reckoning with the racist past, for the smashing of icons and the tearing-down of former heroes. Also for confronting the historical delusions that gave us this lousy present.

In the spirit of this modern iconoclasm, let me offer my own suggestion for the reckoning that must come next, hopefully even before Biden chooses his cabinet and packs his bags for Pennsylvania Avenue: Democrats must confront their own past and acknowledge how their own decisions over the years helped make Trumpism possible.

I know: this was a negation election, and what got nixed was Maga madness. The Democrats are the ones who won. Still, it is Joe Biden who must plan our course forward and so it is Biden who must examine our situation coldly and figure out the answer to the burning question of today: how can a recurrence of Trumpism be prevented?

Biden’s instinct, naturally, will be to govern as he always legislated: as a man of the center who works with Republicans to craft small-bore, business-friendly measures. After all, Biden’s name is virtually synonymous with Washington consensus. His years in the US Senate overlap almost precisely with his party’s famous turn to the “third way” right, and Biden personally played a leading role in many of the signature initiatives of the era: Nafta-style trade agreements, lucrative favors for banks, tough-on-crime measures, proposed cuts to social security, even.

What Biden must understand now, however, is that it was precisely this turn, this rightward shift in the 1980s and 90s, that set the stage for Trumpism.

Let us recall for a moment what that turn looked like. No longer were Democrats going to be the party of working people, they told us in those days. They were “new Democrats” now, preaching competence rather than ideology and reaching out to new constituencies: the enlightened suburbanites; the “wired workers”; the “learning class”; the winners in our new post-industrial society.

For years this turn was regarded as a great success. Bill Clinton brought us market-friendly reforms to banking rules, trade relations and the welfare system. He and his successor Barack Obama negotiated grand bargains and graceful triangulations; means-tested subsidies and targeted tax credits; tough-minded crime measures and social programs so complex that sometimes not even their designers could explain them to us.

In the place of the Democratic party’s old household god – the “middle class” – these new liberals enshrined the meritocracy, meaning not only the brilliant economists who designed their policies, but also the financiers and technologists that the new liberalism tried to serve, together with the highly educated professionals who were now its most prized constituents. In 2016 Hillary Clinton lost the former manufacturing regions of the country but was able to boast later on that she won “the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product … the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.”

However, there are consequences when the left party in a two-party system chooses to understand itself in this way. As we have learned from the Democrats’ experiment, such a party will show little understanding for the grievances of blue-collar workers, people who – by definition – have not climbed the ladder of meritocracy. And just think of all the shocking data that has flickered across our attention-screens in the last dozen years – how our economy’s winnings are hogged by the 1%; how ordinary people can no longer afford new cars; how young people are taking on huge debt burdens right out of college; and a thousand other points of awful. All of these have been direct or indirect products of the political experiment I am describing.

Biden can’t take us back to the happy assumptions of the centrist era even if he wants to, because so many of its celebrated policy achievements lie in ruins. Not even Paul Krugman enthuses about Nafta-style trade agreements any longer. Bill Clinton’s welfare reform initiative was in fact a capitulation to racist tropes and brought about an explosion in extreme poverty. The great prison crackdown of 1994 was another step in cementing the New Jim Crow. And the biggest shortcoming of Obama’s Affordable Care Act – leaving people’s health insurance tied to their employer – has become painfully obvious in this era of mass unemployment and mass infection.

But the biggest consequence of the Democrats’ shabby experiment is one we have yet to reckon with: it has coincided with a period of ever more conservative governance. It turns out that when the party of the left abandons its populist traditions for high-minded white-collar rectitude, the road is cleared for a particularly poisonous species of rightwing demagoguery. It is no coincidence that, as Democrats pursued their professional-class “third way”, Republicans became ever bolder in their preposterous claim to be a “workers’ party” representing the aspirations of ordinary people.

When Democrats abandoned their majoritarian tradition, in other words, Republicans hastened to stake their own claim to it. For the last 30 years it has been the right, not the left, that rails against “elites” and that champions our down-home values in the face of the celebrities who mock them. During the 2008 financial crisis conservatives actually launched a hard-times protest movement from the floor of the Chicago board of trade; in the 2016 campaign they described their foul-mouthed champion, Trump, as a “blue-collar billionaire”, kin to and protector of the lowly – the lowly and the white, that is.

Donald Trump’s prodigious bungling of the Covid pandemic has got him kicked out of office and has paused the nation’s long march to the right. Again, let us give thanks. But let us also remember that the Republicans have not been permanently defeated. Their preening leader has gone down, but his toxic brand of workerism will soon be back, enlisting the disinherited and the lowly in the cause of the mighty. So will our fatuous culture wars, with their endless doses of intoxicating self-righteousness, shot into the veins of the nation by social media or Fox News.

I have been narrating our country’s toboggan ride to hell for much of my adult life, and I can attest that Biden’s triumph by itself is not enough to bring it to a stop. It will never stop until a Democratic president faces up to his party’s mistakes and brings to a halt the ignoble experiment of the last four decades.

Should Joe Biden do that, he might be able to see that he has before him a moment of great Democratic possibility. This country has grown sick of plutocracy. We don’t enjoy sluicing everything we earn into the bank accounts of a few dozen billionaires. We want a healthcare system that works and an economy in which ordinary people prosper, even people who didn’t go to a fancy college. Should Biden open his eyes and overcome his past, he may discover that he has it in his power to rebuild our sense of social solidarity, to make the middle-class promise real again, and to beat back the right. All at the same time.
 
I am certainly not well-read on this issue. I do know of one quote by Napoleon (but I am not sure when he said it), that by giving those territories to the US he ensured that Britain would never again be #1.
Not that this meant much for France, cause it would never be #1.

Prior to WW1 both Napoleon cult (for french) and the 1870 war cult (for germans) were very strong.

yes
and yes Napoleon overstretched at the expense of France #1
He should be on his knees because Talleyrand repaired the French position after Napoleon screwed up.
But the French in their Romanticism emerging as twin of the ratio of Voltaire favored Romanticism in the balance between those two and ruled in France after Napoleon and made him holy.
People rather identified with the emotions and lost glory of their hero than with the purpose of the French Revolution destroyed by a strongman, that same Napoleon.

Makes one thinking about the similarities with Trump.
 
Definitely. This type of (currently outoing) self-absorbed populist is what we get everywhere, part of a wave of support for lack of merit, for not doing anything, por passing your exams by government decree instead of studying, subsidies instead of jobs, favours instead of merit, bribery instead of rights and duties. All of it ultimately embodied in today's latest reiteration of ‘I won because I say so and it works if we don't count people who vote against me’.

I hope that this is part of a wave of decency for once instead of an outlier. But I live in the most unequal region on Earth, so I'll hold on to that thought for now.
 
China is certainly in a position to be stronger than the US - they don't lack anything to achieve it, their population is four times larger, they have enough scientists and infrastructure, resources, industrialism, tech and endless supply of money. I think the world has officially three poles, and if anything the Eu stopped being a pole (it became some laughable sustaining mechanism for german exports).
I am not sure if US is done trying to be the sole superpower, though. But if it isn't, then things will be more fired up in the future.

German exports are in for a lot of pain. Germany specializes in the "value chain" for Internal Combustion Engine cars. Specifically on that, the systems around ICE, as assembly is easier and more outsourced. But the ICE is now declining.
The chinese are developing their own chain for Electrical Vehicles. German exports have taken a dive with this recession and are not going to recover to the same level because it's not just the coronavirus recession (still starting), it's the entire industrial shift in the automobile industry leveling the paying field there. It does not matter if german companies are doing the lion's share of investment now, and if half of that goes to China. The chinese are not dumb and will make sure they do not depend on the germans for this new industry.

There's also another thing, I believe. The asian's outlook on the rest of the world cannot but be influenced by how this virus is being handled. The developed countries of Asia have all handled it correctly. They're back to their old selves, with "perimeter protection" and some care. The europeans and americans instead are an ongoing train-wreck. Total and complete incompetence, from government down through yes men in public administration who do not dare point out the suicidal Hodge-podge of contradictory policies and force a competent one. They are concluding that they have nothing more to learn from "western science", much less western lectures about governance. They will invest on their own development and ignore attempts at interference. And they will build up their military.
The visible complete failure of the "west" in handling the virus has finally given the asians the confidence they still lacked to go their own way. And they have the wealth, know-how and government capability to do it now. It's game over for european and american influence there. What positions the US might still retain for a few years, military alliances, will have to be based on exploiting rivalries between asian countries. European influence is finished for good.

The US will continue to be the major military power in the world for a couple of decades more. But I don't believe the position will survive longer. Nor that Biden can "repair" the relation with China. The US is in great-power competition with China already, it was not a Trump thing. He was just loud about it.
 
There's a lot of talk of the EU and the US not reforming ties, but Africa and South America are still rising along with India. Catch up to do with the much stronger PRC sphere. There's too much in common. There won't really be a choice. Not to be grim.
 
Birthplace of the USA has a "rotten history" says anti-American despot.

Does this article require a subscription or something? I can't access it. A shame, too. It looks like it's a text article, and not an annoying video link.

ok
So our Napoleon sees himself as the savior of the world to bring enlightnment in all the dark places of the world, just like Charlemagne by territorial conquest ^no limits & imposing.

The UK is behind that big wall of water and has a powerful navy.
How to buy time and neutralise the UK without engaging by an invasion ?
Selling off was the convenient solution to simplify the situation at hand... or not ?

Napoleon, though he was indeed a master strategist, statesman, and diplomat, was a Conservative Reactionary, overthrowing a "chaotic mess," created by the Left-wing Jacobins (by the political spectrum of the day - a political spectrum and day and age when Jefferson and Madison's Democratic-Republicans were also viewed as Left-wing along with the Jacobins and Adams and Hamilton's Federalists were view as Centre-Right) and even the incompetent and corrupt Directory that followed (balancing it's budget on the plunder from other European cities during the French Revolutionary Wars). He pulled the trick of Octavian becoming Augustus in the wake of his Great Uncle, Julius Gaius Caesar's assassination under claims that he wished to reinstate the old Kings of Rome and abolish the Republic, where both men instead took up the title of "Emperor," and triumphally began a new monarchial tradition with different trappings and traditions entirely to replace and supplant the old Monarchy of Kings that had become so unpopular in their homelands.

Close, but not quite. Japan has issued several surrender letters, but required that emperor be left in power and not executed for the war. US demanded an unconditional surrender. Japan kept the war effort up, as pointless as it was, because they still had an ace up their sleeve. They knew that US and USSR were enemies. And USSR had, despite the enemy status, kept its promise of the non-aggression pact signed with Japan throughout the whole war. In turn, Japanese hoped they could be step in and in return for battling the US influence, stamped out a more Japanese-favorable peace treaty. Unbeknownst to them, USSR has already agreed to attack Japan and was doing preparations for the invasion.
Some attempted coups, nukes and USSR taking all of Manchuria, Korea, Sakhali and most Kuril islands later, Japan finally agreed to surrender unconditionally and US instantly backed down on the whole emperor execution thing, painting him as a mere powerless pawn under a super-military government. The reason for this change of mind on the US side should be obvious, but 25 kilometer distance between Japan and Russia is a good reminder of it.

Ah, yes. The great abundance of dirty dealings and secret pact making of WW2 - which every belligerent power (and even some neutrals) were all horribly guilty of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom