2020 US Election (Part Two)

Status
Not open for further replies.
General So-so-meany? Kablooey. Shows him right for killing Americans.

An eye-for-an-eye leaves the whole world blind. Retribution killings make the retribution killer and the regime they serve just as much criminals as the one killed and the regime they serve, and the original killing were probably retribution killings against a killer or killers(of) of those seeking retribution or their allies. ALL of these killers to be brought to justice, and so should ALL of the governments they serve EVERYWHERE, and tried for all of their heinous crimes, regardless of where in the world they, and replaced with governments who will actually focus on doing they're job as governments full of public servants - that is, serving their people and nation to actually and directly better and advance them positively, with accountability and transparency, and not endlessly killing people abroad - or domestically - on their people's taxpayers' dime, and often seditiously keeping these things secret from their own people. At least if there is there ANY decency or justice left in this rotten old hole of the world. But seeing people PRAISE and SUPPORT such retribution killings abroad such retribution killings and other sociopathic high crimes abroad just makes me sick - but then again, you yourself, have previously advocated some other warped, twisted, and inhuman viewpoints already, so your moral centre, to me, is about that of Hannibal Lector, and even bleeds into posts where you're trying to sound noble - basically utterly insincere, like Zombie Reagan.
 
and of course the sign of the brilliant business person is getting others doing the work , in case people might have forgotten NATO's blue eyed boys were just on the verge of getting into all out war with Russia in Syria and like were winning , too , of course until the time they saw America was not actually there to keep them being targeted in these rather cruel Russian ways of doing things .
 
I think in real policy terms though the U.S. has seen less aggressive military intervention than any other administration in my lifetime.

Reagan: Grenada, Libya
H.W. Bush: Panama, Iraq I, Somalia
Clinton: Haiti, Yugoslavia
W. Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq II
Obama: Libya, Syria

Now of course not all of these are not of the same scope, but I can't think of one new intervention started by Trump unless I've forgotten about one.
Firstly, all major international crisis have been of Trump's own making. Remember when he appeared to be seriously contemplating war with Best Korea with his "fire and fury" stuff? Ratcheting up tensions with Iran by voiding the JCPOA that his own government was saying Iran was complying with was a crisis of his own making. He hasn't faced anything external like Libya or Syria.
Secondly, if we have seen less military activity under Trump, part of it must be due to the inability of the White House to think on a long term schedule. When you can't even get Infrastructure Week off the ground, there is no way you can manage an armed intervention in another country.
Third, "Trump the secret dove" isn't born out by actually looking at his foreign policy. He rattles the sabers and lines up the cannon balls, but then realizes that War is Serious Business and then either drops the issue (like with Iran) or signs a nothingburger and then proceeds to ignore it (like Best Korea). Nothing was gained from his temper tantrums, apart from seriously unnerving key allies or leaving them high and dry (like the Kurds).
 
So Trump knew Russia was paying bounties to the Taliban in March and has neither said nor done nothing. 20 US soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019. Earlier this month Trump pushed for Russia rejoining the G-7. Perhaps he is being too harsh. It certainly could be a winning strategy with vets though.

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says
The Trump administration has been deliberating for months about what to do about a stunning intelligence assessment.





American troops in Afghanistan have been the target of some Taliban operations backed by Russia, intelligence officials found.Credit...Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

By Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt and Michael Schwirtz

  • June 26, 2020Updated 4:35 p.m. ET
  • WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops — amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter.

The United States concluded months ago that the Russian unit, which has been linked to assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe intended to destabilize the West or take revenge on turncoats, had covertly offered rewards for successful attacks last year.

Islamist militants, or armed criminal elements closely associated with them, are believed to have collected some bounty money, the officials said. Twenty Americans were killed in combat in Afghanistan in 2019, but it was not clear which killings were under suspicion.
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said. Officials developed a menu of potential options — starting with making a diplomatic complaint to Moscow and a demand that it stop, along with an escalating series of sanctions and other possible responses, but the White House has yet to authorize any step, the officials said.

An operation to incentivize the killing of American and other NATO troops would be a significant and provocative escalation of what American and Afghan officials have said is Russian support for the Taliban, and it would be the first time the Russian spy unit was known to have orchestrated attacks on Western troops.

Any involvement with the Taliban that resulted in the deaths of American troops would also be a huge escalation of Russia’s so-called hybrid war against the United States, a strategy of destabilizing adversaries through a combination of such tactics as cyberattacks, the spread of fake news and covert and deniable military operations.
The Kremlin had not been made aware of the accusations, said Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. “If someone makes them, we’ll respond,” Mr. Peskov said. A Taliban spokesman did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Spokespeople at the National Security Council, the Pentagon, the State Department and the C.I.A. declined to comment. The officials familiar with the intelligence did not explain the White House delay in deciding how to respond to the intelligence about Russia. While some of his closest advisers, like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have counseled more hawkish policies toward Russia, Mr. Trump has adopted an accommodating stance toward Moscow.

At a summit in 2018 in Helsinki, Finland, Mr. Trump strongly suggested that he believed Mr. Putin’s denial that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 presidential election, despite broad agreement within the American intelligence establishment that it did. Mr. Trump criticized a bill imposing sanctions on Russia when he signed it into law after Congress passed it by veto-proof majorities. And he has repeatedly made statements that undermined the NATO alliance as a bulwark against Russian aggression in Europe.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the delicate intelligence and internal deliberations. They said the intelligence had been treated as a closely held secret, but the administration expanded briefings about it this week — including sharing information about it with the British government, whose forces are among those said to have been targeted.

Moreover, as Mr. Trump seeks re-election in November, he wants to strike a peace deal with the Taliban to end the Afghanistan war.
 
So Trump knew Russia was paying bounties to the Taliban in March and has neither said nor done nothing. 20 US soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019. Earlier this month Trump pushed for Russia rejoining the G-7. Perhaps he is being too harsh. It certainly could be a winning strategy with vets though.

Osama Bin Laden, funded by the US to do that to russians in Afganistan, is in no way comparable in scope or effect.
 
Paying bounties for killing enemies is probably standard operating procedure for governments even if not in a state of war. Trumps problem is that he has known about it and done nothing. The issue is that he has been ignoring the issue and now that it is public, he will be forced into doing something or nothing. It is likely to piss off folks who would normally support him. Not acting will make him look weak.
 
Read this AP story. Thoughts:

Biden doesn’t need to connect himself to Obama in order to win, he needs to (1.) not say anything goofy, which is a tall order for him and (2.) be hard on the coronavirus and the current response.

He’s already got name recognition & the backing of his base. He can still blow it. If he’s a competent politician, he won’t. Before the coronavirus I’d say Trump had a 100% chance of victory. At present, I’d put it at 30% and declining.

Trump has the right skillset but isn’t using it to his advantage; he needs to look like he’s busy more than anything. With the economy pre-coronavirus, he could have sailed to victory because he seemed active and angry. Now though, he’s looking more aloof. People don’t like aloof, whether right or wrong. It’s about sending the right message, and Trump’s boning it.
It's not aloof but actually actively counterproductive. Today's CNN actually had ‘Donald Trump pushes for SCOTUS to repeal Obamacare during pandemic’.
And then this ensued:
Biden says Trump's 'senseless crusade' to end Obamacare would harm those with coronavirus

(CNN)Joe Biden lambasted President Donald Trump's push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, saying Thursday that if Trump gets his way, those who contract coronavirus could lose coverage or face higher premiums.

"If Donald Trump won't end his senseless crusade against health coverage, I look forward to ending it for him," the presumptive Democratic 2020 presidential nominee said in a speech in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Biden's comments come as the Trump administration is expected to file briefs asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act -- including popular provisions that protect individuals with pre-existing conditions. It's the latest Trump effort to repeal Obamacare after the Republican-controlled Congress failed to do so during his first two years in office.

Biden linked Trump's bid to undo Obamacare to the coronavirus pandemic, saying that those who suffer the virus could live caught in a "vise" between Trump's "twin legacies." Those, Biden said, are Trump's "failure to protect the American people from the coronavirus, and his heartless crusade to take health care protections away from American families."
"If Donald Trump has his way, complications from Covid-19 could become a new pre-existing condition. Some survivors will experience lasting health impacts -- like lung scarring and heart damage. And if Donald Trump prevails in court, insurers would be allowed to strip away coverage or jack up premiums -- simply because of their battle with the coronavirus," Biden said.
The former vice president called Trump's effort "cruel," "heartless" and "callous," and said he believes Trump's motivation behind the long-term effort to repeal Obamacare is that "he can't abide to let stand one of President Obama's great achievements."
"Mr. President, drop the lawsuit," he said. "Stop trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Stop taking away people's health care and their peace of mind."
In a press call pre-butting Biden's appearance, Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh pointed to Trump's pledges to protect coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- despite Trump having backed legislation to repeal Obamacare, which put those protections in place, and the Justice Department now arguing in court for the law to be scrapped.
Biden broadly criticized Trump's handling of the coronavirus, pointing to Trump telling supporters at a rally in Oklahoma last week that he'd asked his administration to "slow down" coronavirus tests as confirmed cases increased.
"He actually said it!" Biden said.
Biden accused Trump of reacting to the pandemic "like a child who can't believe this has happened to him. All this whining and self-pity."
"Well, this pandemic didn't happen to him. It happened to all of us. And his job isn't to whine about it, his job is to do something about it. To lead," Biden said.
Biden campaigned during the Democratic primary on a pledge to defend the Affordable Care Act and seek to expand on it, in part by by beefing up the premium subsidies offered on the Obamacare exchanges and by creating a government-run public option on the exchanges that would compete with private insurance plans. He opposed pushes from more progressive candidates to scrap private insurance altogether in favor of "Medicare for all."
The former vice president on Thursday sought to reassure Americans as the country faces the twin crises of a pandemic and the soaring unemployment it has caused.
"If you're sick, if you're struggling, if you're worried about how you're going to get through the day, I will not abandon you. I will not leave you to face these challenges alone. And we're going to get through this together," Biden said. "We're going to build a health care system. We're going to build on it. We're going to build our economy -- our country -- back to better than it was before this God-awful crisis, that I promise you."​
 
Have you seen the other guy? He's actively killing American citizens. Yes, it will be enough to be not him.

Oh, there's no question in my mind that Biden deserves to win, that isn't what I meant. I mean none of the candidates are particularly good. We have awful, and the other choice of "bland, lesser of two evils". It is a bad election because none of the choices available are distinctly good.
 
... but then again, you yourself, have previously advocated some other warped, twisted, and inhuman viewpoints already, so your moral centre, to me, is about that of Hannibal Lector, and even bleeds into posts where you're trying to sound noble - basically utterly insincere, like Zombie Reagan.
A simple “I disagree” would have sufficed. :lol:
 
One thing that concerns me is that Biden having such a big lead over Trump could actually be BAD for Biden on election day, here is why:

It could cause Biden supporters/Trump haters to become too comfortable/confident. "Well my candidate is going to win anyway, the other one doesn't have a chance, what difference does it make if I, as an individual, don't?"

The problem is I bet there will a heck of a lot of Biden supporters/Trump haters making that decision, and collectively it will make a big difference. It's exactly why winning in the polls and winning the actual most votes don't necessarily mean the same thing. Voter turnout. Trump doesn't have as many voters, obviously, but they are loyal and reliable.

edit: Another reason it's a bad election is the only two candidates with any real chance to win are almost certainly sexual assault offenders.
 
Last edited:
Paying bounties for killing enemies is probably standard operating procedure for governments even if not in a state of war. Trumps problem is that he has known about it and done nothing. The issue is that he has been ignoring the issue and now that it is public, he will be forced into doing something or nothing. It is likely to piss off folks who would normally support him. Not acting will make him look weak.
Im not convinced this will impact his supporters at all. He will just deny it. Russia will deny it, and his supporters will believe it.
One thing that concerns me is that Biden having such a big lead over Trump could actually be BAD for Biden on election day, here is why:

It could cause Biden supporters/Trump haters to become too comfortable/confident. "Well my candidate is going to win anyway, the other one doesn't have a chance, what difference does it make if I, as an individual, don't?"

The problem is I bet there will a heck of a lot of Biden supporters/Trump haters making that decision, and collectively it will make a big difference. It's exactly why winning in the polls and winning the actual most votes don't necessarily mean the same thing. Voter turnout. Trump doesn't have as many voters, obviously, but they are loyal and reliable.

edit: Another reason it's a bad election is the only two candidates with any real chance to win are almost certainly sexual assault offenders.
Biden's lead is back down to 9% according to RCP. He's back under 50%.

This thing is by no means in the bag for Biden. In fact I think its still President Ding Dong's election to lose.
 
One thing that concerns me is that Biden having such a big lead over Trump could actually be BAD for Biden on election day, here is why:

It could cause Biden supporters/Trump haters to become too comfortable/confident. "Well my candidate is going to win anyway, the other one doesn't have a chance, what difference does it make if I, as an individual, don't?"

The problem is I bet there will a heck of a lot of Biden supporters/Trump haters making that decision, and collectively it will make a big difference. It's exactly why winning in the polls and winning the actual most votes don't necessarily mean the same thing. Voter turnout. Trump doesn't have as many voters, obviously, but they are loyal and reliable.

edit: Another reason it's a bad election is the only two candidates with any real chance to win are almost certainly sexual assault offenders.

For every presidential race in my memory I'd agree with you, but for this one there's two new factors. One is that Trump doesn't hide his emotions well, and humiliating him will have him reacting. Badly. And Trump haters (there's an awful lot of them) will want to see that. The second is that with Trump's track record on voting and polling, some people (I'm not the only one, for certain) realize that a close election will be actively contested by Trump, probably in extralegal/unconstitutional ways. But if it is a blowout, then while Trump will probably still claim it was rigged, his supporters are less likely to back him in that.
 
Firstly, all major international crisis have been of Trump's own making. Remember when he appeared to be seriously contemplating war with Best Korea with his "fire and fury" stuff? Ratcheting up tensions with Iran by voiding the JCPOA that his own government was saying Iran was complying with was a crisis of his own making. He hasn't faced anything external like Libya or Syria.
Secondly, if we have seen less military activity under Trump, part of it must be due to the inability of the White House to think on a long term schedule. When you can't even get Infrastructure Week off the ground, there is no way you can manage an armed intervention in another country.
Third, "Trump the secret dove" isn't born out by actually looking at his foreign policy. He rattles the sabers and lines up the cannon balls, but then realizes that War is Serious Business and then either drops the issue (like with Iran) or signs a nothingburger and then proceeds to ignore it (like Best Korea). Nothing was gained from his temper tantrums, apart from seriously unnerving key allies or leaving them high and dry (like the Kurds).

Does he really have any foreign policy at all?
He isn't a hawk or dove, he just takes decisions based on what will go down well with his electoral base.
 
Does he really have any foreign policy at all?
He isn't a hawk or dove, he just takes decisions based on what will go down well with his electoral base.
I don't even think he includes "what will do down well with my base" into account. He does something, it gets filtered through the Trumpist media environment and his supporters just accept it. Remember, we went from 'unleashing fire and fury the like of which the world has never seen' to receiving 'love letters' from Best Korea.
I think at the core he has a skepticism of military action, he did come of age during Vietnam after all, but that is under many, many layers of laziness, ignorance, bigotry, no desire to listen to anyone, and a desire to appear like a big strong man. If something requires actual work put into it, he doesn't do it. The US military, for all of its many flaws, requires more instructions from civilian leadership than "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest", which seems to be the best Trump can muster.
 
One thing that concerns me is that Biden having such a big lead over Trump could actually be BAD for Biden on election day, here is why:

It could cause Biden supporters/Trump haters to become too comfortable/confident. "Well my candidate is going to win anyway, the other one doesn't have a chance, what difference does it make if I, as an individual, don't?"

The problem is I bet there will a heck of a lot of Biden supporters/Trump haters making that decision, and collectively it will make a big difference. It's exactly why winning in the polls and winning the actual most votes don't necessarily mean the same thing. Voter turnout. Trump doesn't have as many voters, obviously, but they are loyal and reliable.

edit: Another reason it's a bad election is the only two candidates with any real chance to win are almost certainly sexual assault offenders.
I think people learned their lesson on that one in 2016. I remember Republicans making fun of people who didn't vote that protested Trump. I kept thinking to myself that ridiculing those people would backfire...
 
One thing that concerns me is that Biden having such a big lead over Trump could actually be BAD for Biden on election day, here is why:

It could cause Biden supporters/Trump haters to become too comfortable/confident. "Well my candidate is going to win anyway, the other one doesn't have a chance, what difference does it make if I, as an individual, don't?"

The problem is I bet there will a heck of a lot of Biden supporters/Trump haters making that decision, and collectively it will make a big difference. It's exactly why winning in the polls and winning the actual most votes don't necessarily mean the same thing. Voter turnout. Trump doesn't have as many voters, obviously, but they are loyal and reliable.
It might also have an effect on Trump's voters.

The big+downright reactionary base of the GOP had had to put up with two consecutive instances of a racially inferior N-word with better education than he ought to be getting uppity and winning a presidential election. Then in 2016 it was a woman who also didn't know her place. They turned out to hate her, and also (as a certain CFC user who lives in Japan but took the trouble to vote just to do so) to give the same uppity N-word on final ‘you should've know your place’ put-down.
And this was dependent on ‘we can win this time!’. There is a type of voter who votes, consciously or unconsciously, in order to share the leader's triumph. It's almost like trying to get a lottery ticket with a five-cent prize. It's minimal, but you get to WIN! (in capital letters and with an expressive exclamation sign, yes) and some of them go about thinking ‘they're both <insult> but he's our <insult>’ i.e. purely tribal thought, like supporting a football team. Now if he doesn't look like a winner there might be people who don't turn out to vote for him because he might not win.
tl;dr You can have a positive feedback cycle both ways: vote him because he'll win and don't vote him because he won't win.
 
Does he really have any foreign policy at all?
He isn't a hawk or dove, he just takes decisions based on what will go down well with his electoral base.
The republicans as a whole have stopped offering any policy platforms. They are only interested in staying in power and undoing what they don't like.
 
Does he really have any foreign policy at all?
He isn't a hawk or dove, he just takes decisions based on what will go down well with his electoral base.

I think Matt Christman's got the correct take on this, namely the following contradiction:

1) Trump loves to appear tough
2) Trump hates confrontation

This is to say that Trump loves to talk a big game, but when the time comes to put his cards down, he always folds, because the thought of following through on something like this terrifies him. This creates the outcome we see where (if Bolton's account is to be believed), Trump's hawkish neo-con handlers are perpetually frustrated with him because he won't follow through on their deranged coup plots in Venezuela and Iran, and so we get the delightful irony where Trump appears the sane, level-headed dove, and the neo-cons like Pompeo and Bolton appear even more unhinged and hawkish than they ostensibly are, purely by contrast.

Even though Trump doomed international politics incalculably by tearing up the Iran deal (one of the only 2 or 3 unambiguously good things Obama did), international politics are one of the few places where the world has actually kind of benefited from a Trump administration. Because I don't doubt for a second that we'd be deployed in Iran, or Venezuela, or both under Hillary or a generic Republican administration. The electoral discourse right now would be over whether we should surge or maintain current deployment levels in whichever country we had invaded.
 
not Venezuella , not lran but Civil War in Turkey , which you Americans would do nothing as long as heart eaters were ahead , just Syria multiplied by 4 , because we are like 4 times bigger in population .
 
Even though Trump doomed international politics incalculably by tearing up the Iran deal (one of the only 2 or 3 unambiguously good things Obama did), international politics are one of the few places where the world has actually kind of benefited from a Trump administration. Because I don't doubt for a second that we'd be deployed in Iran, or Venezuela, or both under Hillary or a generic Republican administration. The electoral discourse right now would be over whether we should surge or maintain current deployment levels in whichever country we had invaded.
I highly disagree with that. The JCPOA was one of the cornerstone's of Obama's foreign policy, and our intelligence services were confirming that Iran was conforming to the JCPOA. They were pushing it a bit and trying to be clever with missile testing, but that was part of the UNSC sanctions and not part of the JCPOA which was focused on Iran's nuclear program. Hillary was, for good and ill, a member of the Democratic establishment and I cannot see her trashing the cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy for.... what exactly?
Same goes for Venezuela. Obama, as far as I am aware, made a lot of progress in trying to resurrect the "Good Neighbor Policy" in SA. Venezuela is a basket case, but by being a basket case it helps the United States in SA. Even the leftist governments in SA lost patience with Venezuela when Maduro stopped pretending to have a democratic mandate and when the cheap oil stopped flowing. Invading Venezuela or clear US intervention would be the single best way to generate sympathy for Venezuela in SA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom