U.S. Politics

[Panto_Villan]

Just now, Genie said:

It’s like being CEO of a big company, you have experts who have experts working for them. All you have to do rubber stamp the recommendation (still not ideal being 80 odd though).

I think that misunderstands both politics and business, tbh. The fact a large organisation has so many experts is part of the reason you have a President or a CEO - when the experts don't agree with one another (which is probably all the time), someone needs to listen to the different camps and actually make a decision between them.

You've seen plenty of examples in UK politics of what happens when the leader isn't fully in control, as it ends in very public scrapping between different factions. Same happens inside businesses, it's just not usually all over the news.

[fruitvilla]

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s like being CEO of a big company, you have experts who have experts working for them. All you have to do rubber stamp the recommendation (still not ideal being 80 odd though).

Exactly ... who can assemble the most effective team around them and take the country in the direction you want it to be taken?

The problem is no one person or party will meet an individual's wants on a variety of issues.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I think that misunderstands both politics and business, tbh. The fact a large organisation has so many experts is part of the reason you have a President or a CEO - when the experts don't agree with one another (which is probably all the time), someone needs to listen to the different camps and actually make a decision between them.

You've seen plenty of examples in UK politics of what happens when the leader isn't fully in control, as it ends in very public scrapping between different factions. Same happens inside businesses, it's just not usually all over the news.

Making a decision based on 2 possible scenarios is fairly straight forward, even for someone in their 80‘s. Yes he’s an old boy but then he has a lifetime of experience in politics to draw on.

Ideally he wouldn’t be quite so old, but I don’t think in day to day working life it’ll be a massive issue. Things like thinking fast in TV debates could be a problem though.

[sidcow]

Again. Would you rather an 85 year old slightly confused man making decisions or an 81 year old who will 100% make the most dangerous decision and probably be in the pay of Russia and China whilst generating hate at all levels globally. 

[Panto_Villan]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Making a decision based on 2 possible scenarios is fairly straight forward, even for someone in their 80‘s. Yes he’s an old boy but then he has a lifetime of experience in politics to draw on.

Ideally he wouldn’t be quite so old, but I don’t think in day to day working life it’ll be a massive issue. Things like thinking fast in TV debates could be a problem though.

I dunno. I get what you're saying, and you're right there's probably quite a lot of day-to-day decisions where there's a handful clear options to choose between. In those cases even a mentally diminished Biden could consider things and make a sensible decision, although obviously things would be much more complex if the Democrats were infighting or they didn't control both Houses.

But the real concern is what happens in a crisis. Say the Hamas attack on Israel a few months ago, for instance. Even purely in terms of foreign policy it's a hugely complex situation with a lot of variables and few good options, and even the options themselves are changing by the hour. Plus there's all sorts of domestic concerns too, about how your actions would be perceived by voters and whether you'll have the political support to achieve the objectives you want to, etc. Screw it up and you're at war with half the Middle East by lunchtime.

Not to say that Biden won't be able to navigate those waters in another 4 years. He's done a decent enough job at age 81, after all. But if his faculties did decline then I think it could be much more of a problem than you're making out.

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Again. Would you rather an 85 year old slightly confused man making decisions or an 81 year old who will 100% make the most dangerous decision and probably be in the pay of Russia and China whilst generating hate at all levels globally. 

Where has anyone here said they think people should vote for Trump instead of Biden due to his age?

[sidcow]

17 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Where has anyone here said they think people should vote for Trump instead of Biden due to his age?

No one needs to say it. That's literally the choice. 

[Villaphan04]

4 hours ago, mjmooney said:

FTFY 

In European terms yes, completely not in America

 

2 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yeah. Can you expand on your reasoning for this?

Are you not bothered about the potential damage Trump could do to the US institutionally, and the wider Western world? Or do you believe it's fearmongering and actually it'll all be fine if he's elected?

3 hours ago, sidcow said:

I just can't figure this attitude.

If you can't see Trump is pretty much evil at worst and at best highly dangerous, how can you be meh about voting. 

If I actively disliked Biden I'd get out and vote for him and constantly encourage all my friends and family to do the same just for the sake of the nation and the world.

Even a chance of Trump winning scares the shit out of me and I don't even have to live in the country he's running. 

I don't understand how Americans can't see the danger in him. 

Few reasons.

1. I don't think Biden is fit to hold office, so I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who I think is incompetent. (I also personally believe he has dementia, but that's a different story)

2. Deals with 1, I just don't see how Biden can finish another 4-year term without some sort of major health scare / issue

3. Also deals with 1, I don't trust Biden to make the right decision (or one at all) if there was a major issue (e.g. Iran, China)

4. I live in a state that is already going to massively swing one way, so I know that my vote will not really matter. 

5. The damage has already been done -- not even institutionally, but just social media has completely deepened the divide. 

6. I won't vote for Trump either, he's just as unfit to hold office as Biden imo. 

[LondonLax]

10 hours ago, sidcow said:

I just can't figure this attitude.

If you can't see Trump is pretty much evil at worst and at best highly dangerous, how can you be meh about voting. 

If I actively disliked Biden I'd get out and vote for him and constantly encourage all my friends and family to do the same just for the sake of the nation and the world.

Even a chance of Trump winning scares the shit out of me and I don't even have to live in the country he's running. 

I don't understand how Americans can't see the danger in him. 

*It is not my view* but there is a not insignificant group from the left of politics who see Trump as the anti-war option.

Their basis seems to be that Biden (and traditional Republicans) are part of the neo-con ‘establishment’ looking to perpetuate wars to keep the arms industry in gravy while Trump is the outsider disrupting the status quo. They back this up by pointing out that there were no major international conflicts under Trump’s 4 years but since Biden came in the neo-cons are back in power and never ending wars are springing up all over the place again. 

[Panto_Villan]

8 hours ago, Villaphan04 said:

In European terms yes, completely not in America

 

Few reasons.

1. I don't think Biden is fit to hold office, so I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who I think is incompetent. (I also personally believe he has dementia, but that's a different story)

2. Deals with 1, I just don't see how Biden can finish another 4-year term without some sort of major health scare / issue

3. Also deals with 1, I don't trust Biden to make the right decision (or one at all) if there was a major issue (e.g. Iran, China)

4. I live in a state that is already going to massively swing one way, so I know that my vote will not really matter. 

5. The damage has already been done -- not even institutionally, but just social media has completely deepened the divide. 

6. I won't vote for Trump either, he's just as unfit to hold office as Biden imo. 

Thanks. I feel like you’re massively underestimating the potential for things to get worse for the US there, tbh, but I won’t lecture you about your own country.

Can you explain why you think Biden is unfit for office and incompetent? Not judging, just curious (although I doubt I’ll agree with you).

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

*It is not my view* but there is a not insignificant group from the left of politics who see Trump as the anti-war option.

Their basis seems to be that Biden (and traditional Republicans) are part of the neo-con ‘establishment’ looking to perpetuate wars to keep the arms industry in gravy while Trump is the outsider disrupting the status quo. They back this up by pointing out that there were no major international conflicts under Trump’s 4 years but since Biden came in the neo-cons are back in power and never ending wars are springing up all over the place again. 

That's scary because I can see under Trump the world falling into terminal conflict, one of the reasons why he scares the shit out of me. 

[sidcow]

9 hours ago, Villaphan04 said:

In European terms yes, completely not in America

 

Few reasons.

1. I don't think Biden is fit to hold office, so I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who I think is incompetent. (I also personally believe he has dementia, but that's a different story)

2. Deals with 1, I just don't see how Biden can finish another 4-year term without some sort of major health scare / issue

3. Also deals with 1, I don't trust Biden to make the right decision (or one at all) if there was a major issue (e.g. Iran, China)

4. I live in a state that is already going to massively swing one way, so I know that my vote will not really matter. 

5. The damage has already been done -- not even institutionally, but just social media has completely deepened the divide. 

6. I won't vote for Trump either, he's just as unfit to hold office as Biden imo. 

But you're dealing with a guy who MAY make a wrong call to one who definitely will make the worst of calls. 

Surely Biden taking ill is the best outcome? He'll be taken over by a younger probably more competent person. 

Does Biden get no credit for The IRA? 

It seems to get little press but what it's done is staggering. He's sucked, thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of jobs into USA.  Nearly all of them jobs in industries of the future which are there to stay, not in dying industries which will INEVITABLY die like Trump seems intent on saving. 

There was a story yesterday about the last Solar Panel manufacturer in Germany leaving for USA.  USA seems to be the only destination for any company in the Green industries. I've read almost daily about this or that company moving there or picking USA as their first manufacturing centre.  

This will make USA the undisputed leader of future industries with the skill and knowledge base located there so things snowball. Make no mistake, China was the only game in town for this previously. 

It's completely reinvigorating USA as a manufacturing power Base.  Europe is struggling to put together their own plan to try and combat it and The UK are nowhere. 

Yet it seems to get zero credit in The USA.  Even criticism. I think in years to come it will become seen as the most crucial piece of legislation in modern US history. It's the only thing stopping China from total world domination right now. 

Yet Biden is rubbish and does nothing. 

Edited January 19 by sidcow

[villa89]

9 hours ago, Villaphan04 said:

4. I live in a state that is already going to massively swing one way, so I know that my vote will not really matter. 

This is the great unspoken truth of US presidential elections, only votes in around 10-15 of the swing states count, the rest are basically irrelevant. If you live in Texas for example why bother voting, you know it will always vote republican.  

[AXD]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

But you're dealing with a guy who MAY make a wrong call to one who definitely will make the worst of calls. 

I thought Trump only made ‘perfect’ calls

 

54 minutes ago, villa89 said:

This is the great unspoken truth of US presidential elections, only votes in around 10-15 of the swing states count, the rest are basically irrelevant. If you live in Texas for example why bother voting, you know it will always vote republican.  

I might be mistaken, but I thought Texas was attracting more companies with it’s lower taxes. Drawing higher educated people who would have gone to California. Thus also attracting a more centre/left voting audience. This will not be clear on short term though.

Florida seems deep red now, but was purple not so long ago.

I agree though, many states can already be assigned to either party before the election. But they will not necessarily be forever that color.

[tonyh29]

12 hours ago, sidcow said:

Again. Would you rather an 85 year old slightly confused man making decisions or an 81 year old who will 100% make the most dangerous decision and probably be in the pay of Russia and China whilst generating hate at all levels globally. 

The world is bat shit crazy at the moment whilst the 85 year old has slept through it all  .. just how more dangerous do you think the 81 year old will make it ? 

but , focusing really on your "in the pocket" comment 

Didn't Trump start a trade war with China and in Iowa he's promised more of the same , he even boasted that the Chinese stock market dropped because he won in Iowa (wrongly , it was a Chinese domestic issue)  if he was in their pocket , wouldn't it have been the opposite  ?

Trump approved sanctions on Nord Stream 2 ( all it really did was slow down completion , Germany had the final sign off i believe )  , Trump was the first person to sell Ukraine  Javelin weapons to defend themselves with against Russian separatists ( deemed by many to be a risky move at the time as it provoked Russia)   , NATO spending by European countries increased by £50 Bn after Trump made noises about them freeloading  ..

I guess if one wanted , you could make the argument that these actions made the world more dangerous as it provoked Russia etc but again , they are hardly the actions of a man in "Russia's pocket" 

His policy towards Iran in a petty bid to scrap Obama's flagship policy could have been deemed dangerous , but Biden's administration doesn't appear to have made any moves to reverse it and indeed assassinated one of Irans top generals in 2020 , which  took them close to war  

so I dunno , I don't' think Trump will make the world any more dangerous than it already is , I'm not sure he can , he will almost certainly make America a more dangerous  and divisive place though  , but that is another discussion entirely 

 

[sidcow]

6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

The world is bat shit crazy at the moment whilst the 85 year old has slept through it all  .. just how more dangerous do you think the 81 year old will make it ? 

but , focusing really on your "in the pocket" comment 

Didn't Trump start a trade war with China and in Iowa he's promised more of the same , he even boasted that the Chinese stock market dropped because he won in Iowa (wrongly , it was a Chinese domestic issue)  if he was in their pocket , wouldn't it have been the opposite  ?

Trump approved sanctions on Nord Stream 2 ( all it really did was slow down completion , Germany had the final sign off i believe )  , Trump was the first person to sell Ukraine  Javelin weapons to defend themselves with against Russian separatists ( deemed by many to be a risky move at the time as it provoked Russia)   , NATO spending by European countries increased by £50 Bn after Trump made noises about them freeloading  ..

I guess if one wanted , you could make the argument that these actions made the world more dangerous as it provoked Russia etc but again , they are hardly the actions of a man in "Russia's pocket" 

His policy towards Iran in a petty bid to scrap Obama's flagship policy could have been deemed dangerous , but Biden's administration doesn't appear to have made any moves to reverse it and indeed assassinated one of Irans top generals in 2020 , which  took them close to war  

so I dunno , I don't' think Trump will make the world any more dangerous than it already is , I'm not sure he can , he will almost certainly make America a more dangerous  and divisive place though  , but that is another discussion entirely 

 

Sorry yeah. Trump is a sensible stable leader, my mistake. 

Edited January 19 by sidcow

[Panto_Villan]

27 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

The world is bat shit crazy at the moment whilst the 85 year old has slept through it all  .. just how more dangerous do you think the 81 year old will make it ? 

but , focusing really on your "in the pocket" comment 

Didn't Trump start a trade war with China and in Iowa he's promised more of the same , he even boasted that the Chinese stock market dropped because he won in Iowa (wrongly , it was a Chinese domestic issue)  if he was in their pocket , wouldn't it have been the opposite  ?

Trump approved sanctions on Nord Stream 2 ( all it really did was slow down completion , Germany had the final sign off i believe )  , Trump was the first person to sell Ukraine  Javelin weapons to defend themselves with against Russian separatists ( deemed by many to be a risky move at the time as it provoked Russia)   , NATO spending by European countries increased by £50 Bn after Trump made noises about them freeloading  ..

I guess if one wanted , you could make the argument that these actions made the world more dangerous as it provoked Russia etc but again , they are hardly the actions of a man in "Russia's pocket" 

His policy towards Iran in a petty bid to scrap Obama's flagship policy could have been deemed dangerous , but Biden's administration doesn't appear to have made any moves to reverse it and indeed assassinated one of Irans top generals in 2020 , which  took them close to war  

so I dunno , I don't' think Trump will make the world any more dangerous than it already is , I'm not sure he can , he will almost certainly make America a more dangerous  and divisive place though  , but that is another discussion entirely 

Trump would make the world WAY more dangerous. He's openly said he wants to pull the US out of NATO, and apparently told Europe he'd never help if it were attacked. So who would he actually help? Israel, probably. Maybe the Saudis because he seems to love them for some reason. But overall the entire world just returns to a "might is right" world, which either means lots of wars or lots of countries deciding the only sensible thing to do to keep themselves safe is start building nuclear weapons.

Trump held up aid to Ukraine before the war because the Ukrainians refused to invent dirt on Hunter Biden for him - he literally got impeached over it. The Trump wing of the Republican party wants to cut off aid to Ukraine. I literally can't think of anything more "in Russia's pocket" than kicking the legs out from under Ukraine and then sabotaging NATO.

I don't think Biden slept through any of it, tbh. If he'd launched a war with Russia over Ukraine you'd be calling him a dangerous maniac. If he'd let Putin take over Ukraine (like Trump would) he'd be an appeaser, which is equally dangerous in a different way. Providing Ukraine with weapons is probably the least dangerous thing he could have done, but then you're moaning that he's made things more dangerous by sleeping through it. What do you think he should have done, had he been awake? 

Edited January 19 by Panto_Villan

[bickster]

33 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

but Biden's administration doesn't appear to have made any moves to reverse it and indeed assassinated one of Irans top generals in 2020 , which  took them close to war  

That was Trump and the story goes that a number of proposals were put before him with one being the "he'll never go for that" option which made the other options seem more palatable, except Trump chose the batshit crazy assassinate the General option. The assassination took place on 3rd Jan 2020, three days before the Capitol Insurrection

[tonyh29]

35 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Sorry yeah. Trump is a sensible stable leader, my mistake. 

I remember now why I don't bother with bolitcs threads 

I mean you made a statement , I gave you some evidence why I think it isn't necessarily true  , and that's' your reply  ..seriously ? 

[tonyh29]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

That was Trump and the story goes that a number of proposals were put before him with one being the "he'll never go for that" option which made the other options seem more palatable, except Trump chose the batshit crazy assassinate the General option. The assassination took place on 3rd Jan 2020, three days before the Capitol Insurrection

ah my bad .. I thought he was long gone by then 

[El Zen]

22 hours ago, Mr_Dogg said:

I hope so, they are just not visible right now.

They seem to be fairly visible where it actually counts, though.