Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US 2020 Presidential Election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    No need for virtual debate. Have another when he feels up to it. There's still time.

    Some things have to be done face to face
    Yeah, like infections.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

    Comment


    • Why should Biden take any risk now that he is comfortably ahead. He should just say that he is willing to debate Trump virtually, and Trump can decide if he wants to or not

      Comment


      • Joe Biden is refusing to answer if he will pack the court

        https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/polit...ing/index.html

        I think Biden is walking a tight line here. Most Democrats, even centrist ones probably wouldn't care since they are rightly angry at the hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans to push a candidate while denying a hearing for Garland for 11 months prior to the last election. On the other hand you can expect the right wing media to pound away at his every day until the election, which might cost Biden perhaps the 1-2 percent of former Republican, or Independent center right voters who seem to have been drifting towards him the past few weeks.

        On the other hand explicitly coming out and saying he wont pack the court will probably cost Biden more due to demoralization on the left wing of the Democratic party.

        Although, I am pretty sure a Biden administration will not pack the Supreme Court, the political cost will be too high and there probably will be no other meaningful legislation the Democrats would be able to pass after that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by InExile View Post
          Why should Biden take any risk now that he is comfortably ahead. He should just say that he is willing to debate Trump virtually, and Trump can decide if he wants to or not
          Isn't that just what happened? Apparently Biden is going to hold a televised 'town hall' anyway.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DOR View Post

            What was it the Bush (Sr) White House said to Deng Xiaoping after the Tiananmen Massacre?

            Oh, yeah. Naughty, naughty. We're going to have to criticize you for that. But, our relationship is still very important, so don't take it too badly.
            (The Democratically controlled Congress imposed sanctions. But, hey, the GOPers are really tough on China, aren't they?)
            what did he say ?

            The Democrats were more vocal after Tianamen but does not count as they were in the opposition.

            The one lasting legacy of Tianamen is the west stopped arms deals with China. Don't know if HW was responsible for that.

            Originally posted by DOR View Post
            Turning a blind eye to repression in Xinjiang? GOPers in 2002-09, and again more recently.
            What was going on in Xinajiang in 2002-09 ? saw a CGTN program where they were talking about terrorists. It was like a tenth of what we see in J&K. Bush would not be saying anything about it then. Unlike Clinton that did his best to interfere in J&K in his first term.

            Originally posted by DOR View Post
            And, while we're here, which party did the Asia pivot, which caused a deterioration in Sino-American relations? Who bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade?
            Oh, yeah. That's was the Democrats, wasn't it?
            Pivot was fine but how credible was it ?

            Bombing the embassy in Belgrade i understood to be a mistake. Chinese didn't believe that though.

            Originally posted by DOR View Post
            South China Sea FONOPs, increased under the Obama Administration. But, if you weren't in the area, you might not have noticed all the port calls.
            Drone strikes went up with Obama not FONOPS which he suspended in 2013. This i learnt only a few years later to my surprise. Linked it here couple years back. See the transcript with Dean Cheng.

            How does pivot to Asia not include any FONOPS ? Obama cut a deal with 11 Jing Ping for cooperation with Climate change (!)

            Did not help that China reneged and went on to militarise those islands. Hence the resumption of FONOPS under Trump.


            Originally posted by DOR View Post
            The Trumpet suspended FONOPs in the first couple of months of its maladministration, in the enormously simplistic belief that China would instantly force North Korea to the bargaining table. Didn't work, and didn't have a chance in hell of working. So, by Summer 2017, flip became flop.
            Trump went further than any other president in trying to cut a deal with Kim. Who can fault him for this ?

            I was not going to second guess the attempt. All of this happened because of Moon. A strong willingness in the south for a settlement.


            It was for Kim to deliver on his end and clearly that did not happen hence Trump walked out of the second meeting in Vietnam.

            Originally posted by DOR View Post
            Boy, those Democrats are a push-over for China, huh? I guess the only way to appear to be tough on China is to launch a trade war against your own consumers and companies …

            When the US buys 3-4x times more from China than the other way around it stands to reason they would be affected more than the US. Don't need to be an economist to realise that.

            Click image for larger version  Name:	pence censored.jpg Views:	0 Size:	61.7 KB ID:	1566687

            Speaks volumes isn't it. We know who China prefers.

            Click the graphic above to go to the tweet.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Oct 20,, 14:15.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
              The three countries that helped China the most, US, Taiwan & Japan are all at the receiving end today.

              How will a Democrat administration under Biden handle China ?
              No takers ? Nobody has a clue ?

              That's the point isn't it.

              With Trump we know what to expect, warts and all.
              Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Oct 20,, 15:30.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                Joe Biden is refusing to answer if he will pack the court

                https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/polit...ing/index.html

                I think Biden is walking a tight line here. Most Democrats, even centrist ones probably wouldn't care since they are rightly angry at the hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans to push a candidate while denying a hearing for Garland for 11 months prior to the last election. On the other hand you can expect the right wing media to pound away at his every day until the election, which might cost Biden perhaps the 1-2 percent of former Republican, or Independent center right voters who seem to have been drifting towards him the past few weeks.

                On the other hand explicitly coming out and saying he wont pack the court will probably cost Biden more due to demoralization on the left wing of the Democratic party.

                Although, I am pretty sure a Biden administration will not pack the Supreme Court, the political cost will be too high and there probably will be no other meaningful legislation the Democrats would be able to pass after that.
                11:25 he says he would not do it. This was during the primaries



                Question is can he get his way when he becomes President.

                I did find that video a bit concerning. if the SC becomes partisan then it will affect the perception of its judgments

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post

                  Yet the USPS web site says they process 472 million pieces of mail each day
                  The issue isn't fraud, but capacity to handle the increased volume. 45 states have to be ready by Nov 3. Trump did allude to capacity.



                  Is your vote going to get counted in time ?

                  USPS alerted 46 states that it cannot ensure ballots sent by mail in the general election will arrive in time to be counted

                  NYC primary could not handle mail in votes


                  If the Dems are relying on mail votes, then it does not look good. Funny thing is they don't have a problem with it.

                  The side whose supporters show up at the booths will get their votes counted.
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Oct 20,, 15:30.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                    Joe Biden is refusing to answer if he will pack the court

                    https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/polit...ing/index.html

                    I think Biden is walking a tight line here. Most Democrats, even centrist ones probably wouldn't care since they are rightly angry at the hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans to push a candidate while denying a hearing for Garland for 11 months prior to the last election. On the other hand you can expect the right wing media to pound away at his every day until the election, which might cost Biden perhaps the 1-2 percent of former Republican, or Independent center right voters who seem to have been drifting towards him the past few weeks.

                    On the other hand explicitly coming out and saying he wont pack the court will probably cost Biden more due to demoralization on the left wing of the Democratic party.

                    Although, I am pretty sure a Biden administration will not pack the Supreme Court, the political cost will be too high and there probably will be no other meaningful legislation the Democrats would be able to pass after that.
                    You may have also noticed that he has categorically refused to comment on annexing Greenland. In other words, when asked a nonsense hypothetical question, it is rarely useful to provide any serious response.

                    No, he doesn’t comment on time travel, unicorns, or pixies, either.
                    Get over it.
                    Last edited by DOR; 09 Oct 20,, 16:41.
                    Trust me?
                    I'm an economist!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      what did he say ?

                      The Democrats were more vocal after Tianamen but does not count as they were in the opposition.

                      The one lasting legacy of Tianamen is the west stopped arms deals with China. Don't know if HW was responsible for that.


                      What was going on in Xinajiang in 2002-09 ? saw a CGTN program where they were talking about terrorists. It was like a tenth of what we see in J&K. Bush would not be saying anything about it then. Unlike Clinton that did his best to interfere in J&K in his first term.


                      Pivot was fine but how credible was it ?

                      Bombing the embassy in Belgrade i understood to be a mistake. Chinese didn't believe that though.


                      Drone strikes went up with Obama not FONOPS which he suspended in 2013. This i learnt only a few years later to my surprise. Linked it here couple years back. See the transcript with Dean Cheng.

                      How does pivot to Asia not include any FONOPS ? Obama cut a deal with 11 Jing Ping for cooperation with Climate change (!)

                      Did not help that China reneged and went on to militarise those islands. Hence the resumption of FONOPS under Trump.



                      Trump went further than any other president in trying to cut a deal with Kim. Who can fault him for this ?

                      I was not going to second guess the attempt. All of this happened because of Moon. A strong willingness in the south for a settlement.


                      It was for Kim to deliver on his end and clearly that did not happen hence Trump walked out of the second meeting in Vietnam.


                      When the US buys 3-4x times more from China than the other way around it stands to reason they would be affected more than the US. Don't need to be an economist to realise that.

                      Click image for larger version Name:	pence censored.jpg Views:	0 Size:	61.7 KB ID:	1566687

                      Speaks volumes isn't it. We know who China prefers.

                      Click the graphic above to go to the tweet.
                      US Sanctions post Tiananmen: What part of “The Democratically controlled Congress imposed sanctions,”, and not GHW Bush, wasn't unclear? That arms embargo? Congress, under (Democratic) Speaker Tom Foley.


                      Xinjiang: Let's be clear about the history of Sino-Uyghur relations. There have been company-sized battles more years than not since at least the 1950s. Under Hu Jintao, the Strike Hard campaign took repressing up a notch, but the Bush (Jr) administration decided to turn a blind eye following 9/11 on the basis of the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

                      Oh, and don't forget that just because something wasn't as bad as it is now, doesn't mean it wasn't the worst ever as of that time. Remember how awful George W Bush was? Well, The Trumpet makes him look kinda not-so-good, doesn't he?


                      Pivot to Asia. You may not think it was credible, but that really isn't important, is it? The issue is how the two parties dealt with China over the years, and the credibility of your assertion that the GOPers are tougher on China than Democrats.
                      Case not proven.


                      Belgrade. It is very useful for you and lots of other people to think it was a mistake. Personally, I find it very curious that in the middle of the conflict (and, according to CIA Director George Tenet), that particular bombing was the only one organized and directed by the CIA.


                      South China Sea FONOPs. Are you denying that US conducted FONOPs in the South China Sea in 2013, and in 2014? Or that two were in 2015 and three in 2016? Might want to check with the crew of the USS Lasson, USS Wilbur Curtis, and USS William P. Lawrence on some of those.


                      North Korea. There is a very, very large difference between going further than any other president in trying to cut a deal with Kim and handling North Korea intelligently. Being played for a fool is entertaining, not useful.


                      Trade war. Yes, you do need to be an economist – and a China Hand! – to understand The Trumpet's trade war.

                      1. The majority of products the US buys from China are made by foreign-invested companies. Many of them moved there from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, and some from the US and Europe. Those companies are the ones providing the great majority of the low-cost consumer (and non-consumer) goods that help control the cost of living in the US. Driving up the price US businesses and consumers pay for those products doesn't hurt “China” at all, and only causes those particular factories to seek out new markets elsewhere. More likely, importers simply raise their prices.

                      2. A great part of US sales to China is agricultural. The Chinese target agricultural products in the inevitable retaliation to The Trumpet's trade war. That very, very specifically hurts US farmers.


                      = = =

                      How will the Biden Administration deal with China?
                      More intelligently.
                      Last edited by DOR; 09 Oct 20,, 16:43.
                      Trust me?
                      I'm an economist!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DOR View Post

                        US Sanctions post Tiananmen: What part of “The Democratically controlled Congress imposed sanctions,”, and not GHW Bush, wasn't unclear? That arms embargo? Congress, under (Democratic) Speaker Tom Foley.
                        If it happened under HW, then he gets the credit for it. That arms embargo is a big deal. Imagine the mess we'd be in today without it.

                        This is the only measure by a US President i can think of that counts.

                        Originally posted by DOR View Post
                        Xinjiang: Let's be clear about the history of Sino-Uyghur relations. There have been company-sized battles more years than not since at least the 1950s. Under Hu Jintao, the Strike Hard campaign took repressing up a notch, but the Bush (Jr) administration decided to turn a blind eye following 9/11 on the basis of the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

                        Oh, and don't forget that just because something wasn't as bad as it is now, doesn't mean it wasn't the worst ever as of that time. Remember how awful George W Bush was? Well, The Trumpet makes him look kinda not-so-good, doesn't he?
                        Do you have sources for this ? that CGTN program does not talk about it at all. Just the experiences of a few cops.

                        Whatever 'repression' you refer to does not compare to what is going on there today.

                        Originally posted by DOR View Post
                        Pivot to Asia. You may not think it was credible, but that really isn't important, is it? The issue is how the two parties dealt with China over the years, and the credibility of your assertion that the GOPers are tougher on China than Democrats.
                        Case not proven.
                        It's not what i think its a fact that Trump is harder on China right from day 1. Refers to them by name. What upsets me is he is the only world leader doing it.

                        Every other leader plays safe. That right there is leadership at a time its needed.


                        Originally posted by DOR View Post
                        Belgrade. It is very useful for you and lots of other people to think it was a mistake. Personally, I find it very curious that in the middle of the conflict (and, according to CIA Director George Tenet), that particular bombing was the only one organized and directed by the CIA.
                        That's my recollection of that incident. Reported that way. We had a good laugh over it.

                        There is no mistake which begs the question why did they do it. What was China up to in 1999.

                        Originally posted by DOR View Post
                        South China Sea FONOPs. Are you denying that US conducted FONOPs in the South China Sea in 2013, and in 2014? Or that two were in 2015 and three in 2016? Might want to check with the crew of the USS Lasson, USS Wilbur Curtis, and USS William P. Lawrence on some of those.
                        Dean Cheng. No FONOPS. Based on McCain's questioning at the foreign affairs committee ?

                        So what you quoted there does not count. India does port visits too. Only recently participated in an assisted FONOP (US lead) with the Phillippines.

                        Originally posted by DOR View Post
                        North Korea. There is a very, very large difference between going further than any other president in trying to cut a deal with Kim and handling North Korea intelligently. Being played for a fool is entertaining, not useful.
                        He scored for effort. Any leader that tries to address long standing problems scores regardless of the outcome.

                        Since it did not work out the opposition bashes him. Had he made progress we'd have heard how he gave away too much. Yeah i know the spiel.

                        Needlessly gave Kim a PR coup. This is also the optics his antiwar base wants.

                        Originally posted by DOR View Post
                        Trade war. Yes, you do need to be an economist – and a China Hand! – to understand The Trumpet's trade war.

                        1. The majority of products the US buys from China are made by foreign-invested companies. Many of them moved there from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, and some from the US and Europe. Those companies are the ones providing the great majority of the low-cost consumer (and non-consumer) goods that help control the cost of living in the US. Driving up the price US businesses and consumers pay for those products doesn't hurt “China” at all, and only causes those particular factories to seek out new markets elsewhere. More likely, importers simply raise their prices.

                        2. A great part of US sales to China is agricultural. The Chinese target agricultural products in the inevitable retaliation to The Trumpet's trade war. That very, very specifically hurts US farmers.
                        So there is nothing the US can do to reverse the deficit with China ? Trump's barking up the wrong tree ?

                        There is plenty the US can do, Part 1 of the deal was signed and already China is trying to renege on it. Thanks to that 'force majeure' clause they got inserted on Jan 15 whilst keeping up appearances

                        Prices are going up otherwise submit to them in which case they can continue to get away with whatever they do. Now choose.

                        This whole controlling cost of living is what resulted in so many countries having shortages as the pandemic broke.

                        Those who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing as Bannon puts it.

                        Diversify your supply chains is the mantra now.

                        Huawei is getting pinched in more countries as time goes on. So evidently countries are deciding their national interests matter more.

                        Originally posted by DOR View Post
                        How will the Biden Administration deal with China?
                        More intelligently.


                        Hah, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. Not read their manifesto yet ?
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 10 Oct 20,, 17:25.

                        Comment


                        • DE,

                          If you really believe what happens on a President's watch is all his idea, and all his credit or blame, then you have no understanding of the nature of American politics. We're a republic, not a dictatorship. Congress does things the President doesn't like all the time.

                          Xinjiang sources? Yes, 40+ years of close observation and discussions with other people equally interested and knowledgeable. Just because the situation is far worse today doesn't mean what happened before doesn't matter.

                          FONOPs. Did you get to talk to anyone on the Lasson, Wilbur Curtis, or William P. Lawrence about their FONOPs yet? Let me know when you do.

                          North Korea. If we played a little one-on-one basketball, would you count as a “score” every shot at the basket? Neither would I, and that's because it is the results that count.

                          Trade war. What's with the obsession with the trade deficit with China? Factories moved from one foreign place (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc) to another (China); big deal. The location isn't at all important to the overall US trade balance. The new location is lower cost, so inflation in the US is less. And, by the way, when the US runs a massive fiscal deficit, you expect a massive inflow of foreign investment. And, as the definition of the Balance of Payments says every trade balance is matched on the capital side, therefore big government deficits help support big trade deficits. How's that Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal coming along?


                          Keeping inflation under check, which is the mandate of pretty much every central bank in the world, caused pandemic-related shortages … really? Is that a position you really want to take?


                          US Democratic Party platform mentions of China:
                          “He [Trump] launched a reckless trade war with China that cost more than 300,000 American jobs and sent farmers into bankruptcy, decimating the American heartland. ” p. 14
                          “The Trump Administration has failed time after time to deliver for American workers on this crucial issue,siding with corporate interests over our workers and launching a trade war with China that they have no plan for winning—creating incredible hardship for American farmers, manufacturers,workers, and consumers in the process.” p. 21

                          “Democrats will take aggressive action against China or any other country that tries to undercut American manufacturing by manipulating their currencies and maintaining a misaligned exchange rate with the dollar, dumping products like steel and aluminum in our markets, or providing unfair subsidies. Unlike President Trump, we will stand up to efforts from China and other state actors to steal America’s intellectual property and will demand China and other countries cease and desist from conducting cyber espionage against our companies.” p. 21

                          “And we will take immediate action to repair the damage President Trump’s reckless policies have done to American farmers, by working with our allies to stand up to China and negotiate from the strongest possible position.” p. 21
                          “We will promote climate accountability and mobilize a united front to keep states like China from outsourcing pollution to other countries.” p. 81

                          “We will build on this foundation to negotiate arms control agreements that reflect the emergence of new players like China, capture new technologies, and move the world back from the nuclear precipice.” p. 82

                          “We reject the politicization of religious freedom in American foreign policy, and we condemn atrocities against religious minorities around the world—from ISIS’ genocide of Christians and Yezidis, to China’s mass internment of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities, to Burma’s persecution of the Rohingya, to attacks on religious minorities in Northeast Syria.” p. 85

                          “Democrats believe that if the United States does not work with its allies and partners to shape the terms of global trade, China will shape them for us—and American working families and the middle class will pay the price. That’s why we will work with our allies to mobilize more than half the world’s economy to stand up to China and negotiate from the strongest possible position.” p. 86


                          “Democrats’ approach to China will be guided by America’s national interests and the interests of our allies, and draw on the sources of American strength—the openness of our society, the dynamism of our economy, and the power of our alliances to shape and enforce international norms that reflect our values. Undermining those strengths will not make us “tough on China.” It would be a gift to the Chinese Communist Party.
                          Democrats will be clear, strong, and consistent in pushing back where we have profound economic, security, and human rights concerns about the actions of China’s government. Democrats will protect the American worker from unfair trade practices by the Chinese government, including currency manipulation and benefiting from a misaligned exchange rate with the dollar, illegal subsidies, and theft of intellectual property. We will rally friends and allies across the world to push back against China or any other country’s attempts to undermine international norms.
                          Democrats believe the China challenge is not primarily a military one, but we will deter and respond to aggression. We will underscore our global commitment to freedom of navigation and resist the Chinese military’s intimidation in the South China Sea. Democrats are committed to the Taiwan Relations Act and will continue to support a peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues consistent with the wishes and best interests of the people of Taiwan.
                          Rather than stand with President Xi Jinping as he cracks down on Hong Kong’s autonomy, Democrats will stand for the democratic rights of its citizens. We will fully enforce the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, including by sanctioning officials, financial institutions, companies, and individuals responsible for undercutting Hong Kong’s autonomy. And we will bring the world together to condemn the internment of more than one million Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in concentration camps in China, using the tools provided by the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act.
                          Democrats will pursue this strategy without resorting to self-defeating, unilateral tariff wars or falling into the trap of a new Cold War. Those mistakes would only serve to exaggerate China’s weight, over-militarize our policy, and hurt American workers. America must approach our relationship with China with confidence—the confidence to lead international efforts to push back on malign behavior while also pursuing cooperation on issues of mutual interest like climate change and nonproliferation and ensuring that the U.S.-China rivalry does not put global stability at risk.
                          Rather than denigrate our partners and encourage tensions between our allies, the United States will work to strengthen ties with and between our key allies in the region, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, and we will work to ensure that our alliances with Thailand and the Philippines live up to the values that our peoples share.” p. 89


                          “We believe Europe is our natural partner in managing areas of competition with China and will work to establish common priorities, strategies, and tools. And just as we came together to standup to communism and respond to global terrorism, we will come together with Europe to confront the existential challenge of climate change.” p. 91


                          file:///C:/Users/DAVID_~1/AppData/Lo...y-Platform.pdf


                          Now that we have the actual facts in front of us, tell me which parts of the official Democratic Party platform you don't like.

                          Trust me?
                          I'm an economist!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            DE,

                            If you really believe what happens on a President's watch is all his idea, and all his credit or blame, then you have no understanding of the nature of American politics. We're a republic, not a dictatorship. Congress does things the President doesn't like all the time.
                            Opposition blaming Trump for CCP virus aren't they. All Trump's fault they say ?

                            There's a lot of cogs in the system he presides over that all have to play their part and if that does not work he still gets the blame because he's in charge.

                            Anything started in the house has to get through the Senate & President. If it does then it become policy by those in charge who allowed it be so.

                            The Arms embargo stands out in the entire period consequential action was taken.

                            I recall the Dems wanted trade sanctions in addition imposed but Bush did not go along with it. We've had this conversation before. You argued at the time that holding up China's membership of WTO was the more important consequence of Tianamen.

                            My point here is the opposition can always push for more than is feasible. Its the ruling part that decides.

                            Trump's gone much further. Remember how i thought it was not feasible to sanction all 92 million CCP members. I heard now they cannot get permanent residence in the US. That's 92 million x 3 people affected.

                            The idea was integrating China into the world system would change them. But we're finding their membership has allowed them to corrupt the very institutions they joined. WHO being the most egregious example. The coming of quad only goes to show handling China won't happen at the UN.

                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            Xinjiang sources? Yes, 40+ years of close observation and discussions with other people equally interested and knowledgeable. Just because the situation is far worse today doesn't mean what happened before doesn't matter.
                            Good, so you should have no problem providing sources. Where are they ? start by posting them in a new thread. I want to see sources where these company level deployments were used. There is very little discussion on the board about it. All we know if is a handful of terror attacks from several years ago. Nothing to explain the entirely disproportionate state response that too ten years after. 2016 is when the world starts to hear of camps and repression.

                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            FONOPs. Did you get to talk to anyone on the Lasson, Wilbur Curtis, or William P. Lawrence about their FONOPs yet? Let me know when you do.
                            SECSTATE Ash Carter says no FONOPS for four years under McCain's questions. You know more than the SECSTATE ?

                            Pretty clear to me what happened under Obama.

                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            North Korea. If we played a little one-on-one basketball, would you count as a “score” every shot at the basket? Neither would I, and that's because it is the results that count.
                            He met the guy which the last three presidents didn't do. That is political capital being expended right there. He could have just stuck with previous policy. If the last three presidents could not make much headway odds were he'd not get further. He tried.

                            If the other side does not play ball how can you fault him. Takes two to tango.

                            There is no score here but i'm not faulting him for the effort. Moon wanted it Trump obliged.

                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            Trade war. What's with the obsession with the trade deficit with China? Factories moved from one foreign place (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc) to another (China); big deal. The location isn't at all important to the overall US trade balance. The new location is lower cost, so inflation in the US is less. And, by the way, when the US runs a massive fiscal deficit, you expect a massive inflow of foreign investment. And, as the definition of the Balance of Payments says every trade balance is matched on the capital side, therefore big government deficits help support big trade deficits. How's that Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal coming along?


                            Keeping inflation under check, which is the mandate of pretty much every central bank in the world, caused pandemic-related shortages … really? Is that a position you really want to take?
                            The obsession with trade deficit is it keeps on increasing and the other side does not reciprocate. More countries are realising that its a one way street in China.

                            I remember bringing this point up ten years back about Indian companies not getting access when they had no trouble elsewhere and was told they were not competitive enough. HAH!

                            Yeah, we see now how western companies can't compete in China either. Strong armed into tech transfer and not much to show for it after.

                            The bulk of US exports to China are agricultural you said ? i find that pretty shocking. US does a lot more than just agriculture.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 11 Oct 20,, 18:30.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                              DE,

                              If you really believe what happens on a President's watch is all his idea, and all his credit or blame, then you have no understanding of the nature of American politics. We're a republic, not a dictatorship. Congress does things the President doesn't like all the time.

                              Xinjiang sources? Yes, 40+ years of close observation and discussions with other people equally interested and knowledgeable. Just because the situation is far worse today doesn't mean what happened before doesn't matter.

                              FONOPs. Did you get to talk to anyone on the Lasson, Wilbur Curtis, or William P. Lawrence about their FONOPs yet? Let me know when you do.

                              North Korea. If we played a little one-on-one basketball, would you count as a “score” every shot at the basket? Neither would I, and that's because it is the results that count.

                              Trade war. What's with the obsession with the trade deficit with China? Factories moved from one foreign place (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc) to another (China); big deal. The location isn't at all important to the overall US trade balance. The new location is lower cost, so inflation in the US is less. And, by the way, when the US runs a massive fiscal deficit, you expect a massive inflow of foreign investment. And, as the definition of the Balance of Payments says every trade balance is matched on the capital side, therefore big government deficits help support big trade deficits. How's that Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal coming along?


                              Keeping inflation under check, which is the mandate of pretty much every central bank in the world, caused pandemic-related shortages … really? Is that a position you really want to take?


                              US Democratic Party platform mentions of China:
                              “He [Trump] launched a reckless trade war with China that cost more than 300,000 American jobs and sent farmers into bankruptcy, decimating the American heartland. ” p. 14
                              “The Trump Administration has failed time after time to deliver for American workers on this crucial issue,siding with corporate interests over our workers and launching a trade war with China that they have no plan for winning—creating incredible hardship for American farmers, manufacturers,workers, and consumers in the process.” p. 21

                              “Democrats will take aggressive action against China or any other country that tries to undercut American manufacturing by manipulating their currencies and maintaining a misaligned exchange rate with the dollar, dumping products like steel and aluminum in our markets, or providing unfair subsidies. Unlike President Trump, we will stand up to efforts from China and other state actors to steal America’s intellectual property and will demand China and other countries cease and desist from conducting cyber espionage against our companies.” p. 21

                              “And we will take immediate action to repair the damage President Trump’s reckless policies have done to American farmers, by working with our allies to stand up to China and negotiate from the strongest possible position.” p. 21
                              “We will promote climate accountability and mobilize a united front to keep states like China from outsourcing pollution to other countries.” p. 81

                              “We will build on this foundation to negotiate arms control agreements that reflect the emergence of new players like China, capture new technologies, and move the world back from the nuclear precipice.” p. 82

                              “We reject the politicization of religious freedom in American foreign policy, and we condemn atrocities against religious minorities around the world—from ISIS’ genocide of Christians and Yezidis, to China’s mass internment of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities, to Burma’s persecution of the Rohingya, to attacks on religious minorities in Northeast Syria.” p. 85

                              “Democrats believe that if the United States does not work with its allies and partners to shape the terms of global trade, China will shape them for us—and American working families and the middle class will pay the price. That’s why we will work with our allies to mobilize more than half the world’s economy to stand up to China and negotiate from the strongest possible position.” p. 86


                              “Democrats’ approach to China will be guided by America’s national interests and the interests of our allies, and draw on the sources of American strength—the openness of our society, the dynamism of our economy, and the power of our alliances to shape and enforce international norms that reflect our values. Undermining those strengths will not make us “tough on China.” It would be a gift to the Chinese Communist Party.
                              Democrats will be clear, strong, and consistent in pushing back where we have profound economic, security, and human rights concerns about the actions of China’s government. Democrats will protect the American worker from unfair trade practices by the Chinese government, including currency manipulation and benefiting from a misaligned exchange rate with the dollar, illegal subsidies, and theft of intellectual property. We will rally friends and allies across the world to push back against China or any other country’s attempts to undermine international norms.
                              Democrats believe the China challenge is not primarily a military one, but we will deter and respond to aggression. We will underscore our global commitment to freedom of navigation and resist the Chinese military’s intimidation in the South China Sea. Democrats are committed to the Taiwan Relations Act and will continue to support a peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues consistent with the wishes and best interests of the people of Taiwan.
                              Rather than stand with President Xi Jinping as he cracks down on Hong Kong’s autonomy, Democrats will stand for the democratic rights of its citizens. We will fully enforce the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, including by sanctioning officials, financial institutions, companies, and individuals responsible for undercutting Hong Kong’s autonomy. And we will bring the world together to condemn the internment of more than one million Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in concentration camps in China, using the tools provided by the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act.
                              Democrats will pursue this strategy without resorting to self-defeating, unilateral tariff wars or falling into the trap of a new Cold War. Those mistakes would only serve to exaggerate China’s weight, over-militarize our policy, and hurt American workers. America must approach our relationship with China with confidence—the confidence to lead international efforts to push back on malign behavior while also pursuing cooperation on issues of mutual interest like climate change and nonproliferation and ensuring that the U.S.-China rivalry does not put global stability at risk.
                              Rather than denigrate our partners and encourage tensions between our allies, the United States will work to strengthen ties with and between our key allies in the region, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, and we will work to ensure that our alliances with Thailand and the Philippines live up to the values that our peoples share.” p. 89


                              “We believe Europe is our natural partner in managing areas of competition with China and will work to establish common priorities, strategies, and tools. And just as we came together to standup to communism and respond to global terrorism, we will come together with Europe to confront the existential challenge of climate change.” p. 91


                              file:///C:/Users/DAVID_~1/AppData/Lo...y-Platform.pdf


                              Now that we have the actual facts in front of us, tell me which parts of the official Democratic Party platform you don't like.
                              Actually i don't have the file since you provided a link on your PC (!)

                              Can you give us an internet link or attach here please

                              File attachment size limit with the last board was 10 MB. Generous. Don't know the file size limit with the new board.
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 11 Oct 20,, 17:43.

                              Comment


                              • The Afghan Taliban (who refer to themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) have endorsed the Republican candidate Donald J. Trump for POTUS in the upcoming 2020 election.

                                Click image for larger version  Name:	1*EivCjhLYgLoaWPcdiV_1-A.png Views:	0 Size:	498.4 KB ID:	1566731



                                Originally posted by CBS_News

                                The Taliban on Trump: "We hope he will win the election" and withdraw U.S. troops

                                by Sami Yousafzai for CBS News
                                updated 14:30 GMT 11 October 2020

                                President Trump's reelection bid received a vote of support Friday from an entity most in his party would reject: the Taliban.

                                Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told CBS News in a phone interview, "We believe that Trump is going to win the upcoming election because he has proved himself a politician who accomplished all the major promises he had made to American people, although he might have missed some small things, but did accomplish the bigger promises, so it is possible that the U.S. people who experienced deceptions in the past will once again trust Trump for his decisive actions."

                                Mujahid added, "We think the majority of the American population is tired of instability, economic failures and politicians' lies and will trust again on Trump because Trump is decisive, could control the situation inside the country. Other politicians, including Biden, chant unrealistic slogans. Some other groups, which are smaller in size but are involved in the military business including weapons manufacturing companies' owners and others who somehow get the benefit of war extension, they might be against Trump and support Biden, but their numbers among voters is low.".

                                Another senior Taliban leader told CBS News, "We hope he will win the election and wind up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan."

                                Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said Saturday that they "reject" the Taliban support. "The Taliban should know that the president will always protect American interests by any means necessary," Murtaugh said.

                                The Taliban's enthusiasm for Mr. Trump is grounded in the goal they share of getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan after 19 years of war — a longtime promise of the president.

                                There are now fewer than 5,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and national security adviser Robert O'Brien has said that number would drop to 2,500 by early next year.

                                The Trump administration signed a historic pact with the Taliban in February in which the U.S. and its allies set a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw by the spring of 2021. The pact requires the Taliban to break from al Qaeda and negotiate a power-sharing deal with Afghan government rivals.

                                Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reiterated last month, after meeting with Taliban co-founder and political deputy Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in Doha, that the U.S. was set for a full withdrawal from Afghanistan by April or May of 2021.

                                The Obama administration was unsuccessful in its attempts to broker a similar diplomatic deal. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told "Face the Nation" in February that the U.S. should draw down but also keep a residual force of "several thousand people to make sure we have a place from which we can operate" should al Qaeda or ISIS gain capacity to strike the U.S.

                                This week, President Trump said all troops should be "home by Christmas," although it is unclear if that is actually expected to happen or if he was simply reiterating his position on wanting to bring troops home.

                                "We should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas," he tweeted.

                                That timeline is at odds with the advice of U.S. military commanders, who do not believe it is safe to reduce troop levels below 4,500 unless the Taliban breaks with al Qaeda and reduces the level of violence. It is also unclear how it will affect peace talks between the Afghan government and Taliban negotiators in Qatar.

                                Civilians continue to be caught up in ongoing violence in Afghanistan, many in Taliban attacks. From January 1 to June 30 this year, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) documented 2,176 civilian injuries and 1,282 civilian deaths due to the conflict.

                                The Taliban also noted it thinks highly of Mr. Trump's "America first" creed.

                                "It is the slogan of Trump from the start that they are not cops for the world and don't want a single flag and anthem for the globe, but their priority is America," Mujahid said. "When there is no interference by U.S. in other countries, we believe they are facing fewer threats compared to their aggressive position. Trump has a concrete policy in this regard and it is better for America."

                                The senior member of the Taliban praised the president's honesty. "Honestly, Trump was much more honest with us than we thought, even we were stunned with his offer to meet Taliban in Camp David."

                                In 2019, President Trump disclosed that he had invited the Taliban for peace talks at Camp David — days before the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He said he canceled the plans after the Taliban killed a U.S. soldier.

                                The senior Taliban member told CBS News, "Trump might be ridiculous for the rest of the world, but he is sane and wise man for the Taliban."

                                The senior leader also expressed concern about Mr. Trump's bout with the coronavirus: "When we heard about Trump being COVID-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better."

                                Contributing: Margaret Brennan, David Martin, Haley Ott and Nicole Sganga

                                First published on October 10, 2020 / 12:07 PM

                                .
                                Or, maybe not...

                                Originally posted by Media_Line_in_Jerusalem_Post

                                Taliban spokesman: I did not endorse Trump
                                Denial follows CBS News report, enthusiastic response to presidential tweet about US troops being "home by Christmas."

                                by Arshad Mehmood for The Media Line
                                21:52 GMT 11 October 2020

                                By ARSHAD MEHMOOD / THE MEDIA LINE OCTOBER 11, 2020 21:52Email Twitter Facebook fb-messenger

                                Zabiullah Mujahid, chief spokesman for the Taliban, denies he has expressed support for US President Donald Trump in the upcoming US election.

                                “It is crystal clear that the… Taliban made a peace agreement with the US administration, not with any specific person, so whoever will be in power in the US, we are bound to abide by that agreement,” Mujahid told The Media Line.

                                He was responding to a weekend report by CBS News in which the US broadcaster quoted him as having stated during a telephone interview: "We hope he [Trump] will win the election and wind up [the] US military presence in Afghanistan."

                                Zabiullah further told The Media Line: “Trump has taken significant steps to ensure the safe repatriation of US troops from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, etc., so the American people can reelect him – but it is up to the American people to decide who will be best for them.”

                                The CBS News report followed a tweet last week by Trump in which the president said: “We should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas!”

                                Zabiullah responded warmly to that remark.

                                “We consider it a positive step for the implementation of the agreement between the US and Taliban in Doha,” he said in a statement, referring to a late-February accord calling for a reduction in violence and the initiation of intra-Afghan talks that would enable the withdrawal of American troops from the country.

                                “The Taliban are also committed to abiding by the contents of the peace agreement and hope for good and positive relations with all countries, including the United States,” he added.

                                Trump’s “Christmas” comment created no small amount of uncertainty. It came just hours after Robert O’Brien, his national security adviser, said Washington would reduce its forces in Afghanistan “from 5,000 to 2,500 by early 2021,” adding that the Afghans themselves “are going to have to work out an accord, a peace agreement. It’s going to be slow progress, it’s going to be hard progress….”
                                Among those left with an unsettled feeling was Haleema Sultani, a former Afghani parliamentarian.

                                “We are not happy,” Sultani told The Media Line.

                                “The majority of Afghanis very well know about the incompetency of Afghan security forces, particularly in the presence of ISIS and some other militant groups along with Taliban fighters,” she said.

                                “No doubt, the Doha peace agreement was mainly focused on a [US] troop withdrawal plan, but it does not bar the Taliban from fighting against Afghan security forces, and as a result… Afghan nationals are still bleeding,” she stated.

                                On numerous occasions, Trump has called for US troops to return home from foreign battlefields, saying that Americans are tired of endless wars.

                                Michael Kugelman, deputy director and senior associate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, believes no one should read “too much” into Trump's comment.

                                “To me, it appears to be a political a statement more than a declaration of policy,” he told The Media Line.

                                “Trump's reelection prospects are dimming and he's looking for quick ways to energize his base,” Kugelman continued, adding that he was not at all sure the administration would want to bring home all remaining troops by Christmas.

                                “There's a strong desire – a bipartisan one, in fact – to maintain a small counterterrorism force in Afghanistan,” he explained.

                                Kugelman said the presidential tweet would surely “galvanize the Taliban, which can claim a propaganda victory and point to the fact that the US president is agreeing with the Taliban's objective of getting all forces out of the country as soon as possible.”

                                Laurel Miller, director of the Asia Program at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, said in a tweet of her own that Trump’s Twitter message “kneecaps US envoys and other officials by seriously undermining their claims that any further troop reductions would be ‘conditional’. Or, Trump’s statement suggests that the only condition that concerns him is what he thinks sounds good on the eve of election.”

                                Adil Farouq, an Islamabad-based defense analyst and former coordinator for the International Security Assistance Force, established by the UN Security Council to help train Afghani forces and rebuild government institutions, says Trump’s remarks point to a policy tug of war in the US.

                                “The confusion created by President Trump's tweet indicates the ongoing power tussle between the White House and the rest of the US [defense and foreign policy] establishment, which includes the Pentagon, CIA and the State Department,” he told The Media Line.

                                “It would be in the US national interest to withdraw from Afghanistan on the successful completion of the ongoing Afghan peace process. Otherwise, the ghosts from Kabul will come back to haunt them, like the 9/11 attacks – the US made the mistake to withdraw hastily at the end of the Cold War, for which US citizens paid the heaviest price….” Farouq added.

                                “It was predicted that 2020 will be a year of tactical civil war in Afghanistan,” he continued. “The result of this war will decide the fate of the ruler in post-US-withdrawal Kabul.”

                                Tahera Rehmani, a Kabul-based writer and political analyst, called Trump’s Christmas comment “political drama” aimed at his opponents.

                                “[The] Afghan Taliban are not ready to reduce the violence against the regime. They are fighting to get rid of [the] Ashraf Ghani-led government,” Rehmani told The Media Line.

                                “Intra-Afghan talks have not yet proved fruitful, so leaving Afghanistan in this situation is not a logical decision,” she continued. “Leaving Afghanistan just to boost [Trump’s] election campaign will ultimately damage the Afghan security forces who are [still] on the battlefields against various militant groups.”

                                Rahim Ullah Adil, an English-language lecturer based in Afghanistan’s Khost Province, goes a step further in saying he believes the US will “never” fully withdraw its troops from the country.

                                “The United States can never afford a complete military withdrawal from Afghanistan,” Adil told The Media Line.
                                “US policymakers have seen the bitter effects of the post-Cold War era, when the United States completely ignored Afghanistan,” he said. “The whole world had to suffer the dire consequences.”

                                .
                                Much seems to depend upon who is talking to whom, and when, and where, and in the presence of which others, and under what other nebulous surrounding circumstances.

                                ...
                                Last edited by JRT; 12 Oct 20,, 00:33.
                                .
                                .
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X