Politics

[bob meadows]

Rightly so in my opinion... European countries both in and out of NATO should be contributing considerably more per capita than the U.S... Russian expansion is an immediate existential threat to Europe... They have much more to lose and a lot faster...

as I said, their backyard. they should fund it.....meanwhile our backyard is a bigger threat to our lifestyle and safety....bob

 

[wesheltonj]

I think this is a good thought experiment for anyone to run, whatever their position, so let us explore options (actual options, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric).

Option 1: The US explicitly supports Russian goals here.
Pros: The quickest and cheapest way to end the Ukraine war. Better relations with Russia.
Cons: A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO almost certainly dissolves. The US probably faces sanctions from most of its major trade partners. Russia becomes significantly more powerful (do we think they'd be a trustworthy ally in the medium to long term?). Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Also not exactly a popular plan with the US electorate, which would make it very difficult politically.
Conclusion: Probably not aligned to US strategic interests, or the interests of the US people. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. Not a good idea.

Option 2: The US absolves all responsibility, cuts all aid, does nothing.
Pros: Saves some money, Ukraine has a decent chance of winning anyway at this juncture.
Cons: The chances of Russia winning go up dramatically. A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO possibly dissolves. Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Politically divisive, but probably popular enough to be feasible politically.
Conclusion: A viable option. However, it would rather run contrary to all US activity in Europe in the past 70 years and certainly loses the US power and influence abroad. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. If we are to dig into the historical context, this plan hasn't gone well for the US in the past (citation: The 1920's). Probably not smart in a highly interconnected world built on international trade.

Option 3: The US continues to half-ass things as it's doing now.
Pros: Relatively low risk, relatively low cost. Ukraine probably wins, Russia is certainly degraded as a future threat. NATO partners are reassured, US foreign influence is maintained if not strengthened. Encourages other bad actors to tread carefully.
Cons: It costs money. It marginally increases the chance of further US military involvement and sours relations with Russia. The US may not do enough for Ukraine to prevail (although from what we're currently seeing, I think this is a low probability).
Conclusion: A very viable option. Seems to have popular support in the US for the most part, so politically expedient. Achieves US foreign policy goals for minimal expenditure and risk of US servicemen (although, of course not 0 expenditure).

Option 4: The US goes all in, boots on the ground, substantially increased support.
Pros: Ukraine definitely wins, Russia definitely folds, NATO is greatly reassured and US foreign policy is secured. Really, really encourages other bad actors to stay in their lane.
Cons: Hugely unpopular politically. Massively expensive, greatly increases the risk of nuclear war.
Conclusion: Probably not a good idea from a cost / benefit perspective.

Of the options presented here (things that the US can actually do), only 2 or 3 are really options.

The end goal of those options will be some kind of negotiated peace. The only power that the US has here is in dictating what the terms of that agreement look like, and what the country wants to signal to foreign allies and enemies.

Linking this back to the upcoming election, I'm reasonably confident that the Dems will continue with option 3 if they come to power. It is, after all, what they're doing now. I consider this the best option.

Donald Trump is (IMO) far more likely to lean towards option 2. That's popular with his base, it ties in with his generally isolationist foreign policy positions, it's a great political talking point to show he's done something (which continuing the current option 3 approach wouldn't be). I consider this to be an awful option for the US to take from a long term strategic perspective, but realistically doesn't constitute an existential threat to the nation.

If we're to believe that his comments about 'Ending the conflict in a day' are serious instead of just stupid bluster as per usual (for the record, I don't believe this myself), then that actually brings option 1 into play.

That's the ONLY route that the US has to end this quickly and decisively. Pressure Ukraine into folding. The US doesn't have any options to categorically force Russia to capitulate that quickly. Excepting perhaps Option 4, which realistically would be complete political suicide for whomever proposes it, and possibly comes with a nomination for the 'Stupidest Decision Ever Made By A Human' award by bringing about nuclear armageddon.

Overall conclusion: When it comes to Ukraine, I have far more confidence in Harris' administration to handle it competently that I do Trumps'.

If it's an important enough issue to outweigh all the other policies that I think the Dems will do worse is a different question...

There’s another option, continue military aid and cut State Department money.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

tanks...true, will and intent. if we cant muster up the will to fix our country we have no business telling other countries what to do......I wonder if other countries get tired of us constantly telling them what they should do. .....least anyone thinks I am a pacifist, totally the opposite.

rather have dems in office?....if you like having lybtgqfuckheads in the white house, representing our country......bob

It’s a good thing you’re not a pacifist because if an administration truly does pursue isolationism then it won’t be long and we’ll be pulled into something serious. Pursue peace through strength. Hiding sends a message of weakness

 

[bob meadows]

big difference in not meddling in others.....everybodys....affairs and hiding.....and yes the way to gain fear, respect whatever you want to call it, is through strength.

like being in a neighborhood, mind your own business get along help people out......but if your neighbor threatens you.....beat the ever living fuck out of him or worse.....but for gods sake don't turn around and mow his lawn......rough analogy, but you get the idea...bob

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

big difference in not meddling in others.....everybodys....affairs and hiding.....and yes the way to gain fear, respect whatever you want to call it, is through strength.

like being in a neighborhood, mind your own business get along help people out......but if your neighbor threatens you.....beat the ever living fuck out of him or worse.....but for gods sake don't turn around and mow his lawn......rough analogy, but you get the idea...bob

Flawed analogy when you apply it to a nation state in 2024. That neighborhood you speak of is global and you’ve got a vested interest in much of it in addition to the bad actors that don’t mind their business. Would work in a perfect world or maybe 300 years ago or if we didn’t matter as a country. What about our economy and our allies? You also keep pushing the falsehood that what is going on is none of our affair.

I don’t see what’s so difficult to understand about the fact that we can take care of things at home and abroad simultaneously.

 

[Lone Star Bluegrass]

The difficult and frustrating part about the “support for Ukraine” debate in the U.S. right now is it’s not really a debate. The current administration is demonstrably rudderless and the same brain trust that spearheaded the Afghanistan withdrawal is incapable of putting together a coherent message for providing significant assistance to a belligerent nation that’s a non NATO member who we have a very flimsy alliance with—the Senate has not ratified any mutual defense treaty with Ukraine. If you point this out or question why we should continue this level of support for Ukraine given this largely informal alliance, you get denounced as a Russian lackey—not a flattering moniker.
Also, if Russia had been openly arming the Taliban and Al Qaeda when our military was fighting those groups, how would we have responded? Again, a reasonable national debate has never occurred on this issue.

 

[bob meadows]

and I don't know why its so difficult to see that we are not taking care of things at home......do you feel the mess in the middle east, do you feel we have had a hand in it?......is Iran where it is today because we stayed out of their affairs?......China is the enemy , that's who we have to worry about. but then we fund them through our buying of all their crap.....global economy....we shouldn't even be dealing with them.....I appreciate the exchange, and I do see your side of things....

I just don't happen to agree with it completely. ......you said I keep pushing the falsehood that it isn't our affair.... the only reason its our affair, is because we make it our affair......as was stated before this is really a Europe affair...they are big boys let them handle it...bob

 

[Tanks]

tanks...true, will and intent. if we cant muster up the will to fix our country we have no business telling other countries what to do.....

The will I am talking about is not fortitude or something similar. Half the country does not see the border or crime as a major problem or a priority otherwise they would not elect Democrats pushing for open borders and "soft-on-crime" policies. So, things you might see as broken and needs fixing is not something half the country thinks it needs fixing. That's the political reality.

Heck, we had a councilman in San Francisco stating that cars being broken into is just the price of living in a big city. He got re-elected.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

and I don't know why its so difficult to see that we are not taking care of things at home......do you feel the mess in the middle east, do you feel we have had a hand in it?......is Iran where it is today because we stayed out of their affairs?......China is the enemy , that's who we have to worry about. but then we fund them through our buying of all their crap.....global economy....we shouldn't even be dealing with them.....I appreciate the exchange, and I do see your side of things....

I just don't happen to agree with it completely. ......you said I keep pushing the falsehood that it isn't our affair.... the only reason its our affair, is because we make it our affair......as was stated before this is really a Europe affair...they are big boys let them handle it...bob

See, you’re still pushing the same nonsense talking points and narratives. Did I say we are taking care of business at home? I did not and we are not. Our country is getting worse by the day but this is not an either/or situation.

By your reasoning, sanctioning Iran and crippling their economy would not be minding our own affairs so I guess we shouldn’t do that? They are where they are today because of Obama and Biden. It’s not about minding your own business or not (that ship has sailed), it’s about what actions you take and you do have to take some sort of action be it negative or positive.

You talk about China, what do you think it would say to them if we stepped away from Ukraine completely? They’d invade Taiwan quick, fast and in a hurry.

It’s not our affair to be involved in Europe? Really? With our trade interests there and our obligations to NATO?

Foreign policy that you’re talking about is an absolute joke.

 

[Ridge Runner]

I think this is a good thought experiment for anyone to run, whatever their position, so let us explore options (actual options, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric).

Option 1: The US explicitly supports Russian goals here.
Pros: The quickest and cheapest way to end the Ukraine war. Better relations with Russia.
Cons: A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO almost certainly dissolves. The US probably faces sanctions from most of its major trade partners. Russia becomes significantly more powerful (do we think they'd be a trustworthy ally in the medium to long term?). Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Also not exactly a popular plan with the US electorate, which would make it very difficult politically.
Conclusion: Probably not aligned to US strategic interests, or the interests of the US people. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. Not a good idea.

Option 2: The US absolves all responsibility, cuts all aid, does nothing.
Pros: Saves some money, Ukraine has a decent chance of winning anyway at this juncture.
Cons: The chances of Russia winning go up dramatically. A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO possibly dissolves. Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Politically divisive, but probably popular enough to be feasible politically.
Conclusion: A viable option. However, it would rather run contrary to all US activity in Europe in the past 70 years and certainly loses the US power and influence abroad. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. If we are to dig into the historical context, this plan hasn't gone well for the US in the past (citation: The 1920's). Probably not smart in a highly interconnected world built on international trade.

Option 3: The US continues to half-ass things as it's doing now.
Pros: Relatively low risk, relatively low cost. Ukraine probably wins, Russia is certainly degraded as a future threat. NATO partners are reassured, US foreign influence is maintained if not strengthened. Encourages other bad actors to tread carefully.
Cons: It costs money. It marginally increases the chance of further US military involvement and sours relations with Russia. The US may not do enough for Ukraine to prevail (although from what we're currently seeing, I think this is a low probability).
Conclusion: A very viable option. Seems to have popular support in the US for the most part, so politically expedient. Achieves US foreign policy goals for minimal expenditure and risk of US servicemen (although, of course not 0 expenditure).

Option 4: The US goes all in, boots on the ground, substantially increased support.
Pros: Ukraine definitely wins, Russia definitely folds, NATO is greatly reassured and US foreign policy is secured. Really, really encourages other bad actors to stay in their lane.
Cons: Hugely unpopular politically. Massively expensive, greatly increases the risk of nuclear war.
Conclusion: Probably not a good idea from a cost / benefit perspective.

Of the options presented here (things that the US can actually do), only 2 or 3 are really options.

The end goal of those options will be some kind of negotiated peace. The only power that the US has here is in dictating what the terms of that agreement look like, and what the country wants to signal to foreign allies and enemies.

Linking this back to the upcoming election, I'm reasonably confident that the Dems will continue with option 3 if they come to power. It is, after all, what they're doing now. I consider this the best option.

Donald Trump is (IMO) far more likely to lean towards option 2. That's popular with his base, it ties in with his generally isolationist foreign policy positions, it's a great political talking point to show he's done something (which continuing the current option 3 approach wouldn't be). I consider this to be an awful option for the US to take from a long term strategic perspective, but realistically doesn't constitute an existential threat to the nation.

If we're to believe that his comments about 'Ending the conflict in a day' are serious instead of just stupid bluster as per usual (for the record, I don't believe this myself), then that actually brings option 1 into play.

That's the ONLY route that the US has to end this quickly and decisively. Pressure Ukraine into folding. The US doesn't have any options to categorically force Russia to capitulate that quickly. Excepting perhaps Option 4, which realistically would be complete political suicide for whomever proposes it, and possibly comes with a nomination for the 'Stupidest Decision Ever Made By A Human' award by bringing about nuclear armageddon.

Overall conclusion: When it comes to Ukraine, I have far more confidence in Harris' administration to handle it competently that I do Trumps'.

If it's an important enough issue to outweigh all the other policies that I think the Dems will do worse is a different question...

A bit near sighted, but okay in the small picture of the overall world situations.

Your proposed options to the war between Russia and Ukraine are within reasonably good.

HOWEVER, regardless in any of your proposed options you have omitted any proposal for contingency for escalations in the Mideast and between China and Taiwan,....and that sawed off nit wit in North Korea.

While attentions are mainly focused on Russia/Ukraine War.

You don't have contingencies options factored in for escalations should Iran, Palestine, and/or Syria partner with Hamas and Hezbola, in a full onslaught against Israel?

You also don't have contingencies options not only for the escalation now in the Mideast, but China escalations against Taiwan.

You also neglected contingencies with the escalations in the Mideast, and China sea, that sawed off nit wit in North Korea wanting to get in on the action against the USA by attacking South Korea and making direct attacks against Alaska and /or Hawaii.

Then there are contingencies needed for fighting terrorists on US soil that Sleepy Joe and Cackling Harris allowed to illegally enter into the US with their open border.

Your proposed options are reasonable for putting out a campfire to save the forest from burning, but not when the forest already has more hotspots waiting for the right moment to set the forest ablaze, because the majority of attention is on putting out the campfire.

 

[ActionBob]

Those who are surprised are not doing the shopping for their households. Remember Yellen stating near beginning of Brandon’s admin that inflation was ‘transitory” Did anyone pay attention to the latest Brandon-Harris announcement parroted religiously by the MSM that inflation was currently 2.9% and trending down with Brandon creating 16 million new jobs, 1 million new jobs so far this year? The only policy floated so far from Camela is price fixing- a trademark solution always floated by commies that has never worked and when tried dooms those sucked in, without exception, to a doomed downward spiral of economic collapse.

Since we’re into anecdotal show and tell here … I went to town yesterday and bought a pound of extra lean hamburger at Walmart… $8.46 before tax. Hardly a gourmet meat product…
View attachment 629163

I appreciate the meat consumption. As you know under our Capitalist system, at least you have beef available! If Harris gets her way, that may not be the case under price controls.


The beef industry has been hit with a bit of a perfect storm. Extremely high input costs, loss of several demographics of mamma cows from South Dakota a few years ago, Kansas, Oklahoma and West Texas fires more recently, high beef prices tend to encourage culling of cow herds exasperating the issue.... The beef industry has been suffering for some time from a lack of enough uterus' to produce the needed calves. The Dairy industry, especially in the US, is supplying a lot now by using seed semen to provide replacement heifers from the top end of the females in the herds and then being able to breed the rest to beef, mostly Angus. Thus producing a higher quality and more efficient beef animal to fatten for market.

I can assure you that with these record high prices, beef producers are doing what the can to produce more! If left to work through this, Capitalism will soon provide a surplus and prices will come down. However every thing else to get back into balance as well, especially energy prices. It is all supply and demand. The only system that works.

 

[ActionBob]

With all this bacon talk mixed with euro-Usa rancor I thought this would be appropriate as a days cultural contribution from Texas.

View attachment 629193

Yea, so what?

 

[bob meadows]

The will I am talking about is not fortitude or something similar. Half the country does not see the border or crime as a major problem or a priority otherwise they would not elect Democrats pushing for open borders and "soft-on-crime" policies. So, things you might see as broken and needs fixing is not something half the country thinks it needs fixing. That's the political reality.

Heck, we had a councilman in San Francisco stating that cars being broken into is just the price of living in a big city. He got re-elected.

unreal.....I do believe our country is sinking...bob

 

[bob meadows]

See, you’re still pushing the same nonsense talking points and narratives. Did I say we are taking care of business at home? I did not and we are not. Our country is getting worse by the day but this is not an either/or situation.

By your reasoning, sanctioning Iran and crippling their economy would not be minding our own affairs so I guess we shouldn’t do that? They are where they are today because of Obama and Biden. It’s not about minding your own business or not (that ship has sailed), it’s about what actions you take and you do have to take some sort of action be it negative or positive.

You talk about China, what do you think it would say to them if we stepped away from Ukraine completely? They’d invade Taiwan quick, fast and in a hurry.

It’s not our affair to be involved in Europe? Really? With our trade interests there and our obligations to NATO?

Foreign policy that you’re talking about is an absolute joke.

I asked a simple question, is iran where it is at today partly/maybe because of us....you blame it on biden /obama. before obama?... yes that ship has sailed . something about history repeating itself.

you interject yourself in other countries affairs...it will come back to bite you in the ass.....enter the middle east.

not an either or? our country is coming apart at the seams.....but hey lets take care of those guys first........the foreign policy that you talk about has broken and killed a lot of Americans.....

as far as china I said on one hand we call them the enemy.....on the other we finance them, which in turn gives them more power....that's just a fact. that's great foreign policy wonder who came up with that idea....the foreign policy I talk about is a joke?......the current doesn't seem to be working all that great.......no reason to get so upset...bob

 

[bob meadows]

and one other thing. if our country implodes from within....which could happen.....then where are we at on the world stage?....bob

 

[bob meadows]

Yea, so what?

its flawed...should be a 1911....bob

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I asked a simple question, is iran where it is at today partly/maybe because of us....you blame it on biden /obama. before obama?... yes that ship has sailed . something about history repeating itself.

you interject yourself in other countries affairs...it will come back to bite you in the ass.....enter the middle east.

not an either or? our country is coming apart at the seams.....but hey lets take care of those guys first........the foreign policy that you talk about has broken and killed a lot of Americans.....

as far as china I said on one hand we call them the enemy.....on the other we finance them, which in turn gives them more power....that's just a fact. that's great foreign policy wonder who came up with that idea....the foreign policy I talk about is a joke?......the current doesn't seem to be working all that great.......no reason to get so upset...bob

and one other thing. if our country implodes from within....which could happen.....then where are we at on the world stage?....bob

You literally keep saying the same thing. We have the ability to take care of domestic issues and foreign affairs simultaneously. That’s not a difficult concept to grasp. Now whether or not we do that is obviously another matter. To withhold support from Ukraine or other foreign issues because you’re unhappy with the situation at home is self destructive to say the least. I share every bit of your concern on domestic issues. I’m not saying mistakes haven’t been made along the way but you cannot simply just shut the gates and ignore the rest of the world.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I get your point, but in this particular circumstance, I don't see the "real" Jews to "real" Blacks as a direct comparison... Any particular race or religion that bases their entire doctrine on the eradication of another race or religion goes far beyond mere political disagreement wouldn't you agree?

Blacks who decide to think for themselves by bucking the democratic party's generational indoctrination of their race as pure identity politics is vastly different in my view than Jew who is either apathetic or against to their own self-preservation as an individual and as a race. They are certainly entitled to take whatever position they like, but they do so at their own peril...

In any event, my remarks were not to generalize or marginalize any ethnic or racial group. They were simply meant to pose a question to which the answer confounds me... A sheep that sacrifices itself to the wolves, or one that even rationalizes the wolves' behavior may indeed be a "real" sheep, just not a very bright one that is going to live very long...

I certainly won’t disagree with you in regard to Jewish people who don’t seem to be supporting Israel and its battle against Hamas. It confounds me too, however unlike Donald I’m not going to question whether they’re real Jews or not.

And I do see a direct connections between black people who depart the Dems and Jewish people in this subject. Go against the mainstream of the group you can be identified with and suddenly that identity comes into question, that’s just stupid.

When it comes to Donald, this is just another example where if he loses this election, we can point to moments like this as a reason. For if I were Jewish my reaction to Trump, a non-Jew, making a statement about a fellow Jew not being a real Jew, would be to tell him to go f@(k himself and not vote for him.

I can only imagine this was another moment that his campaign advisors ask themselves why they ever took the job.

 

[Red Leg]

Meanwhile our friends in Moscow are having a bit of a conniption fit leavened with classic Russian schadenfreude. The arrest by France of Pavel Durov is causing something of a crisis for the folks in the Kremlin and their lackeys in the Russian press. I won't comment on the nature of the specific charges against Durov because I do not know them - nor for the moment does anyone else including Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk who have assumed it is an attack on free speech. We'll have to wait and see.

However, what is not questioned is that the Telegram messaging service founded by Durov, who holds dual French and UAE citizenship, is a primary communication tool for the Russian government and military, various Russian bloggers and influencers, and the hard core propagandists in the Russian "news" media. I have posted video and screen grabs from the service often when referring to Ukrainian attacks against Russian assets. If the Russians are talking about and filming the aftermath on "their" messaging service then it probably happened.

Solovyov's dialogue also contains a bit more revelation of Russian military incompetence than he likely intended before he then swings fully into typical Russian self-victimization that passes for a discussion of the war. After all, it isn't their fault that the brilliant strategist in the Kremlin decided to invade Ukraine.

 

[bob meadows]

You literally keep saying the same thing. We have the ability to take care of domestic issues and foreign affairs simultaneously. That’s not a difficult concept to grasp. Now whether or not we do that is obviously another matter. To withhold support from Ukraine or other foreign issues because you’re unhappy with the situation at home is self destructive to say the least. I share every bit of your concern on domestic issues. I’m not saying mistakes haven’t been made along the way but you cannot simply just shut the gates and ignore the rest of the world.

I was told along time ago, want to help others? you have to help yourself first.....

answer this one question please. if china is the enemy, why do we support them? why do we put them in a stronger position to cause us trouble?......why don't we simply shut the gate on them and weaken their ability to interfere with our interests? what is the reasoning behind this?....serious question...bob