You can project values without meddling. The best presidents have recognised that it's better to use soft power rather than military force.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
2020 US Presidential Election
- Thread starter RichT54
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It's different on a case by case basis. W Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses (having strongly implied that Saddam was behind 9/11 as well as making a false case about weapons of mass destruction) and with apparently no thought of what to do afterwards. A direct line can be drawn from that events such as the rise of IS, the war in Syria, and the refugee crisis in Europe. But in Syria there's a good case to say that a targeted and planned Western intervention would have reduced the carnage and prevented Russia and Iran from filling the vacuum. However Obama and Trump didn't want to get involved, and Iraq had turned both domestic and international opinion strongly against American intervention of any sort.
Iraq also contributed to the loss of confidence in American government as a whole, and was used by Trump to discredit the intelligence services when they talked about Russian influence on his campaign.
Oh, yes that goes without saying.
Again though, soft power could and should have been used earlier. If it had been made clear to Assad very early on (before the descent into full-on civil war) that we (the Western powers) were willing to bring force to bear then it's likely the situation could have been contained. And then it wouldn't have become apparent that we weren't actually willing to get involved with boots on the ground - allowing Russia to move in and fill the vacuum.
Another similar example was the US escalating and then turning tail and leaving the UN mission to Somalia in the 1990s. This directly lead to the rise of Al Qaeda as it reinforced Osama Bin Laden's view that that America was "a paper tiger". Had they stayed the course, stuck to the original intent of the mission (providing support to the fledgling government) then not only would Somalia have been much better off, but later events such as the September 11th attacks on New York may never have happened.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Interesting, and I tend to agree - except that if we are going to use that soft-power approach at an early stage, then it's essential that we really are willing to get involved with boots on the ground in the event that Assad continued to wage war on his own people - for the obvious reason that if our threats of action against a dictator and human-rights-abuser turn out to be empty, then basically no-one takes us seriously after that - a point that you also imply in your second paragraph.
By the way, I wonder if the 1983 US invasion of Grenada provides an example of a situation where using force is justified (and is well-planned). That invasion was in response to an apparent military coup, and the invasion resulted in not only the coup failing but Grenada becoming a stable democracy - which it has remained ever since.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think that's basically what Obama failed to do, partly because after Iraq there was no stomach in America for something that might turn out to be similar. UK Parliament rejecting participation seems to have swung it definitively that way - if only the same had happened for Iraq...
However Trump has pursued the opposite strategy with varying degrees of success, although words such as "pursue" and "strategy" may be conveying too much of a sense of purpose. Essentially the idea was that he's so unpredictable that even a mild infringement might result in a hugely disproportionate response. But I think anyone who's encountered schoolteachers who consistently give a punishment that's proportionate to the misbehavior, and also those who randomly fling out a more severe penalty, will know which is better for keeping the kids in order. In any case most foreign leaders have got him sussed now and are able to run rings round him.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
The idea that Biden will be significantly better than a second Trump term is naive in the extreme. Biden is just as incompetent as DJT, just not as loud about it.
That Trump can give a speech warning of Biden's "far-left agenda" while keeping a straight face suggests that I've underestimated The Donald's political savvy: he certainly knows how to play the game. The fact that Biden would make Thatcher seem like Trotsky is secondary to the message Trump wants to put out that the Democrats are untrustworthy and duplicitous. Something the Dems themselves are making no attempt to counter.
The Democrats' only policy seems to be "Orange Man Bad", and if they win they get rid of Trump on day one... then it's going to be case of Neoliberalism as usual, only MORE draconian than Trump would be because the Dems get a pass. Especially Biden, who drafted the Clinton era Crime Bill which contributed to the militarisation of the police and to mass incarceration. None of the mainstream media seem to be mentioning that though.
"Orange Man Bad" didn't work last time, now with the benefit of hindsight that the sky didn't fall in, it certainly won't work this time.
That Trump can give a speech warning of Biden's "far-left agenda" while keeping a straight face suggests that I've underestimated The Donald's political savvy: he certainly knows how to play the game. The fact that Biden would make Thatcher seem like Trotsky is secondary to the message Trump wants to put out that the Democrats are untrustworthy and duplicitous. Something the Dems themselves are making no attempt to counter.
The Democrats' only policy seems to be "Orange Man Bad", and if they win they get rid of Trump on day one... then it's going to be case of Neoliberalism as usual, only MORE draconian than Trump would be because the Dems get a pass. Especially Biden, who drafted the Clinton era Crime Bill which contributed to the militarisation of the police and to mass incarceration. None of the mainstream media seem to be mentioning that though.
"Orange Man Bad" didn't work last time, now with the benefit of hindsight that the sky didn't fall in, it certainly won't work this time.
nlogax
Established Member
There's some "Trump won't win this time around" on this thread, which suggests to me a similar amount of collective naivety to that which floated around during the autumn of 2016. Michael Moore saw this coming four years ago and has noticed history beginning to repeat itself.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...thusiasm-for-trump-off-the-charts/ar-BB18uJ6X
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...thusiasm-for-trump-off-the-charts/ar-BB18uJ6X
The main difference between Biden and Trump (well, second to Trump's corrupt intent) is that Biden realises that he doesn't know everything and is capable of taking advice. Trump believes that he knows more than anyone about everything ("nobody knew" being code for "I just found out") and doesn't take advice from anyone.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Whether that's an improvement depends on who's giving the advice. A Biden administration will be much like the Obama administration was: handpicked from Wall Street. There won't be the bare-faced nepotism and disregard for conflicts of interest we've seen with Trump (his education and environmental picks definitely stick out on the latter front) but I'll be surprised if a Biden win leads to any significant change in policy direction. The presentation will be more polished, maybe.
brad465
Established Member
I could talk for hours/pages about how messed up the American regime is, whatever party/person in charge. The reality is corporate lobbyists/interests run the show, which is rigged towards super-rich wealth generation, whatever the expense for the bulk of the US population. I do sympathise with much of the population who probably want change but are powerless to cause it.
Growing up I often admired the US in many ways, but now, having learned more I completely loathe the regime and style of Politics there, which no one election/person can change, more like a revolution of some form (hopefully peaceful).
Good assessment.
Current odds on betfair are almost exactly evens for both Trump and Biden. Trumps odds have been falling steadily for weeks.
Although in the week before he won last time, Trump was as long as 9/1 to win.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,085
Wisconsin was one of the crucial states that Trump won last time; H.Clinton's refusal to campaign there was seen as helping Trump to narrowly get it. Now Biden seemingly won't go near the place, presumably because he's terrified of being put on the spot regarding anything to do with events in Kenosha, whereas Trump's going to visit to rabble rouse, hoping to turn every white voter into a racist. I can only hope he's unsuccessful and it backfires on him.
The margin between Hillary and Trump in Wisconsin was just under 23,000 out of 2.9 million votes - Jill Stein took over 100,000 votes so she was an even bigger factor than Hillary not campaigning there.
I'd like to think he will go there, but not right now - things are way too heated at the moment. It would make sense to at least wait until Mr Blake is out of intensive care.
At the very least it's going to encourage the Democratic vote.
Having briefly lived in Madison and having friends there I find the suggestion that white people in Wisconsin (there are a lot of them) are so amenable to being converted to racism pretty offensive. It was a prime candidate to become a swing state, largely rural, largely agricultural mid America with its largest cities liberal strongholds. Its 2016 vote was not due to racism. That's the sort of suggestion which which guarantees the swing voters won't go back to the Democrats. Why people still don't understand that insulting the electorate isn't a vote winner is a mystery.
To be fair to @Busaholic he said that it appears that Trump's intention is to try and stir up racism - not that he believed that it was possible.
I heard today that he plans to go to Wisconsin either late this week or early next.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,085
Having only just returned to the thread, I'm happy to confirm what you say about my post. I know nothing of significance about Wisconsin and hadn't heard of the city where Mr Blake was shot before. On the other hand, I think I unfortunately know by now how what passes for Trump's mind works, and in this simplistic, narcissistic world every person who voted for him last time will do so again, unless they've died in the interim, so all he has to do now is get a few thousand white people in the state so petrified about having their businesses or homes or whatever burned down or attacked by 'black mobs' that they'll switch to him. As I said previously, I fervently hope this proves to be wrong and, instead, some of those who voted for him before are so revolted by his cynical rabblerousing they vote Democrat. Indeed, I hope when his Presidency ends in a few months, which I have to believe, very serious criminal charges are levelled against him which will see him incarcerated for a long time, but that's outside the scope of this thread!
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I see DJT is still beating his "Biden = radical left" drum... something which he knows isn't true but also knows will work in his favour in spite of this.
The irony being that the Democrats (who control the Houseand Senate) have largely supported his legislative agenda for the last four years. Commentators to the left of Biden have bemoaned the two party system for leaving them with choice between either: a neocon with a track record of falsehoods, errors, gaffes and questionable interactions with women... or Donald Trump. The truth is that outside of certain hot-button issues like abortion rights, you'd struggle to get a cigarette paper between the two parties.
The irony being that the Democrats (who control the House
Last edited:
Think we're going to need a source on that one! For one thing they control the House as of 2018 onwards only and the Senate has been Republican throughout!
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Whoops, not sure where I got that, only meant to mention they control the House!
Nevertheless, the likes of Nancy Pelosi have barely done their job of holding the executive department to account. The idea that if Biden wins it'll be all sunshine and rainbows is so wide of the mark it's almost laughable.
Since the 2018 midterms very little of his legislative agenda has made it through the House - hence why he's had to steal money from the DoD to pay for the border wall.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Guess I need to broaden my US News sources... I know much of his Covid-related emergency measures haven't been scrutinised much by the Dems, but then they'd be just as hopeless as he has been on that- and there's an element of "flying blind" regardless of party or ideology there as that's the nature of the beast.
It's easy to write Trump off as a buffoon, but he's very good at getting his narrative out regardless of how true it is. His strategy seems to be simply to "stay on message, push the slogans, never admit that you were wrong". Just this evening he made a point of referring to "The China Virus" which plays into his isolationist base.
That's not entirely correct. His executive actions haven't been scrutinsed, but that's by design. As for legislation, the CARES Act was introduced by a Democrat and the Cares 2 Act is currently being held up because the Dems are insisting that it doesn't go far enough to help the average citizen, as opposed to corporate America.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It would be a good idea to do so before expressing the sorts of opinions you have in your last few posts.
To a European observer Biden is well to the right but that's where the centre of gravity of American politics tends to sit, and a left-wing programme would just push swing voters back to Trump. But unlike Trump, Biden doesn't seem corrupt and even if the handful of harassment accusations against him are true Trump has done similar or worse multiple times over. Most importantly Biden doesn't seem to be threatening the very basis of American democracy, which if destroyed would make it virtually impossible for the country to move to a more progressive agenda in the foreseeable future.
birchesgreen
Established Member
The key differences between now and the last election is that Biden is a less divisive candidate than Hillary, Trump is also a much more known quantity (for better and worse and mostly worse). The floating voters who won it for him last time won't be so easy to attract this time. The US economy is in the toilet (not entirely Trump's fault of course).
So Biden should win, but hey its 2020, who knows what can happen in this increasingly bizarre year?!
So Biden should win, but hey its 2020, who knows what can happen in this increasingly bizarre year?!
LSWR Cavalier
Established Member
Sleepy Joe gets my vote
'Going too slow causes less damage than going too fast'-Max Dauthendey
Obviously (?) Kamala Harris is coming up on the inside to be PotUS later
What fascinates me is the saturation coverage, months before 11.3, in the media over here
We know so much about them, they know so little about us
'Going too slow causes less damage than going too fast'-Max Dauthendey
Obviously (?) Kamala Harris is coming up on the inside to be PotUS later
What fascinates me is the saturation coverage, months before 11.3, in the media over here
We know so much about them, they know so little about us
That misrepresents the feeling towards Clinton last time round.
There was (and remains) much distrust of her, to the extent that a notable proportion of the floating voters, and even some democrats, simply wouldn’t vote for her. Whilst many of them wouldn’t vote for Trump either, a vote lost to Clinton still made it easier for Trump to win, and so it proved.
What would you propose they do? A lot of Trumps response has been via executive order which is not subject to scrutiny by design. Otherwise the only legislation that can pass currently is that which gains the approval of Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate. If one or the other doesn't vote in favour of a bill then it's a dead duck and never gets out of Congress. Meanwhile the Democrats voted to impeach him (the Republicans decided not to convict) and a host of different House committees have launched probes into Trump and his cronies actions:
Link
No matter what these investigations conclude of course though they are, again stymied, however as Republicans hold all the cards when it comes to legislative responses as any bill trying to hold Trump to account or to legislate to prevent him doing something or force him to do something are dead on arrival in the Senate and won't even be voted on. And it's tough to get any Federal law enforcement involvement when the Attorney General is doing everything he can to protect Trump (see the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York being told he had decided to resign).
So I would be interested to know what you think the Democrats should be doing to hold the executive to account?
As for Biden, will he be perfect? Will it be rainbows, unicorns, puppies and streets paved with gold? No, of course it won't. But I'd at least be confident that Biden won't spend $133.8m of taxpayer money on golf trips unlike Trump (of which some is going directly into his companies pocket). That Biden won't spend his time on the golf course rather than dealing with a global pandemic. That Biden won't alienate and insult US friends and allies whilst fawning over strongmen and dictators trying to earn their respect. And so on and so on. Biden isn't going to be perfect but he is clearly going to be better than the current occupant of the White House and I honestly don't know how anyone could think differently.
Like it or loathe it the United States remains one of the most important nations in the world. It has the largest economy, the strongest military, the third largest population, is a centre of scientific research and development, is a key player in our most important military alliance, plays (or at least played) a vital role in a range of diplomatic arenas and is a producer of vast amounts of TV, film, music and internet content. Whilst many of those factors apply to us in varying degrees we're minnows in comparison so logically what happens to the US is far more important to us than what happens to us is to them. The impact of the US withdrawing from NATO, for instance, would be far more consequential (at least in the short term) for us than it would be for the US.
Last edited:
Minor correction, but what I think you meant is that for legislation to pass it has to be approved by both the House and the Senate* - which means that very little is actually getting done.
*Plus the President has to sign it unless the Senate has enough votes to override his veto.
Yes you are of course correct. Not sure how that stray "or" crept in!
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Other than his appointments to the likes of SCOTUS (which are the sole preserve of the Senate to vote on), I'm not aware of much of his agenda passing the House at the very least un-ammended since the Republicans lost control in the 2018 mid-terms.
- Status