HawkShack.com

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/politics/biden-taiwan-china-japan-intl-hnk/index.html

So Biden publicly stated we will respond militarily if China invades Taiwan.

I always figured this was the case. But it was much like not acknowledging Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Something you don't talk about in public, but you know it is true in private.

I am left to wonder have we lost all our good foreign policy presidents? It seems all over the world we have leaders playing tough guy and America no longer has leaders who know how to handle it. It's like many world leaders in powerful countries are trying to start World War 3.

What exactly do you do if your China is America basically states "We believe in the One china policy but only if you never actually try to unite China."

I hope nothing comes of this, but it sure seems like a lot of the world is just itching to settle affairs with a war. See who really is the top dog.

And right now America don't have the presidents to handle it and I don't see any good foreign policy presidents in the ranks coming up. We're too busy arguing over gender pronouns, abortion, immigration, and whether or not minorities are replacing the majority and other ridiculous crap.

Does anyone know any of these up and comers that are experienced with foreign policy like George Bush Sr. was or Dick Cheney? These are probably the last people in office that had real pull, contacts, and respect or fear worldwide.

Yeah, Biden stuck his foot in his mouth again. It's been our policy for decades to maintain a "strategic ambiguity" with regards to Taiwan, create enough doubt in the Chinese's minds that it acts as a deterrent without committing ourselves to getting into a war should something happen. Now the White House is walking back his comments, saying that our policy towards Taiwan/China has not changed. This is just another example of how Joe Biden is not up to the job. SMH.

As far as who's in the ranks as great foreign policy leaders, there's been a number of them that have served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. including Mitt Romney, and I'd love to see him run again, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination with the way the Republican Party has descended into Trumpism.

Bush 41 was rather unique as he had more experience in government outside of Congress than any POTUS in recent memory.

I'd give Romney a vote if he ran again at this point. We could really use a level head with some experience right now that is careful with speech. Countries like China and Russia are looking for a reason at this point. China's economy is seriously faltering. A lot of nations are pulling their manufacturing due to China's zero COVID policy causing supply chain issues and shutdowns hampering business. They also don't want to end up like what happened in Russia if China decides to attack Taiwan. Russia's surprise war is making a lot of people rethink doing business with dictatorial nations that could leave them cut out or searching for new material or manufacturing sources if a stupid leader decides to engage in a war or other negative behavior that the world won't tolerate.

I'm a liberal who would support Romney. He's more of a true american first in my book, and a republican second. I can live with that.

As for Biden, yes once again he stuck his foot in his mouth, but I don't know that it really changes anything in the balance of the equation between China and Taiwan. Everyone always suspected the US would get involved if China attempted to take over Taiwan - at least I always assumed so. He shouldn't have said it, it had to be walked back, but if anything it makes Taiwanese feel a little more secure hearing him say that. Do I think the US would get involved if China did try a hostile takeover? Yes, I do.

I-5 wrote:I'm a liberal who would support Romney. He's more of a true american first in my book, and a republican second. I can live with that.

As for Biden, yes once again he stuck his foot in his mouth, but I don't know that it really changes anything in the balance of the equation between China and Taiwan. Everyone always suspected the US would get involved if China attempted to take over Taiwan - at least I always assumed so. He shouldn't have said it, it had to be walked back, but if anything it makes Taiwanese feel a little more secure hearing him say that. Do I think the US would get involved if China did try a hostile takeover? Yes, I do.

It's not that it doesn't change anything. It likely doesn't. The problem is that you always want to keep your options open. You never give a categorical answer to a question like that. Even if someone asked a question if we would attack Russia if they invaded Poland or even Canada, all you want to say is that we'd uphold our treaty obligations and leave it at that. You could somewhat excuse Trump if he were to give that answer to a question like that as he's never been a politician before. But Biden has been playing this game for almost 50 years. He was a VP for 8 years. It's another example of his being unfit for the office. He doesn't think clearly. Sleepy Joe is an accurate handle.

I'm not so sure that we'd put boots on the ground to defend Taiwan. It's highly likely that we would, but it's possible that we could choose a course of action that would aid Taiwan in a war without getting directly involved, similar to what we're doing in Ukraine. I don't know enough about our military capabilities to wage an effective war in a theatre like that without direct involvement to give an intelligent answer.

RiverDog wrote:It's not that it doesn't change anything. It likely doesn't. The problem is that you always want to keep your options open. You never give a categorical answer to a question like that. Even if someone asked a question if we would attack Russia if they invaded Poland or even Canada, all you want to say is that we'd uphold our treaty obligations and leave it at that. You could somewhat excuse Trump if he were to give that answer to a question like that as he's never been a politician before. But Biden has been playing this game for almost 50 years. He was a VP for 8 years. It's another example of his being unfit for the office. He doesn't think clearly. Sleepy Joe is an accurate handle.

I'm not so sure that we'd put boots on the ground to defend Taiwan. It's highly likely that we would, but it's possible that we could choose a course of action that would aid Taiwan in a war without getting directly involved, similar to what we're doing in Ukraine. I don't know enough about our military capabilities to wage an effective war in a theatre like that without direct involvement to give an intelligent answer.

You make a good point that it's better to NEVER give categorical responses...and yes, Biden has done that all his life. I don't think he's learned how to undo that ever. So yes, although he is a very decent human being, I agree that is not a good quality for the leader of a nation. But every president has a weakness, too. Having a narcissist willing to sell out the country based on whatever benefits his personal interests isn't a great quality either, something I suspected of Trump the entire 4 years. I also don't agree about the Sleepy handle, which suggests that there's nothing upstairs. He's done a very good job working multilaterally with NATO in my opinion.

Regarding Taiwan, I also don't know that we'd put boots on the ground there either, but I could definitely see the US Navy being fully deployed against any Chinese military aggression, providing air support, including no fly zones. It would be scary if it came to that, of course. I don't think it will get there anytime soon, though. The fact that Taiwan is an island makes it much harder than what Russia is trying to do in Ukraine.

I’m not sure it was a foot in mouth comment but maybe it was a warning to China that they would have
a widened set of circumstances if they chose to do so. NATO was silent with Putin and it’s a disaster so
clarity of intentions might give China some pause on their actions.

NorthHawk wrote:I’m not sure it was a foot in mouth comment but maybe it was a warning to China that they would have
a widened set of circumstances if they chose to do so. NATO was silent with Putin and it’s a disaster so
clarity of intentions might give China some pause on their actions.

China doesn't think this way. So not real useful.

If China starts a war with Taiwan, it means they already thought about it for 50 years and it's gonna happen. Americans don't understand China very well and the idea of the long game. China is 6000 plus years old. They have seen empires rise and fall hundreds of times, while they are still China. They absorbed the Mongols when Genghis Khan invaded them. They waited out Britain for Hong Kong. When they take Taiwan, they will be fully committed and it will probably occur with a deal with Taiwan than a war.

China is going to wait America out. Wait for us to become dotard or implode. Then take more power in the world.

I imagine Biden's comments in the scheme of things won't do much. China is not a very reactionary nation. They are going to move at their pace as they take power in the world.

To me it was mostly just another example of things not being handled real well in public. I don't know that I agree that Biden is handling Russia well. So far the ruble has recovered. India and China are not on board with the oil embargo. A few Eastern European nations are also not on board. The Russians are hammering the economy of other nations with the loss of natural resources from Russia including fertilizer. So this situation is pretty far from over.

One good thing is the Ukrainians seem to have won at least the most important parts of their nation and Russia has not taken them. It is their victory. The rest of the world might be hurtling towards economic hard times while Russia and China continue to plan for the destruction of the dollar as the reserve currency.

People have declared victory way too soon as far as sanctioning Russia. This game has a ways to go. But at least the Ukrainians held on to the majority of Ukraine.

RiverDog wrote:It's not that it doesn't change anything. It likely doesn't. The problem is that you always want to keep your options open. You never give a categorical answer to a question like that. Even if someone asked a question if we would attack Russia if they invaded Poland or even Canada, all you want to say is that we'd uphold our treaty obligations and leave it at that. You could somewhat excuse Trump if he were to give that answer to a question like that as he's never been a politician before. But Biden has been playing this game for almost 50 years. He was a VP for 8 years. It's another example of his being unfit for the office. He doesn't think clearly. Sleepy Joe is an accurate handle.

I'm not so sure that we'd put boots on the ground to defend Taiwan. It's highly likely that we would, but it's possible that we could choose a course of action that would aid Taiwan in a war without getting directly involved, similar to what we're doing in Ukraine. I don't know enough about our military capabilities to wage an effective war in a theatre like that without direct involvement to give an intelligent answer.

I-5 wrote:You make a good point that it's better to NEVER give categorical responses...and yes, Biden has done that all his life. I don't think he's learned how to undo that ever. So yes, although he is a very decent human being, I agree that is not a good quality for the leader of a nation. But every president has a weakness, too. Having a narcissist willing to sell out the country based on whatever benefits his personal interests isn't a great quality either, something I suspected of Trump the entire 4 years. I also don't agree about the Sleepy handle, which suggests that there's nothing upstairs. He's done a very good job working multilaterally with NATO in my opinion.

There's no comparison between Biden and Trump. I'd vote for Biden vs. Trump on every day of the week and twice on Sundays. The comparison is between every other POTUS that has held the office since at least the turn of the 20th century. The only one that was close was Reagan in his 2nd term.

Biden doesn't think clearly. I don't expect a 79 year old man to win a Jeopardy contest, but with him, it's not just stumbling over words. He doesn't have a good command of the facts or a clear understanding of the basics. His tweet a few days ago claiming that taxing corporations would bring down inflation is a good example. On that occasion, he wasn't being asked a question that required a quick response. He composed a tweet.

I-5 wrote:Regarding Taiwan, I also don't know that we'd put boots on the ground there either, but I could definitely see the US Navy being fully deployed against any Chinese military aggression, providing air support, including no fly zones. It would be scary if it came to that, of course. I don't think it will get there anytime soon, though. The fact that Taiwan is an island makes it much harder than what Russia is trying to do in Ukraine.

That's contrary to the commitment we've made to Taiwan:

Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the US is not required to militarily defend Taiwan, but is required to ensure Taiwan has the resources to defend itself.

It's not the first time in recent months that Biden has let his mouth get ahead of his brain regarding Taiwan:

In August (2021), Biden also indicated that the US would respond with military support if Taiwan, Japan or South Korea were invaded.

“We have made — kept every commitment. We made a sacred commitment to Article 5 that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond,” the president said in an interview with ABC News. “Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with — Taiwan. It’s not even comparable to talk about that.”

Then just two months later, Biden said this about our commitment to Taiwan"

During a town hall event in October, moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN asked: “Are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacked?” “Yes,” Biden answered. “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.”

Biden obviously didn't understand what our commitment to Taiwan actually was.

On each occasion, the White House has had to back peddle and cover Biden's tracks for him. You'd think that by now, he would have been prepared to answer a question like that.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/white-hou ... aim-again/

RiverDog wrote:That's contrary to the commitment we've made to Taiwan:

Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the US is not required to militarily defend Taiwan, but is required to ensure Taiwan has the resources to defend itself.[/i]

It's not the first time in recent months that Biden has let his mouth get ahead of his brain regarding Taiwan:

In August (2021), Biden also indicated that the US would respond with military support if Taiwan, Japan or South Korea were invaded.

“We have made — kept every commitment. We made a sacred commitment to Article 5 that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond,” the president said in an interview with ABC News. “Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with — Taiwan. It’s not even comparable to talk about that."

Then just two months later, Biden said this about our commitment to Taiwan"

During a town hall event in October, moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN asked: “Are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacked?” “Yes,” Biden answered. “Yes, we have a commitment to do that."

Biden obviously didn't understand what our commitment to Taiwan actually was.

On each occasion, the White House has had to back peddle and cover Biden's tracks for him. You'd think that by now, he would have been prepared to answer a question like that.

I'm aware of what our commitment to Taiwan is, but like you said earlier, it's best to maintain strategic ambiguity about what we would really do, and I agree with that. I was just stating my opinion of what might happen.

I don't know why Biden misspoke and continued to misspeak about our commitment to Taiwan. He tends to speak what he thinks in his heart in the moment, just like a regular Joe on the street. I'm not here defending that.

RiverDog wrote:That's contrary to the commitment we've made to Taiwan:

Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the US is not required to militarily defend Taiwan, but is required to ensure Taiwan has the resources to defend itself.

It's not the first time in recent months that Biden has let his mouth get ahead of his brain regarding Taiwan:

In August (2021), Biden also indicated that the US would respond with military support if Taiwan, Japan or South Korea were invaded.

“We have made — kept every commitment. We made a sacred commitment to Article 5 that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond,” the president said in an interview with ABC News. “Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with — Taiwan. It’s not even comparable to talk about that.”

Then just two months later, Biden said this about our commitment to Taiwan"

During a town hall event in October, moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN asked: “Are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacked?” “Yes,” Biden answered. “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.”

Biden obviously didn't understand what our commitment to Taiwan actually was.

On each occasion, the White House has had to back peddle and cover Biden's tracks for him. You'd think that by now, he would have been prepared to answer a question like that.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/white-hou ... aim-again/

If I have a vote between Trump and Biden, I'll vote no confidence again. I wouldn't vote for either of them. Both terrible for the country as a whole. I never liked Biden when he was younger. Always seemed like a guy who just doesn't get it and doesn't have much interest in getting it. He just likes being up there in the limelight as a politician. Biden could be 30 years younger and I wouldn't vote for him even if running against Trump.

I'd vote for a Manchin. I'd vote for Bill Clinton over Trump or Biden. Obama was too liberal and inexperienced for my tastes, but if forced to vote I'd vote for Obama over Trump or Biden.

If they put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote for Trump or Biden, I'd let them kill me just so I didn't feel I had betrayed my country to ruination.

I-5 wrote:I don't know why Biden misspoke and continued to misspeak about our commitment to Taiwan. He tends to speak what he thinks in his heart in the moment, just like a regular Joe on the street. I'm not here defending that.

Which is why I feel he's unfit. He's had multiple tries at the same question and still can't get it right.

We all have conflicts between what our heart tells us and what our head tells us, and as a rule, it's our head that prevails. But with Biden, the left side of his brain doesn't work right. He can only think and talk from his right side, ie his heart.

BTW, I was extremely impressed with Biden's speech last night regarding the Texas school shooting. That's something that Trump could never do. On that occasion, Biden's ability to speak from his heart served him well. It was very similar to Reagan's speech following the Challenger accident.

RiverDog wrote:Which is why I feel he's unfit. He's had multiple tries at the same question and still can't get it right.

We all have conflicts between what our heart tells us and what our head tells us, and as a rule, it's our head that prevails. But with Biden, the left side of his brain doesn't work right. He can only think and talk from his right side, ie his heart.

BTW, I was extremely impressed with Biden's speech last night regarding the Texas school shooting. That's something that Trump could never do. On that occasion, Biden's ability to speak from his heart served him well. It was very similar to Reagan's speech following the Challenger accident.

I don't generally listen to the president, especially during emotional moments like this. Or really any politician. I have a particular dislike of politicians. I could never be a politician. I'm not enough of a liar.

The only president I ever thought highly of on a moral level was Abraham Lincoln, which we already discussed. As far as I'm concerned, Abraham Lincoln saved America and really by extension a good portion of the world from a much longer- and unforeseen period of suffering that I can't even fathom. Whenever I contemplate all the changes that would have taken place had Lincoln not been the man he was and failed in his goals in terms of what occurred after the Civil War and I can't imagine how dark a place this world might be in if America had fractured into two nations: one ruled by the progressive values of Lincoln Republicans and one ruled by the racist Southern Democrats.

I wouldn't mind someone like Reagan because at the very least you felt good about America when Reagan was in office. And the combination of Reagan and Bush Sr was the right amount of folksy face man and ruthlessly competent world leader you want in a president and vice president.

Bush Sr had a mostly incompetent vice president in Dan Quayle. Bill Clinton was corrupt and morally weak on many issues and had one of the most boring politicians I've ever seen in Al Gore as VP. He must have made people fall asleep listening to him. Then you had Bush Jr who was mostly a puppet for his father and his friends with his handler VP Dick Cheney. Cheney was very competent and capable, but morally corrupt. Obama was I believe a moral and well spoken man. Biden was a mostly incompetent face man put in place for the Catholic and labor Democrat vote with some ability to push partisan legislation, but not much given how often Obama was vetoed. Then there is Trump which we don't even need to talk about with Pence which was an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Now there is Sleepy Grandpa Biden with the Invisible Woman Kamala Harris. I'm sure there are some powerful, competent Democrats behind the scenes pulling strings, but Biden is there word twisting faceman.

Glad he gave a decent speech as the president as face man is there to show sympathy and make the nation feel like they are doing something. It's a part of the job Trump was extremely terrible at.

Two more years. Please put out a decent candidate Republicans. America is in trouble right now as is the world and we need one of those American Legendary presidents to come out of nowhere like Lincoln, FDR, or Reagan and clean some of this up and get things moving in the right direction.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Glad he gave a decent speech as the president as face man is there to show sympathy and make the nation feel like they are doing something. It's a part of the job Trump was extremely terrible at.

Two more years. Please put out a decent candidate Republicans. America is in trouble right now as is the world and we need one of those American Legendary presidents to come out of nowhere like Lincoln, FDR, or Reagan and clean some of this up and get things moving in the right direction.

Donald Trump didn't live a normal life. You never saw him as a family man or a regular guy, playing with his kids, playing with his dog, slinging a beer and joking with a chief rival like Reagan did with Tip O'Neil. He was too self centered to show any kind of empathy, let alone sympathy, for individuals struck by tragedy like the parents of the kids murdered in Texas. It's one of the reasons why I felt that he was a horrible leader. Biden isn't a jerk like Trump was/is. Much like Jimmy Carter, he's a decent guy that's in over his head.

2 years is a lifetime in politics. With the midterms coming up, this incident overshadows the debate about SCOTUS and Roe v Wade. The Democrats will try to milk this event for all its worth. The majority of the public, including me, wants to see some sort of increased gun control legislation. My only point is that anything short of suspending or repealing the 2nd Amendment isn't going to stop the killing. All it will do is give people a false sense of security, make them feel as if they've done something. Feel good legislation.

As far as I'm concerned, Democrats are talking out of two sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they deplore what happened in Texas, cry for tougher gun laws. But on the other hand, they do everything they possibly can to handicap and demoralize the police, give them an 'oh, well' attitude like the cops you referred to in Seattle and like the ones that supposedly waited to storm the school in Texas. Republicans are too connected to the gun lobbies to offer any meaningful solutions. Both parties are ineffectual.

OMG did you really say this incident overshadows SCOTUS & Roe v Wade?!

Thats about the most extreme example of wishful thinking I've seen from you.

This ain't 10% of that.

c_hawkbob wrote:OMG did you really say this incident overshadows SCOTUS & Roe v Wade?!

Thats about the most extreme example of wishful thinking I've seen from you.

This ain't 10% of that.

Wishful thinking on my part? If this November results in a bunch of Trump Republicans getting elected, it ain't something I'm wishing for, and at this point, I have very little confidence that the R's will have distanced themselves far enough from Trump to earn my support.

For now yes; they haven’t ruled on Roe v Wade yet, and there’s no way they don’t jump on gun control issues immediately on both sides. Will have the legs to stay front and center the rest of the year? Hard to say.

RiverDog wrote:BTW, I was extremely impressed with Biden's speech last night regarding the Texas school shooting. That's something that Trump could never do. On that occasion, Biden's ability to speak from his heart served him well. It was very similar to Reagan's speech following the Challenger accident.

This is why I say he speaks from his heart like a decent regular Joe, because that's who he is. I agree it's not very diplomatic sometimes, but I would MUCH rather have a decent human in the White House than that Narcissist - which is about the kindest word I can think of for him, because he is so much worse than that. No matter what Joe might say off the cuff, 1) he's not going to do anything crazy, and 2) I generally agree with his sentiment, even if it's not 'presidential'. Trump supporters love to say that they love him because he says what he thinks (and what they think, too). Joe is doing the exact same thing, but from a much kinder, less bigoted, more community focused perspective.

It's not even a contest between choosing Biden or Trump - I wouldn't paint that false equivalence in a billion years.

RiverDog wrote:BTW, I was extremely impressed with Biden's speech last night regarding the Texas school shooting. That's something that Trump could never do. On that occasion, Biden's ability to speak from his heart served him well. It was very similar to Reagan's speech following the Challenger accident.

I-5 wrote:This is why I say he speaks from his heart like a decent regular Joe, because that's who he is. I agree it's not very diplomatic sometimes, but I would MUCH rather have a decent human in the White House than that Narcissist - which is about the kindest word I can think of for him, because he is so much worse than that. No matter what Joe might say off the cuff, 1) he's not going to do anything crazy, and 2) I generally agree with his sentiment, even if it's not 'presidential'. Trump supporters love to say that they love him because he says what he thinks (and what they think, too). Joe is doing the exact same thing, but from a much kinder, less bigoted, more community focused perspective.

It's not even a contest between choosing Biden or Trump - I wouldn't paint that false equivalence in a billion years.

I completely agree. I see a lot of parallels between Biden and Jimmy Carter, and going way back before my time, Herbert Hoover, who was also a decent guy but an ineffective President overcome by a crisis that was beyond his ability to deal with.

Heck, there's been mafia Dons that were more compassionate than Donald Trump.

I'm hoping that one of the consequences in the aftermath of this senseless murder is that it splits off the hard core 2nd Amendment folks, who for the most part are also avid Trump backers, from the rest of the Republican party. The party needs a huge enema, and perhaps this issue is volatile enough to do the trick.

RiverDog wrote:Donald Trump didn't live a normal life. You never saw him as a family man or a regular guy, playing with his kids, playing with his dog, slinging a beer and joking with a chief rival like Reagan did with Tip O'Neil. He was too self centered to show any kind of empathy, let alone sympathy, for individuals struck by tragedy like the parents of the kids murdered in Texas. It's one of the reasons why I felt that he was a horrible leader. Biden isn't a jerk like Trump was/is. Much like Jimmy Carter, he's a decent guy that's in over his head.

2 years is a lifetime in politics. With the midterms coming up, this incident overshadows the debate about SCOTUS and Roe v Wade. The Democrats will try to milk this event for all its worth. The majority of the public, including me, wants to see some sort of increased gun control legislation. My only point is that anything short of suspending or repealing the 2nd Amendment isn't going to stop the killing. All it will do is give people a false sense of security, make them feel as if they've done something. Feel good legislation.

As far as I'm concerned, Democrats are talking out of two sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they deplore what happened in Texas, cry for tougher gun laws. But on the other hand, they do everything they possibly can to handicap and demoralize the police, give them an 'oh, well' attitude like the cops you referred to in Seattle and like the ones that supposedly waited to storm the school in Texas. Republicans are too connected to the gun lobbies to offer any meaningful solutions. Both parties are ineffectual.

I knew Donald Trump better than most as I was a fan of his prior to him becoming president. I read his book, watched his Celebrity Apprentice show, and followed his career. Read on how he thinks and does deals. Which is why I highly disagree he was a bad businessman as some tried to sell it. But knew he was a control freak narcissist who had been bulldozing his way to success most of his life. I knew he wasn't religious and was an 80s type of salesman at heart. He likes to sit down and make deals, spin the public into believing his image, and sell the Trump brand as successful, powerful, and wealthy. I was surprised he ran for president in all honesty. I knew he had some political ambitions, but I never thought he would do it at 68 or whatever. It was a dumpster fire as he tried to do the same things he does as CEO of a company and in the media controlling his image and using his sales skills to manipulate his audience or customer. But he didn't anticipate the counterattack he would have to deal with when putting himself in that position and didn't handle it well at all. But we've had that discussion a bunch. Man wasn't a great fit for president. Too vindictive and narcissistic with the morals of salesman whose only want is to get the sale at any cost aka win.

I know you're not much of a 2nd Amendment Republican. I've studied it extensively myself. I did a college paper on the 2nd Amendment and gun control. I had to study why it was included, what it is for, and some of the less discussed aspects of weapon ownership within a society. It's a very interesting subject that includes a variety of factors like the will to use a weapon, the training involved in the use of a weapon, what the symbolism of a weapon in society means when the population is deprived of it, the creation of military and police classes within a society along with arms control as a means to subjugate and control human populations, and the history of such in Europe and even Southeast Asia. I found it interesting how part of removing weapons from society involved not only removing the weapon itself, but the skill and will to use that weapon against a police or military class trained with the weapon. It was extremely advantageous for oppressor forces to disarm a population and maintain strict control not only over the ownership of the weapon, but also the ability to learn how to use it. So when whatever military group showed up like a knight or a police officer, the group in question didn't even know how to counter the physical attack of a weapon using police or military force. It created a huge advantage for the presiding government when exerting control over a human population that is still seen in the modern day in many nations.

It's why I take the position I do with the 2nd Amendment. It's some of these ideas you don't even hear the left or Democrats engage with. The Democrats and left wing lose their minds if you're burning books or trying to limit knowledge from the public on something like homosexuality or gender transition or abortion. But man, they would be just fine and dandy if no citizen other than the police and military every had any knowledge or skill to use a gun. You can completely excise the knowledge and skill to use a weapon from society and some of these Democrats would just be so happy. No problem with it whatsoever. They absolutely never discuss that aspect of weapons ownership. It's just about some crazy guy got a gun and shot a bunch of people, now we gotta take them away from everyone.

It's why this discussion usually ends with both sides retreating into their usual corners.

I know you don't agree, but the Democrats have to understand the 2nd Amendment is as real a political right as Freedom of Speech or a Right to trial with a very real purpose in the Constitution and very real consequences for denying the right. Until that happens, I see this ending the same way nearly every time as the Democrats absolutely refuse to respect the 2nd Amendment as a political right.

RiverDog wrote:I completely agree. I see a lot of parallels between Biden and Jimmy Carter, and going way back before my time, Herbert Hoover, who was also a decent guy but an ineffective President overcome by a crisis that was beyond his ability to deal with.

Heck, there's been mafia Dons that were more compassionate than Donald Trump.

I'm hoping that one of the consequences in the aftermath of this senseless murder is that it splits off the hard core 2nd Amendment folks, who for the most part are also avid Trump backers, from the rest of the Republican party. The party needs a huge enema, and perhaps this issue is volatile enough to do the trick.

You really haven't spent much time reading on Biden. That guy is maybe decent himself, but I wouldn't bet my house on it. His brothers and obviously his son Hunter have done some ethically questionable business dealings. The press didn't spend much time covering it because the goal was to get rid of Trump, but Biden has some real chinks in the armor against an even halfway decent candidate other than Trump. His brothers (no one much talks about Biden's family) and obviously his son have made money using political connections from brother Joe.

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-profitable-business-of-being-joe-bidens-brother

Nothing particular surprising. But the usual Washington political associations making money and taking advantage of political power.

RiverDog wrote:Wishful thinking on my part? If this November results in a bunch of Trump Republicans getting elected, it ain't something I'm wishing for, and at this point, I have very little confidence that the R's will have distanced themselves far enough from Trump to earn my support.

In my opinion what's gonna decide the next election cycle is the pocketbook. These gas prices are nuts. The inflating prices are nuts. Whoever sells the American people that they can get these prices and this economy under control will likely get that moderate vote. Working people who can't afford rent, bills, food, and gas will want those issues fixed over all others.

Those who strongly identify as Republicans or Democrats are set in their positions. The moderates will sway one way or the other a given election, but moderates seem to mostly care about economics unless it's some extreme event like the COVID pandemic which pushed Trump out of office. Economy has to be under control before some other issue can push the envelope one way or the other on a key issue. Economy is pretty far from under control right now.

RiverDog wrote:Wishful thinking on my part? If this November results in a bunch of Trump Republicans getting elected, it ain't something I'm wishing for, and at this point, I have very little confidence that the R's will have distanced themselves far enough from Trump to earn my support.

Aseahawkfan wrote:In my opinion what's gonna decide the next election cycle is the pocketbook. These gas prices are nuts. The inflating prices are nuts. Whoever sells the American people that they can get these prices and this economy under control will likely get that moderate vote. Working people who can't afford rent, bills, food, and gas will want those issues fixed over all others.

Those who strongly identify as Republicans or Democrats are set in their positions. The moderates will sway one way or the other a given election, but moderates seem to mostly care about economics unless it's some extreme event like the COVID pandemic which pushed Trump out of office. Economy has to be under control before some other issue can push the envelope one way or the other on a key issue. Economy is pretty far from under control right now.

I agree. Whether it's fair or not, the party in power will be held responsible for the economy. Issues like gun control and abortion will be off the front page in a couple of months, but every time a person drives past a gas station and sees $5 or $6 posted in big letters, it's a constant reminder of how bad things have gotten in only a matter of months.

RiverDog wrote:Whether it's fair or not, the party in power will be held responsible for the economy. Issues like gun control and abortion will be off the front page in a couple of months, but every time a person drives past a gas station and sees $5 or $6 posted in big letters, it's a constant reminder of how bad things have gotten in only a matter of months.

So if we manage to avoid a recession come election time, the democrats should retain their advantage. If not, then the republicans.

RiverDog wrote:Whether it's fair or not, the party in power will be held responsible for the economy. Issues like gun control and abortion will be off the front page in a couple of months, but every time a person drives past a gas station and sees $5 or $6 posted in big letters, it's a constant reminder of how bad things have gotten in only a matter of months.

I-5 wrote:So if we manage to avoid a recession come election time, the democrats should retain their advantage. If not, then the republicans.

Ahh, it's always good to see you poke your head in here, I5.

IMO things are so bad for the Dems that I don't think that a simple avoidance of a recession will save them from a blood bath come November, which is only 4.5 months away. Biden's job approval is below 40% and the party in power historically has done poorly in the midterms. IMO at the minimum, the Dems lose the House, but the numbers, ie the number of seats up for re-election, may allow them to hold onto the Senate.

RiverDog wrote:Ahh, it's always good to see you poke your head in here, I5.

IMO things are so bad for the Dems that I don't think that a simple avoidance of a recession will save them from a blood bath come November, which is only 4.5 months away. Biden's job approval is below 40% and the party in power historically has done poorly in the midterms. IMO at the minimum, the Dems lose the House, but the numbers, ie the number of seats up for re-election, may allow them to hold onto the Senate.

I'm surprised you haven't done a thread on Biden's strongly worded letter to oil companies that their refining margins are too high. Never seen a president do something like that I can recall. Maybe you can recall a time when that happened. I can't. What a useless overture.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm surprised you haven't done a thread on Biden's strongly worded letter to oil companies that their refining margins are too high. Never seen a president do something like that I can recall. Maybe you can recall a time when that happened. I can't. What a useless overture.

It's a typical Dem/liberal response, to blame high prices on Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. According to them, market conditions like the war in Ukraine, the labor shortage, and the disruption of the supply chain caused by the pandemic have nothing to do with inflation.

Biden needed to shore up his standing with the left, find a villain to take the blame.

RiverDog wrote:It's a typical Dem/liberal response, to blame high prices on Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. According to them, market conditions like the war in Ukraine, the labor shortage, and the disruption of the supply chain caused by the pandemic have nothing to do with inflation.

Biden needed to shore up his standing with the left, find a villain to take the blame.

I don't recall other Democratic presidents being that stupid. Not Bill Clinton or Obama. Maybe I missed it.

RiverDog wrote:It's a typical Dem/liberal response, to blame high prices on Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. According to them, market conditions like the war in Ukraine, the labor shortage, and the disruption of the supply chain caused by the pandemic have nothing to do with inflation.

Biden needed to shore up his standing with the left, find a villain to take the blame.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't recall other Democratic presidents being that stupid. Not Bill Clinton or Obama. Maybe I missed it.

Democrats aren't capable of curbing inflation because one of the major ways to do it is to cut government spending so as to restrict the flow of money and slow down the economy, and that goes against one of their core beliefs. At this point, Biden is grasping at straws. He's completely helpless. Even if he had a solution, the Republicans would oppose him as they'd rather the country go into a recession than leave the Democrats in power. They want Biden to fail.

The more I look at the Biden presidency, the more I see Jimmy Carter. Oddly enough, Carter wanted to cut government spending, but it caused a rift between him and his liberal constituency and resulted in the candidacy of Ted Kennedy to oppose Carter for the nomination in 1980. As Yogi Berra once said, it's Deja vu all over again.

RiverDog wrote:Democrats aren't capable of curbing inflation because one of the major ways to do it is to cut government spending so as to restrict the flow of money and slow down the economy, and that goes against one of their core beliefs. At this point, Biden is grasping at straws. He's completely helpless. Even if he had a solution, the Republicans would oppose him as they'd rather the country go into a recession than leave the Democrats in power. They want Biden to fail.

The more I look at the Biden presidency, the more I see Jimmy Carter. Oddly enough, Carter wanted to cut government spending, but it caused a rift between him and his liberal constituency and resulted in the candidacy of Ted Kennedy to oppose Carter for the nomination in 1980. As Yogi Berra once said, it's Deja vu all over again.

It sounds like Trump is going to run again hard as that is to believe. No COVID. Terrible economic conditions brewing for a possible recession. Insane gas prices with the president writing "strongly worded letters" as the solution. It's a real testament to how bad Biden is as president that Trump may be able to beat him. This is going to get real weird again unless some surprise candidate appears that can get this going in the right direction again.

Biden said it again.

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-us-forces-would-defend-taiwan-event-chinese-invasion-2022-09-18/

Is he daring China to invade Taiwan? Can't these parties find someone to lead who isn't going cause an insurrection or encourage China to take Taiwan by force?

What is wrong with American leadership. Are we really in decay at this point?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Biden said it again.

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-us-forces-would-defend-taiwan-event-chinese-invasion-2022-09-18/

Is he daring China to invade Taiwan? Can't these parties find someone to lead who isn't going cause an insurrection or encourage China to take Taiwan by force?

What is wrong with American leadership. Are we really in decay at this point?

You can look at the situation from two different POV's, and it depends on what your political stripes are as to which one a person adapts.

One POV is that the Chinese are testing us, that they need to have a strong signal sent to them in order to prevent a war. Taiwan is in a strategic location in the south Pacific as a lot of commerce travels in and around that island nation. Over the past few years, the Chinese have been getting more and more aggressive in threatening Taiwan. It's causing a lot of concern for Japan and South Korea.

The other POV is the one that you have outlined. Biden's popularity is lagging in the polls and there's an election coming up. He needs a distraction to keep people's minds off the bad news about the economy. He knows that when the bullets start flying, the American people tend to rally around their President.

My view is somewhere in the middle. We do have to show a strong presence in the region, and it's important that the POTUS come out and state clearly what the consequences for China will be if they ever decide to invade. On the other hand, I see no value in Nancy Pelosi making a trip to Taiwan. She is Speaker of the House, not Secretary of State. Why shouldn't Mitch McConnell make a trip over there, too? Or how about Obama or Trump? Her trip had absolutely no value except to help advance the political fortunes of her party.

We don't know what kind of intel Biden is privy to, perhaps a verbal warning is warranted.

RiverDog wrote:You can look at the situation from two different POV's, and it depends on what your political stripes are as to which one a person adapts.

One POV is that the Chinese are testing us, that they need to have a strong signal sent to them in order to prevent a war. Taiwan is in a strategic location in the south Pacific as a lot of commerce travels in and around that island nation. Over the past few years, the Chinese have been getting more and more aggressive in threatening Taiwan. It's causing a lot of concern for Japan and South Korea.

The other POV is the one that you have outlined. Biden's popularity is lagging in the polls and there's an election coming up. He needs a distraction to keep people's minds off the bad news about the economy. He knows that when the bullets start flying, the American people tend to rally around their President.

My view is somewhere in the middle. We do have to show a strong presence in the region, and it's important that the POTUS come out and state clearly what the consequences for China will be if they ever decide to invade. On the other hand, I see no value in Nancy Pelosi making a trip to Taiwan. She is Speaker of the House, not Secretary of State. Why shouldn't Mitch McConnell make a trip over there, too? Or how about Obama or Trump? Her trip had absolutely no value except to help advance the political fortunes of her party.

I have never heard of a president doing this in the past. Maybe you have. Do you think America is going to be able to make war against China if they invade Taiwan in force? That seems highly unrealistic. All Xi needs is some motivation to go, "I don't think you can challenge us in this area. We will prove we can hold Taiwan off our coast. If you try to send ships on our coast, we will wipe your ships out. We can hit them with missiles very easily and deploy people far easier than you in this region." Then what are we going to do? Invade China? Nuke them? What exactly do you expect to be able to do if China deploys against Taiwan in force off their coast where there power is greatest?

On top of Xi meeting with Putin to create an alternate oil purchasing system and economic zone to counter America.

It is really stupid to challenge China on Taiwan. If China moves on Taiwan because they will not let a U.S. President dictate their policy on Taiwan, I'm curious to see if Americans will really support a war with China over Taiwan. I pretty much guarantee a war with China off their coast is not going to be Iraq or Afghanistan. They can challenge our Navy and Air power. They can batter us with missiles from their mainland. They do have an enormous army of people and a huge manufacturing base. Their biggest problem would be getting their oil supply cut, which I'm sure Putin would happily supply to screw us.

It's just a bad idea to send any message about Taiwan to China, especially right now when Russia would just be itching to help China bend us over by supplying them with enough oil to keep their war machine highly active.

So you never heard of Reagan's six assurances? https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/pr ... ning-today

Aseahawkfan wrote:I have never heard of a president doing this in the past. Maybe you have.

Ever hear of the Monica Missiles?

WHILE THE Monica Lewinsky affair has slowed the wheels of government in Washington, it has had much more dangerous effect on American policy in the Middle East. Not only has President Clinton not been able to prevent the deployment of surface-to-air missiles which Russia sold to the Greek Cypriot side of the divided island of Cyprus, a development that threatens to lead to war between two NATO allies of the United States, Greece and Turkey.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

That's one example. There are others.

On top of Xi meeting with Putin to create an alternate oil purchasing system and economic zone to counter America.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It is really stupid to challenge China on Taiwan. If China moves on Taiwan because they will not let a U.S. President dictate their policy on Taiwan, I'm curious to see if Americans will really support a war with China over Taiwan. I pretty much guarantee a war with China off their coast is not going to be Iraq or Afghanistan. They can challenge our Navy and Air power. They can batter us with missiles from their mainland. They do have an enormous army of people and a huge manufacturing base. Their biggest problem would be getting their oil supply cut, which I'm sure Putin would happily supply to screw us.

It's just a bad idea to send any message about Taiwan to China, especially right now when Russia would just be itching to help China bend us over by supplying them with enough oil to keep their war machine highly active.

It's hard to make a call on this one. What's the most likely way to cause a war, provoking one by saber rattling or retreating to our own little corner of the world, appease them and let them do what they please?

My biggest problem isn't with Biden so much as it was with Pelosi. She's a legislator, not a negotiator. To a lesser extent, the same is true of Kamala Harris, who's also stuck her thumb into the pie.

c_hawkbob wrote:So you never heard of Reagan's six assurances? https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/pr ... ning-today

No where does Reagan publicly say himself that he will respond militarily to Taiwan in a public address.

I am talking about a president publicly stating on a national news station that we will respond militarily if Taiwan is invaded.

There has always been a quiet understanding we will assist Taiwan. I have never heard a president during a public address state they will openly oppose China militarily if they invade Taiwan.

Find that for me because that is the height of stupid. I want to know what other president is that stupid.


So the assurances have not been updated to include a guarantee of military force.

[url]In a recent article, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs Randall Schriver suggested updating the assurances in a new, expanded package. This would include the following:

The survival and success of democracy in Taiwan is in the interest of the U.S. and thus the U.S. government will endorse efforts that deepen and strengthen Taiwan's democracy.
The U.S. will always honor the Taiwan Relations Act and will continue to ensure that the U.S. government makes available to Taiwan weapons needed for self-defense and that the U.S. military maintains the capacity to resist force in the Taiwan Strait.
The U.S. endorses cross-Strait dialogue and interactions but will not pressure Taiwan to enter into negotiations with the PRC on terms Taiwan may deem unfavorable.
Issues related to the sovereignty of Taiwan are for the people of the PRC and the people of Taiwan to decide peacefully themselves; the U.S. will not formally recognize PRC sovereignty over Taiwan; and the U.S. will not support any outcome achieved through the use of force, nor any outcome that does not enjoy the support of a majority of Taiwan's people.
The U.S.-Taiwan relationship is valuable in its own right and worthy of greater investment. The U.S. will not "co-manage" the issue of Taiwan with the PRC. While the U.S. needs good relations with China to further a broad range of security interests, under no circumstances will the U.S. seek to curry favor with China by making sacrifices in its relationship with Taiwan.
Taiwan, as a successful democracy, a thriving economy, and a global leader in health and science stands ready to contribute to the greater good as a citizen of the world. Therefore, the U.S. will seek opportunities for Taiwan to participate meaningfully in international organizations and will resist pressure to isolate Taiwan from participating and benefiting from cooperative work among nations in international organizations.[13][/url]

RiverDog wrote:Ever hear of the Monica Missiles?

WHILE THE Monica Lewinsky affair has slowed the wheels of government in Washington, it has had much more dangerous effect on American policy in the Middle East. Not only has President Clinton not been able to prevent the deployment of surface-to-air missiles which Russia sold to the Greek Cypriot side of the divided island of Cyprus, a development that threatens to lead to war between two NATO allies of the United States, Greece and Turkey.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

That's one example. There are others.

I'm talking specifically about Taiwan. Not podunk nations that are not a threat to America or involving a military situation that would be a no win scenario.

It's hard to make a call on this one. What's the most likely way to cause a war, provoking one by saber rattling or retreating to our own little corner of the world, appease them and let them do what they please?

My biggest problem isn't with Biden so much as it was with Pelosi. She's a legislator, not a negotiator. To a lesser extent, the same is true of Kamala Harris, who's also stuck her thumb into the pie.

It isn't a hard call. You need to look at how China altered the chessboard in Asia to understand that when China takes Taiwan and they will, America will not have a chance to stop them. You're not paying attention to all China's moves just as most Americans aren't.

Military opposition to China taking Taiwan will fail and will be the biggest embarrassment in American military history if we try.

Some basic factors to understand:

1. The last time we had soldiers stationed in Taiwan was 1979. Part of the truce with China was removal of military assets from Taiwan.

2. Our naval bases in the Philippines and our presence has been removed. Make no mistake that China was pushing for this.

3. North Korea is arming with nuclear missile capability and can disrupt South Korean support for America's deployment against China in Taiwan.

4. That leaves Japan as our main source of support. Will the Japanese risk immense destruction to support our deployment against China if they take Taiwan? I do not think so myself, but maybe they will.

5. A ground invasion into China by America is a lost cause long before it occurs. We do not have the manpower to invade and control China.

China has been building up its plan to take Taiwan for quite some time removing chess pieces for U.S. support to defend Taiwan. They will continue to do so until they take Taiwan probably without a war and continue to consolidate power in Asia.

It's very foolish to commit America without the support of the American people to a military action that will be far more difficult than any military action since World War 2 against an enemy in their own sphere of influence with a massive army and the ability to deploy in great numbers in the area you intend to defend. It's a bad idea to openly goad China.

I will state right now that should America attempt to defend Taiwan if China takes it militarily, it will be a military disaster on a scale America has never seen. Taiwan is indefensible from China given its location, the size of China, and China's technology level. This is no longer the third world China of Reagan's era or any past era. They have air and naval power and are so close to Taiwan they could employ medium range missiles in mass against our fleet.

Taiwan is going to China at some point. America is not stopping this unless it wants to risk an embarrassing military defeat and a manpower loss that will make Vietnam look small by comparison. This will be our own fault for having empowered China economically and technologically while not bothering to see the threat of their Communist authoritarian government just like Afghanistan and Iraq, but for a large nation powerful enough to oppose us economically, politically, and militarily in their sphere of influence.

Seems to me you're really splitting hairs to suit your narrative.

c_hawkbob wrote:Seems to me you're really splitting hairs to suit your narrative.

Stupid is stupid no matter who does it. If this were Trump or Bush Jr, Dems would be jumping all over them same as they jumped on Trump for Saudi Arabia after Jamal was killed and haven't said a peep since Biden started sitting at the table with the Saudis.

It doesn't matter what party you're with, you just don't randomly say stuff like this during a news interview. Puts you in a bad position in negotiations and makes promises your nation may not keep. In general, this is what separates us from third world dictators who run their mouth with words they can't back up.

I read the article you posted. It makes clear Reagan did not openly say any of the six assurances. He made sure it was as the saying goes, "Off the record" delivered by a go between who was not acting in an official capacity and not in writing. That clearly shows Reagan understood that you don't make these types of statements publicly and operate in a more political manner that does not embarrass or antagonize a key political opponent in a serious situation.

Reagan was a far more skilled and intelligent politician than Biden. Reagan makes nearly every president after him look like a fricking idiot when it comes to political maneuvering. Bill Clinton probably came the closest to Reagan for the Democrats. The rest not so much.

Biden is not so good at this. Better than the jackass before him, but that isn't a high bar.

It was a bad move by a U.S. president regardless of party. There is no narrative to push other than a bad political move by our current president. No different than any other stupid political move by a president.