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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I have never heard of a president doing this in the past. Maybe you have.
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.
c_hawkbob wrote:So you never heard of Reagan's six assurances? https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/pr ... ning-today
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.
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:Seems to me you're really splitting hairs to suit your narrative.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests