US Elections 2020

[Laphroaig]

Imaginative and wanting change?

I’ll settle for a leader that’s clear-eyed, rational and decisive.

Leave the rest to his staff and the legislative branch.

I'll admit I may not be seeing the full picture but from the outside looking in, it appears that both would struggle to tie their own shoe laces in the morning. How did it come to pass that these are the two "best" candidates for the most powerful position on earth?

[filghy2]

This article on problems facing the running of the coming election suggests the following elements are combining to create a perfect storm.

1. An Uncontrolled Pandemic
2. New Technology and New Processes
3. A Drought of Funding
4. Dislocated Voters
5. A Storm of Foreign Attacks
6. Misinformation and Disinformation
7. A Famine of Voter Protections
8. A Volcano in the Oval Office

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...t-storm-372778

It seems it will take a miracle to avoid major problems. If a democracy can't run elections isn't that the ultimate indication that it's becoming a failed state?

[Stavros]

Imaginative and wanting change?

I’ll settle for a leader that’s clear-eyed, rational and decisive.

Leave the rest to his staff and the legislative branch.

On the one hand, you make a good point, probably because of the record of the sitting President, definitely if rational and decisive action earlier on would have/could have saved lives and prevented Covid 19 infections at the rate you now have in the US. On the other hand, is Vision not something that a President needs to unify the country around a project? For all his faults, and the fact he never lasted a term, JFK had vision, in particular with regard to the Moon- a choice that regardless of the dusty ball itself, transformed America science; Reagan had his 'Sunrise America' which did appeal to a lot of people in the aftermath of Watergate; and Obama had 'Hope and Change', the belief then that the GW Bush Presidency went so low anything was an improvement. If the alternative is 'American Carnage' then yes, maybe for a while Visions should be suspect.

Where is your country going? The USA since 2017 has undermined international alliances, repdudiated signed agreements and treaties, shown itself critical of liberal democracy, praising autocrats and dictators, and attempted to withdraw from the global economy in the name of 'economic nationalism'. If the USA's enemies had asked the President to weaken the USA as a global power, the President has conceded to them. At home, the divisions that existed in the US before, threaten now to become a gulf so wide they may never be healed (we have the same problem in the UK but for different, Brexit reasons)- with the very real prospect that either the November election will not take place, or enough citizens be prevented from voting to call the result into question.

Yes, you have needed the kind of rational and decisive action that has seen Covid 19 handled better than in the USA -not defeated, but handled better -as in Italy, Spain, Germany, New Zealand, Scotland- but for the next 10 years, what as an American do you think is needed to give the country a sense of direction that fits with the challenges to the way we work and live?

Boris Johnson has a vision for the UK, and I think it is not just flawed, but a disaster waiting to happen, but we can debate the direction in which Brexit UK is going on the basis of that vision, but in the US there is a chaotic non-conversation replaced by futile confrontation, and mostly about issues you have been trying to deal with for as long as I can recall -race, guns, crime and drugs being the most obvious. And was it not because of a failure to tackle these, and related problems over the making and distribution of wealth that you ended up with that man's victory in 2016?

For all your need for rational decision making, is it not time to start changing the agenda rather than carry on going round in circles? 2016 did not change anything, the existing problems just got worse.

[fred41]

All three Presidents you refer to were good looking men with silver tongues, excellent speech writers and staff members they could rely on. There’s more to it of course...and each one also had different domestic and foreign problems to take care of including the occasional , often unexpected, crisis popping up here and there. Most of the foreign policy problems you state are simple undoing of President Trump’s simple undoing of President Obama’s policies. If Joe Biden wins the White House, that is probably what other world leaders expect to be done.

The one thing , that at this point, Joe can’t simply sweep under the rug, is the China problem. It will probably be his biggest foreign policy hurdle...especially since he always down played it in the past. You can’t hit a reboot and go back to trade as normal...I think most western countries agree on that. Their economic and military aggression needs to be confronted...but how? It’s a puzzle that needs to be solved multilaterally - all global leading heads coming together. Acting as if this was just created by Trump and going back to business as usual will just create larger problems down the road - and probably for a different administration , because I can’t credibly envision him Serving more than one term.

His biggest domestic problem will be (as seems always the case) the economy. If he wins, he will take office at a time where we still may not have a vaccine...or even if we do, there may be mutations, other viruses..who knows. All things considered, the market’s been doing well , but getting everything back and working is going to be a problem. There are jobs permanently lost, rents not paid (which means property taxes not paid either) ...and eventually the bills, beginning at the individual and extending all the way to the Federal government will come due. Take care of these economic problems, which are huge, and the others may also fall into place. These are things that will probably, also not be completely fixed during one term. Therefore, he will need to be an excellent crisis manager, who can fix things as they pop up...multiple fingers in multiple dams...holding it all together until the next leader with the sweeping visions you speak of, comes along. A lot of the divisiveness should be soothed by a difference in rhetoric, which may be another glaring problem here with Joe, but it will help that we no longer have a tweeting president.

[fred41]

I'll admit I may not be seeing the full picture but from the outside looking in, it appears that both would struggle to tie their own shoe laces in the morning. How did it come to pass that these are the two "best" candidates for the most powerful position on earth?

We share the same question Laphroaig.

[broncofan]

Most intelligent people would not want to be President. There has been a self-selection out of politics the more polarized our country has become. As President a person can expect to be vilified.

When Joe Biden has a gaffe it is often impulsive speech. He has been that way for a while. Trump's are often deliberate attempts to bolster his own ego, but in ways that don't show even a modicum of intelligence. He says things that it would literally take an idiot to believe. We'll have a vaccine in 3 months. Covid is "a flu". Not the flu, which it isn't, but A flu, which it also isn't. Inject yourself with disinfectant. People aren't sure whether it's a good idea to wear masks. Professors at Columbia concluded the pandemic response was bad because they're Trump haters. Hydroxychloroquine studies are rigged by Trump haters. We're doing better in responding to covid than any country in the world. We'll be open by Easter. And on and on.

For all his malapropisms and his clumsy speech I've never gotten the impression that Biden is dishonest or stupid. Our current President is both. Dream big? Well, having your country run by a moron means in situations like this 100,000 excess deaths so far. Threats of nuclear war on twitter which only have to be realized one time for all of us to be fucked. And corruption so bad that nobody he likes is allowed to face justice without his interference. Just get rid of the racist tyrant ffs.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=fred41;1937379]

Allow me to embellish your fascinating arguments:

The one thing , that at this point, Joe can’t simply sweep under the rug, is the China problem. It will probably be his biggest foreign policy hurdle...especially since he always down played it in the past. You can’t hit a reboot and go back to trade as normal...I think most western countries agree on that. Their economic and military aggression needs to be confronted...but how? It’s a puzzle that needs to be solved multilaterally - all global leading heads coming together. Acting as if this was just created by Trump and going back to business as usual will just create larger problems down the road - and probably for a different administration , because I can’t credibly envision him Serving more than one term.

-Although I can see why China is now emerging as a 'problem' in need of a solution, the US as currently run is not in a position to do anything but make confrontational politics worse than it is now, aided and abetted I should add by the UK. Indeed, confrontational poliics might sound good and make the US look virile and uncompromising, but the record of its achievements is so poor one must ask why do it? Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran -where has confrontation got us? A better place?

To begin with, I think that if demand for goods does not grow, China will suffer because it produces so much of what we consume. There is no punishment or political stategy here. As with the fall in the price of oil per barrell and a decline in demand by industry -gas will continue to be an important segment for consumers worldwide-the fact that the global economy is going into a recession was evident before January, and has only happened sooner, and faster than expected, but now may be more extensive than might have been the case.
So on this level, China was going to have to deal with job losses but in an authoritatian state has the nation-wide resources to cope, and at least now the growth of China's domestic economy will be able to sustain a degree of activity so China will suffer, but it won't be fatal.

Undoubtedly, the difference between Xi and his predecessors is that they followed Deng Xioaping, who in his turn effectively repudiated Mao's economic nationalism. Xi, attempting to add his name to the theoretcal Matrix of revolutionary China, has been more 'activist' outside China than Deng, though he inherited the expansionist ambitions which so far have led to China's seizure of the 'Spratly' Islands about which nothing can be done, as I don't see Australia or the US going to war to remove China from the islands. And while annexation of territory is illegal in International Law, the USA, for example, has to explain why it is opposed to it when it is China annexing territory, but not when it is Israel, or Turkey, while the fact that nothing practical has been done to reverse Russia's annexations of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is a good example of the impotence that nuclear super-states exploit. At least John Bolton has a solution: savage sanctions, and if that don't work bomb 'em.

It means Mike Pompeo's speech was, in effect, not about China, but Mike's opeing gambit in his aim to be the next Republican candidate for the White House, with so far only two others in the running: Nikki Haley and Tucker Carlson. China, with or without Xi's activism, is broadly the same China that the US has been doing business with for decades, fully aware of the nature of Communist Party rule in China, fully aware of the 'Belt and Road' initiatives that have seen huge investments in Africa, giving China a strategic advantage in countries ridiculed by Pompeo's boss as 'shitholes'.

As I said before, it would be hypocritical to attack Hunter Biden on China, given that the President was denied the right to register his LLC's in China for the best part of two decades, but registered a hundred on his visit as President, and with his daughter Ivanka up to her elbows in Chinese production.

In other words, it is sound and fury, but Pompeo and the US and UK, have no idea how to deal with China other than imposing sanctions on it, if they do, because in the markets the Americans and Johnson believe in (or so they say), China fulfills that most basic of Capitalist rules: low cost, high returns that neither the US nor the UK can compete with -and no pesky Unions. For the time being, markets may be flat anyway for a year or more, but does anyone really think industrial production is going to be repatriated to our countries from China?

In the UK we have not cancelled China's contract to build (in partnership with the French) a new nuclear power reactor -is Pompeo going to insist we cancel the contract? Huawae has been part of the constuction of the 5G network in the UK, but has now been told that must not only end, but that the existing infrastructure must be torn out, at a cost of Billions, and presumably, Huawei will have to be given more Billions in compensation. So Pompeo's vision of a 'roll back' on China looks more like the rhetoric it is than a considered plan.

And on the same basis, I can't see Joe Biden making any more coherent statements on China other than acknowledge 'something needs to be done'. It may even suit him to make vague statements on it, to focus on the domestic problems which are far more important than China.

His biggest domestic problem will be (as seems always the case) the economy. If he wins, he will take office at a time where we still may not have a vaccine...or even if we do, there may be mutations, other viruses..who knows. All things considered, the market’s been doing well , but getting everything back and working is going to be a problem. There are jobs permanently lost, rents not paid (which means property taxes not paid either) ...and eventually the bills, beginning at the individual and extending all the way to the Federal government will come due. Take care of these economic problems, which are huge, and the others may also fall into place. These are things that will probably, also not be completely fixed during one term. Therefore, he will need to be an excellent crisis manager, who can fix things as they pop up...multiple fingers in multiple dams...holding it all together until the next leader with the sweeping visions you speak of, comes along. A lot of the divisiveness should be soothed by a difference in rhetoric, which may be another glaring problem here with Joe, but it will help that we no longer have a tweeting president.

-I agree with a lot of what you say. In the case of the Obama administration, he entered office in January 2009 when the US was losing 800,000 jobs a day and the banking system was in crisis. The recovery packages that Timothy Geithner put together at what, at the time was staggering cost, undoubtedly 'steadied the ship' and the US recovered over Obama's two terms.
On that basis, Biden could argue that he was part of the administration that dealt successfully with a national crisis, so he can be trusted to repeat in 2021 what he was part of in 2009. But, as you point out, whoever takes office in January will still need to deal with Covid 19, be it a 'second wave' (the first has yet to abate in the US), long term health problems, the dislocated economy and the two obstacles to anyone trying to deal with these issues will be the coossal Debt, and whether or not the President has a friendly or hostile Congress.

On balance, I would say the histrorical evidence suggests that Democrats have twice now, rescued the US from a financial mess left to them by Republicans -Clinton and Reagan/Bush I, Obama and Bush II. If this is to be repeated, Biden needs a strong team, and not just because people are not sure he has the stamina. But given the prospect that this time economic recovery will be slow (though I could be wrong about that), Biden may find himself closer to FDR who won his second term when unemployment in the US was still high, but had declined throughout his first term -it was a marginal improvement that secured that second term, but I think these days people are more impatient for results.

But what if Biden loses, what happens then?

[MrFanti]

Imaginative and wanting change?

I’ll settle for a leader that’s clear-eyed, rational and decisive.

Leave the rest to his staff and the legislative branch.

Agreed 100%
What the Democrats are AFRAID of is stopping all this violence in THEIR cities!

[MrFanti]

The one thing , that at this point, Joe can’t simply sweep under the rug, is the China problem. It will probably be his biggest foreign policy hurdle...especially since he always down played it in the past. You can’t hit a reboot and go back to trade as normal...I think most western countries agree on that. Their economic and military aggression needs to be confronted...dams...holding it all together until the next leader with the sweeping visions you speak of, comes along. A lot of the divisiveness should be soothed by a difference in rhetoric, which may be another glaring problem here with Joe, but it will help that we no longer have a tweeting president.

Like him or not, Trump has been the only successful US President at confronting and at times, winning against China. I also believe that Perot would have put China in it's place as well were he to have been elected.

Native scholar says Communist China has 'met its match' with Trump admin following consulate closure
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sch...sulate-closure

[Stavros]

Like him or not, Trump has been the only successful US President at confronting and at times, winning against China. I also believe that Perot would have put China in it's place as well were he to have been elected.

For once you have posted a load of rubbish, or you need to inform us what you consider to be effective in the US relations with China.

On trade, the incumbent President boasts about nothing when he tries to argue he has done better than anyone ese -just on the fiasco of tariffs on Soybeans the collapse of the US market means American taxpayers forking out $12-14 billon a year to pay for this abject failure of a policy that has not hurt the Chinese at all.

On the WTO, the Obama administration between 2009=2016 lodged over 20 enforcement complaints to the WTO with regard to China, an effective means of changing China's practice as China wants to be seen abiding by the rules -since 2017 the Republican President has lodged one complaint, while his most effective action is to attempt to make the UN Agency irrelevant, thus an ineffective body in international trade regulaton -not effective at any level, just old-fashoned sabotage because the man with a string of bankrupt businesses to his name thinks global trade is best wiithout a regulatory body at all -a move that would benefit China, so daft is this man.

How has the US responded to the deportation and 're-education' of the Uighers? A slap on the wrist? Is the US going to take military action to remove the Chinese military from the Spratly Islands?

What about Ivanka Kushner's profitable business based in China, and her father registering over 100 of his LLC's on his first visit as President when for 15 years before that the Chinese told him to get lost?

The only effective relationship with China is the one the family has, because, as Bolton pointed out in his book, this President and his Family cannot tell the difference between their personal interests and the interests of the USA.

The USA has embarked on a trade war with the WTO, the EU, China -more or less the whole world -who has benefited? because it ain't the USA.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/09...ed-on-the-wto/

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-off...tion%E2%80%99s