stevenkesslar

It is to the people who post there. And, just so it's clear, I like the site and hope it flourishes. Which @Latbear4blk says it is, and will. I think they were dumb to kill the politics forum, because it will give them headaches in other ways. But that is their problem. My point was very narrow. To the degree that these sites make their revenue based on web traffic, where people then click on some other webcam site like Flirt4Free and the originating site gets a little piece of the money, anything that reduces traffic to their website hurts their revenue. But Company Of Men does not operate that way. It's off topic, but we now all know that something like this is precisely the problem with the algorithms of Facebook and Twitter. They get us to stay on the site by getting us riled up. It doesn't matter whether it MAGA mad, or Bernie mad. It's just a business model. Thankfully, the moderators at Company Of Men are not trying to get anyone riled up to make money. companyofmen.org Traffic and Engagement Analysis If that is correct, it gets about 300,000 visits a month, almost all from the US or Canada. Not bad. Rentmen gets about 10 times as much. Masseurfinder gets like 500,000 a month.

I agree with your main point. But I'll add a few qualifications. Arguably, the interest of the "owners" is the community itself. I'm not even sure who the "owner" of that website is. Or whether there is one. And it's pretty much none of my business, is how I view it. That said, I don't think that site is a business in the sense that it makes money for an owner. If anything, the opposite. As I said earlier in the thread, after Bill died a member of that community generously stepped forward and said he could help fund the operations of the site. Basically because he hires escorts and likes what it does. At least mostly. Not necessarily, or perhaps not particularly, the politics forum. So in that sense you could stretch the limit and malign it as a friendly dictatorship. As in: have fun! But just don't talk about politics, or it's off to the gulag for you! My guess is the tension, or conflict, has more to do with different ideas of what "community" even means. I agree with @Latbear4blk that the politics forum was a small, and often annoying, part of that community. Which is primarily built around an interest in male escorts. That would be very different than the broader LGBTQ community organized around groups like HRC. Which sees the Gay community as a political community, and their mission as advancing the rights and political interests of Gay men. Having lived in both communities for a few decades, the spirit of Company Of Men goes like this: let's have a pool party! Let's go to a stripper bar! What escort did you hire? Was he cut or uncut? Nobody much cares whether the cock is attached to a liberal or conservative. If anything, the fact that the typical escort is younger and more progressive than the typical older and more affluent client who hires him suggests that it is best to keep your mouth shut. Or, if you can't keep your mouth shut, then at least keep it primarily focused on other activities. 😛 I know Bill basically lived hand to mouth for much of the time he ran that website. Hence my involvement in helping him create a volunteer donor base for the site. Much of his income from the review website was based on some percentage of the clicks from people who spent money on Flirt4Free or whatever webcam websites he had up there. So to that extent, simply having less people who visit the website and can click on shiny objects, or shiny boys, that generate revenue is bad for business. But I don't think the forum itself ever did, or does, operate that way. That was the escort review website.

Ex-Chinese military officer says world is in 'dangerous place' That's another DW interview with Retired Senior Colonel Zhou Bo that I think is even more interesting than the one @njf posted above. It's from the DW show Conflict Zone. And the host pushes back hard on some of what Zhou says. In terms of the fundamental disagreement, there is a particularly telling part around 18:00 in the interview where Zhou says that NATO expansion "caused Russia to panic and caused Russia to threaten to use nuclear weapons." A bit earlier in the interview Zhou floated the idea that I'm guessing will be at the core of any Chinese peace plan. NATO should pledge to stop expanding, in exchange for Putin's pledge to not use nuclear weapons. The DW host immediately rejects the notion, calling it "nuclear blackmail." I think it is clear that the US, NATO, the EU, and most importantly Ukraine, would agree with the idea that this is nuclear blackmail. That if we allow threats of nuclear war by Putin to dictate what NATO does, we are inviting any and every nuclear power in the world to do the same. That interview highlights two issues where I think China on the one hand and the US and NATO and EU and Ukraine on the other are simply worlds apart. And on both these issues, China and Russia basically appear to be in alignment. 1. NATO expansion is the problem. Zhou is walking a verbal and diplomatic tightrope. He doesn't speak for the Chinese government. But what he says does mostly reflect China's position, it seems. On the one hand, he says invading a sovereign country is bad. On the other hand, he says this was "caused" by the US and NATO ignoring repeated warnings, going back to Gorbachev, that the USSR or Russia did not like NATO expansion. He does not mention that the citizens of these sovereign nations, like Poland, did choose to join NATO. Now, Sweden and Finland have decided to join the club. Ukraine wants to join NATO, too. On this one, China on the one hand and Ukraine on the other seem to be on a collision course. This 40 minute session at the Munich conference including the PM of Poland, the foreign minister of France, and Mitch McConnell lays that out very clearly. That whole session is worth listening to. McConnell and Poland's PM lay out the hawkish position that is mostly winning in the EU and US. And that is coming directly from Zelenskyy and Ukraine. We should give Ukraine as many weapons as they want, as quickly as we can, so they can actually win the war and defeat Putin. While they don't say it quite this bluntly, the core argument is that if we stare down Putin's nuclear blackmail, arm Ukraine, and stop Putin from taking Ukrainian territory, the world will be a safer place. That's not even in the ballpark of what Zhou is saying. The debate in this session is not whether Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO. It's about how quickly we can get Ukraine into NATO. So if China thinks the problem is NATO expansion, like Putin does, they are basically on the side of Russia. And saying the exact opposite of what Ukraine is saying they want. I've said this before, but I will repeat it. It is interesting that Kissinger, who many in Ukraine view as a Putin apologist, is now saying that one reasonable outcome of a peace agreement is that post-war Ukraine will join NATO. I think Kissinger is mostly just acknowledging how this war precludes the idea that Ukrainian neutrality would last. The widespread US/NATO/EU belief, expressed in that Munich conference, is that anything short of putting Ukraine in NATO would simply set Putin up to try again later. 2. Democracy is losing. Toward the end of that interview DW and Zhou get into it over Taiwan. Zhou's positions is that whatever China is doing around Taiwan is defensive in nature. And US leaders like Pelosi should not be showing up in Taiwan and rattling chains in China's internal affairs. All of the is standard diplomacy coming from China. What's interesting is that at 23:00 he makes a case that Western democracy is being rolled back since 2006, citing Freedom House. The citation is correct. But Freedom House of course says this rollback of democracy is a dangerous trend. Zhou does not present it that way. Zhou says that even people in the US don't believe in democracy anymore. So, on the one hand, Zhou insists that China wants peaceful reunification with Taiwan. On the other hand, he certainly creates the impression that China won't be pushing hard for democracy in either Taiwan, or Ukraine. When he gets down to it, Zhou basically argues that "Chinese democracy" is massive poverty reduction and economic development. To me, he is in effect stating that the legitimacy of the Chinese Community Party does rest on public support for economic development. But I doubt most people in Western democracies - probably including Ukraine - would agree that a growing economy is the same thing as democracy. People in the West want both. This movie is not new. China has had a debate about "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Capitalism" for a very long time. It is nowhere near being settled, I think.

Which nicely sums up the problem for China. If the idea is that Putin's invasion of Ukraine and his crimes against humanity, as outlined by Zelenskyy, are somehow "crimes" of the US, or perhaps NATO, that ain't gonna fly. I'm not sure this leads to China winning a major victory. More likely, China looks like a major hypocrite. I'm not even sure that position is Chinese fence sitting. It is mostly China siding with Russia's attack on a sovereign nation, and then blaming it on the US or NATO like Putin does. I'm not sure I understand this. First, what is the Chinese peace plan for Ukraine? We don't know, I think. So I'm not sure how Ukrainians could be for it or against it. There is no poll I have seen to back it up. But neither Putin nor Xi were just in Kyiv. Biden was. So my impression is the Ukrainian government, and most Ukrainians, are grateful to the US and NATO for the massive effort to arm them and provide humanitarian aid to defend themselves from Russia's attack. Poland and Germany and many others are providing shelter to millions of refugees. China Squirms as Zelenskyy Outlines Russian ‘War Crimes’ That article is almost a year old. But I think the diplomatic position it states is still the same. By all accounts, China has censored the images of Ukrainian children being slaughtered, hospitals being bombed, and Russian torture chambers in occupied territories from the Chinese public. It has not condemned Russian's "war crimes," to use the words stated repeatedly by Zelenskyy. Ukraine is saying peace must involve something like war crimes tribunals. So if China is instead pointing to the US as the party committing "crimes," it's not likely Zelenskyy or Ukraine will be "relatively happy" with that. I think Ukraine would be "relatively happy" if China condemned Russia's attack on a sovereign nation, and the "war crimes" it states Russia has committed. China has made it incredibly clear that they won't do that. In one poll I cited above, 70 % of citizens in 28 nations said "[my nation] must support sovereign countries when they are attacked by other nations." China is certainly not the only nation that does not want to take sides. India is another big nation that wants trade and arms sales with Russia to continue. But China is the only nation that promised a "friendship without limits" with Putin right before he attacked a sovereign nation. The polls suggest this is not a position most people in the world agree with. At least, not most people in the democratic world where these polls were taken. I agree with you that China has a lot of leverage. Ukraine would certainly welcome trade with China, and help rebuilding the country when the war ends. So if China is going to put forward a peace plan and engage in diplomacy, that's a good thing. If China is saying Putin and his spokespeople should stop talking about nuclear war, that is a good thing. In the broadest terms, I think China and the US, and Biden and XI, both want a stable world. I don't think Putin does. Putin has a tiny economy, and lots of weapons and soldiers and mercenaries to throw into the meat grinder. So that is at the heart of the conflict. China is going to have a very hard time walking this diplomatic tightrope about how it wants peace and stability in Ukraine. Even though it is backing the guy who started the war, with whom it has a "friendship without limits."

I'm of course not arguing that Biden is Glinda, whose magic bubbles create hundreds of thousands of factory jobs out of the goodness of his heart. Nor am I arguing that Trump was the Wicked Witch of Mar A Lago, whose sheer evil destroyed hundreds of thousands of factory jobs, just so the children of those factory workers would be poor and hungry. That is not how the economy works, of course. (Except in Oz, maybe, Check with him.) But I am arguing against the conservative argument, which is both hollow and hypocritical. They want everything bad (has anyone ever heard of a thing called inflation?) to be Biden's fault. But everything good (anybody hear we have the lowest unemployment in half a century?) is just how the economy works, stupid. Including how it works during a global pandemic. We could have had a depression. For that matter, we could have had 5 million dead Americans, rather than "just" 1 million. So I'd reverse your argument. It was COVID, for sure. But it was also Trump and Biden. I view the vaccines as one of Trump's greatest achievements. They saved countless lives all over the world. I don't get why Gov. Ron DeReaction is trashing them, and the companies that created them. Why is a Republican conservative arguing against capitalism and innovation? Both Trump and Biden did a massive stimulus program. We can argue to death whether they overshot the mark. But the economy definitely responded to the massive economic influence of Trump and Biden, and Republicans and Democrats. The same jolt or stimulus or sugar high - or whatever you want to call it - that created inflationary pressures also created a stock market bubble, record corporate profits, and record low unemployment. If we had too much inflation for a year, rather than a lot more death and a 1920 post-pandemic deflationary Depression - like the last time we had a horrible global pandemic - that involves acts of leadership we can mostly be happy about, I think. So, no, I don't see 50 year low unemployment, or the creation of close to 1 million factory jobs, as inevitable. Or just an act of fate. Or something that had nothing to do with Trump or Biden. Nor do I see the bipartisan infrastructure bill, or the bipartisan chips bill, or the partisan green energy jobs bill, as something that just happened because Glinda happened to have some extra bubbles lying around. The verdict is out about how many jobs those bills will create. And how much growth it will add. But even many of the bears who are predicting a 2023 recession and an S & P below 3500 are saying that's basically a bump on the road to a strong recovery. By the way, I'm a deficit hawk, like my conservative Dad was. When I was a kid, he used to love to say, "God damn Democrats and their deficit spending." Which implies, of course, that deficits are not acts of fate, either. As Biden pointed out in his SOTU, they are acts of Trump. Including the big fat cat tax cut hog feed Paul and Mitch got passed when Republicans ruled. But Biden has sure done his share, as well. Even if the current year deficit is half of his and Trump's record $3 trillion-ish a year binges. Again, I'd argue all that sugar injected into the economy by Trump and Biden is why we did not have a depression like 1920. But, however you feel about it, there is a bill to be paid. While I am a liberal, I'm glad the Freedom Caucus is channeling my Dad. And bitching and moaning about deficits. The last time we had this kind of political debate, in the 1990's, we ended up with a surplus by the end of the decade. As well as lots of economic growth, and somewhat higher taxes on the fat cats. Which is largely why we ended with a surplus by the end of the decade. We should all be so lucky!

If you haven't seen the film version of Game Change, which focused on McCain's pick of Palin, you should check it out. One of my favorite movies. It portrays how Palin was the canary in the coal mine to what later became MAGA. And McCain got stuck running a race he didn't want to run. And couldn't win, anyway. On that race in particular, Lichtman argued the Republicans had so many fundamentals working against them in 2008 that Democrats could have picked Charlie The Tuna Fish. And he would have won. Truth be told, Charlie wasn't that young, either. Speaking of age: I'm not sure I buy that argument. I posted an article about Reagan above. There were definitely plenty of anecdotes about what seemed like it could be Alzheimers. At least one of which played out on national TV, during that first 1984 national debate. But the key point to me is that the doctors, who presumably know, still say that Reagan did not begin to test for dementia in long cognitive tests until 1994, long after he left office. So there's a good argument that Reagan served for eight years and got the job done. Even if he was old. Back in 2020 I read a bit about Konrad Adenauer. He resigned as Chancellor at 87, and stayed on as head of the CDU until 90. To me, looking at this from a partisan perspective as a Democrat, "Joe Adenauer" is the best case scenario. This part I read in 2020 stuck with me: The only part that doesn't necessarily fit with Biden is the intense work habits. I don't know about Biden's day to day routine. But he is globe trotting from his playful Senate SOTU address to Kyiv. So he doesn't come off as senile to me. In his later years Adenauer slowed down, and took naps regularly in the afternoon. But if you buy the idea that a comparison with Adenauer could be made, the vision part is that Biden's whole political career stands for certain things: a commitment to democracy, a Keynesian/FDR commitment to capitalism with liberal government interventions, opposition to Putin's version of crony communism, and a commitment to rebuilding the American economy. I know for the MAGA crowd they only see a senile old fool. Yet, somehow, the unemployment rate is the lowest in 50 years. Somehow, he has the best record on manufacturing jobs since any President in a long time: 900,000 more manufacturing jobs since January 2021. You can say that's based on recovery from COVID all you want. But it doesn't change the fact that Trump's four year Presidency left us with half a million fewer factory jobs as of January 2021, compared to when he started. Whereas Biden is getting close to 1 million more factory jobs since he took over. It's hard to argue Trump ran things well, and Biden completely fucked up the COVID recovery, when you consider statistics like that. Which may help explain why Democrats seem to be doing better in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Stock guru Glenn Neely thinks the S & P will hit 5500 by next Summer. JP Morgan bear David Wilson thinks the looming recession could take the S & P down to 3000 by this Summer. Which he says would set the stage for a strong V-shaped rebound to 3900 by year end. And God knows where by Fall 2024. Those two are probably the book end extreme estimates. Either way, the realistic scenario is that by Election Day 2024 the S & P could be close to, at, or even well above its all time high. Presumably that would be driven by getting past these rough patches in corporate earnings and inflation. Meanwhile, all this money for chips factories and EV factories and bridges is starting to flow. This just doesn't strike me as a picture of a stagnant economy. Even Wilson, a bear, describes it as an economy working its way through a series of big shocks toward a new cycle of steady growth. A bull like Neely says we are about to enter one of the biggest bull markets ever, driven by flourishing global capitalism. If any of that turns out to be true, it may not matter whether Biden is a senile old fool. Anymore than it mattered whether Adenauer was a senile old fool who had to go down for naps in the afternoon. What probably mattered to Germans most was the Wirtschaftswunder. And the stability, after going through a very ugly period that makes COVID look like a picnic by comparison. Given that, they were probably fine mit Der Alte. The optimistic scenario is that most of these bipartisan investments and industrial policy decisions pan out. And global capitalism keeps doing its things. And, of course, we avoid war with either Russia or China. The worst case scenario view, expressed cogently above, is that decoupling from China and getting into trade tit for tats will lead to stagflation in the US. Xi, unlike Putin, relies on a stable and growing global economy for China to continue to develop. So the verdict is out. But I tend to view the glass as half full. I think taking on Putin and decoupling from China to the degree that we see tangible gains in US factory jobs is going to work out well für Der Alte. Like Adenauer, Uncle Joe seems to have good, and consistently underrated, political instincts and judgment. The old man was supposed to be a joke in the Democratic primary. He won. Then somehow he became either the senile joke in the basement, or the only man alive who could beat Trump. Neither of which seemed true to me. He was supposed to get his ass kicked hard last year, just like he did in the 2010 midterms when he was Veep. Somehow his instinct to make it about democracy and moderation seemed to work well. When critics mock him for eating an ice cream cone in Kyiv, which was supposed to be Vlad's new backyard by now, they just set up more low expectations that are easy for him to beat.

I guess this is me hijacking my own thread. This fascinating Politico story I read last month is relevant, but only in a very tangential way. ‘I Protect Ronnie From Himself’: How Nancy Reagan Used a Snowstorm to Help Thaw the Cold War Secretary of State George Shultz couldn’t steer the administration off its hawkish path — until the first lady hauled him through a snowstorm for dinner. Your simple answer to whether we can defeat a nuclear power is yes. Mine was no. That article suggests we can split the difference. Like, if you're going to defeat a nuclear power, you might want to do it carefully. The simple version of why Reagan won the Cold War is because, unlike even many conservatives, he thought he could. And he had an arms race to back it up. The counter argument is that Reagan couldn't have ended the Cold War without Gorbachev on the other side. What I found interesting in that article is the notion that Reagan, and even moreso his wife, were relative doves in his own hawkish Administration. Reagan clearly was for negotiating, as well as arming up. Something like that applies to Ukraine. If Zelenskyy "wins," whatever that means, it will be in large part because Biden and NATO thought he could. And armed him to the teeth. That said, the war won't end until Putin decides it in his interest to end it. This is the point Kissinger keeps making about Putin's interests and negotiations. He also had more than a little to do with ending the Cold War. I'd argue my comparison of Biden to Reagan in this context is a good one. Not only in terms of their age. But also in terms of their judgment.

I'll add this as an afterthought on Zhou Bo/ Snd more generally on China's views on peace and poverty. Zhou Bo: ‘The Asian century is already here’ I went hunting for other things Zhou has said, and that line jumped out at me. In context, he's talking about roads at the border between China and India. But, more generally, his point about the last 40 years of reform in China, and the dramatic reduction in poverty there, is spot on. If Xi wants to make a case for his style of leadership, the idea that China wants more peace and less poverty is a very good place to start. The number of people living in extreme poverty has dropped dramatically. In 1990 there were 1.9 billion people living on less than $1.25 a day. By 2015 it was 836 million. Asia is the biggest reason why. And within that, China blew the rest of the world away. To bring Jimmy Carter back in, for years he identified income inequality as one of the biggest threats to global stability. Putin's war has added to inflation, income inequality, and food insecurity all over the planet. One more good reason for China to pressure Vlad to wind things down. There's always been this debate in the US between liberals and conservatives about whether we won the War On Poverty. In fact, poverty rates declined right before, during, and right after the 1960s' War on Poverty. In large part due to all those anti-poverty programs like Medicare and Medicaid. As well as broad societal efforts from corporations to foundations. White poverty hit an all time low during Nixon's first term. Because the economy was good, and he mostly embraced LBJ's social programs. The funny thing to me is that no US politician, or corporation, wants to take credit for winning the War On Poverty in China. But, in effect, global multinational capitalism, led by politicians in both US political parties, did just that. China and Asia did all the heavy lifting, of course. But there's no question that investment and trade with all the rich capitalist democracies in North and South America, Europe, and Asia helped. The expanded child tax credits that reduced child poverty in the US by something like 30 % during COVID, and helped 61 million children overall, would have cost something like $100 billion to continue into 2022. That's about double what the US spent in various forms on war in Ukraine in 2022. On the face of it, most Americans would probably rather help 61 million kids in the US than have a war in Ukraine that has been absolutely horrific to its children. So this could be a chance for China to put its mouth where its money is. To its credit, Carter is right. China has spent most of the least 50 years waging peace. And they spent their money eradicating poverty. And investing in a prospering middle class. That is a basis on which to build a framework for peaceful global competition. But that is not what Murderous Vlad is about. I don't think China trying to pursue peace in Ukraine from a "subtle" position of neutrality is going to win it friends and allies. Or end the war. A January 2023 of 28 countries all over the world says 70 % of people say "[my nation] must support sovereign countries when they are attacked by other nations." That's not a subtle idea.

That was a really good interview with Zhou Bo. Thanks for posting it. There's a lot to unpack there. Here's some general positive comments, speaking as a Democrat. First, that's the language of diplomacy and conflict management. My view is that Biden is the one explicitly saying we have to manage peaceful competition with China. Highly MAGA Republicans are the ones who tend to portray "Joe Xiden" as a China puppet of sorts. They seem to be the biggest saber rattlers. Second, I feel confident that one reason Russia won't go nuclear in Ukraine is China would strongly oppose it, as Zhou says. Third, it's interesting that he seemed to say this war is not going to end soon. I think he said maybe next year. I get the sense that, like me, he sees it as this intractable issue with two sides that are dug in. On the face of it, having a major country saying, "Let's work the whole thing out" is better than saying, "Just nuke the assholes." All that said, actions speak louder than words. It was interesting that Zhou said right out of the gate that this is a violation of a nation's sovereignty. But then he spends much of the interview trying to dilute that. Well, but we have to try to get along with Russia. (News flash: so does Europe and the US, at least pre-invasion). Well, what about NATO expansionism? Well, what about the US being so adamant about Ukrainian sovereignty? Well ......... yeah. What about it? I think China is in a bind. They can't be for half-way sovereignty. So Europe will see who is actually sending weapons to Ukraine. With the idea that it stops Vlad from invading Poland, or Estonia, or Germany. While meanwhile China is mincing words about sovereignty. I'm not a China expert. But my sense is this has at least not helped China. And it probably hurt China, at least through guilt by association. It gives the US and Europe a good argument to say, "No. We won't roll over when one country invades another to crush it. Whether it's Ukraine, or Taiwan." China will of course say Taiwan is China. But I can tell you this, as an American who wildly opposed our invasion of Iraq. I don't lose sleep at night thinking that the US - and most of the world - are on the side of the underdogs fighting for democracy and sovereignty. Meanwhile, China looks acquiescent. The idea that China wants to be "subtle" - to use Zhou's word - in the face of a bloodbath Putin started doesn't really pass my smell test. It's clear that many countries - China, India, Mexico, to name three - don't particularly want to take sides. That's fine, to me. But China is in a different position than India or Mexico or (name a country in Africa). Xi is much more closely allied with his "bosom" buddy Vlad. Whatever Biden's flaws are, I would argue he's a model of how to take a stand and put together a coalition and exert America's will, compared to what Xi has said and done on behalf of China. Again, "subtle" might be a good word to describe it. You don't subtly negotiate for peace. As I said in a different post, a realist like Kissinger has shifted to saying that Ukraine is now de facto aligned with NATO. I think this was a chance for China to exert influence, and realism. So far, it seems like they missed the chance. Mostly they still seem like subtle apologists for Vlad to me. My guess is that, like everyone else, Zi thought things would go better for Vlad than they actually did. I think this makes a Chinese invasion of Taiwan more difficult. At least to the extent that the US and NATO are saying we will fight back when a democratic nation is attacked. Again, there's the "one China" policy. It is completely understandable that right now, tensions are so high. But that's partly because it's logical to think Xi might have seen Vlad's invasion of Ukraine, and the global reaction to it, as a trial run for what China might eventually do. I'm not sure I buy Zhou's downplaying of China's military strength. One way to read what he says is that by 2030 China will have the military superiority to take over Taiwan ("protect our sovereignty"), and the US can't do a damn thing about it. Even in 2022 the analysis of the US military is that a naval battle over Taiwan could end badly for the US. The only good news, such as it is, is that even in the best case scenarios such a battle would go badly for the entire global economy. COVID and the war in Ukraine reinforced that. So nobody wants more war. One thing I have read consistently from the people who think they are the best and the brightest on China is that Taiwan will eventually come to a head. Meaning Xi speaks for China when he says reunification "must be fulfilled." Kevin Rudd argues how we get around that is a problem for later in this decade. Or maybe later in this century. So let me turn it around, and ask you a variation of the question the DW reporter asked Zhou. Why doesn't China condemn the invasion, based on the principles of sovereignty Zhou stated? And then put pressure on Putin to come up with a peace plan? Putin started the war. And I do think it will only end when he wants it, or needs it, to end.

Short answer: no. I like Kissinger's views on Ukraine. In part because Kissinger is the (possibly diabolic) realist who has made a point to stay close to Putin and try to understand him. I'm not sure Kissinger tries to nail down what "status quo ante" means. Presumably because that would be the subject of negotiations. What could trigger World War III? on my mind it would be the idea that we flood Ukraine with so much money and weapons that they roll over Crimea and humiliate Putin. But I don't think that is even a wildly realistic scenario, though. At least that's what the generals are saying, I think. The more realistic scenario is that Russia and Vlad are still the big guys with more money and more guns. So realistically it seems like what the US and NATO can buy is Ukraine's survival. But not Ukraine's complete military success. In context, I take that as a victory for Biden, and NATO. And for the principles of democracy and sovereignty, and all the nations aligned with those principles. Before the war Kissinger was pushing the idea of some form of Ukrainian neutrality. It is interesting that now he says, realistically, that Ukraine and NATO are de facto wedded together. So some deal that gives Vlad some land, and that plants Ukraine in NATO, may be achievable. The tough part is defining "some land." And Kissinger's notion that Vlad would somehow accept that Ukraine is now basically in NATO's camp, even if not formally so, is questionable. One line I'm getting sick of is what Obama-era US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said on Morning Joe today. Which is that we can't really answer the question of what kind of peace could be negotiated. Since that is up to Ukraine. McFaul doesn't speak for Biden or his Administration. And I know it's the politucally correct thing to say. But I assume that because the US and NATO have kept Ukraine alive with our guns and money, in the end the US and NATO can privately force Team Zelenskyy into an unpalatable peace deal. My honest question is: will Vlad sign such a deal? Even the kind of deal where it is basically a long term cease fire more than a real basis for lasting peace. Russian Maps Featuring Occupied Ukraine Territories Go on Sale in Moscow Granted, it's easy to dismiss that as a political stunt. The equivalent of George W. Bush standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign. Regardless, I wasn't fined 1 million rubles for disagreeing with W about Iraq. And the fact remains that the failure to accomplish the mission cost W., and Republicans, dearly in 2006 and 2008. It's not clear what kind of peace Putin and his militaristic gang can agree to, if they want to survive. For now, my guess is that most Americans would be against the idea that we have to push hard enough that Joe Biden has a photo op next year somewhere in Crimea, which is now Ukraine again, with a "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him. That seems reckless. But Joe Biden standing next to Zelenskyy in Kyiv is probably something most Americans are for. Even if they don't respect Biden. To yet again bring in Alan Lichtman, I've wondered what a victory in Ukraine that would turn one of his keys in favor of Biden and Democrats would look like. Would any type of "land for peace and permanent NATO alignment" be seen as a victory in the US? But, along the lines of Kissinger, I think not letting Putin win is basically a victory for the US, NATO, democracy, and national sovereignty. Not that the US itself will always honor all those principle, of course! 🤫

That thread on whether Biden should run again is getting deeper into issues like China, Russia, and whether we are headed to World War III. Since it's one year since the Ukraine war started, and readers in this politics forum tilt toward Asia, I thought it would be interesting to talk about China in particular. And their role in the Ukraine war. I'll start with @njf's quotation in that other thread of what Jimmy Carter said about war and peace: I agree. Even many textbook conservatives like George Will now see Iraq as a huge blunder. As we frittered our global leadership away, China invested. That said, China invading Vietnam right before 1980 to back their Khmer Rouge allies wasn't exactly a peacenik thing to do. Xi being bosom buddies with Vlad doesn't strike me as the most peace-oriented strategic relationship ever. The quotes from this article about the Munich conference sum up two points of view nicely: China talks ‘peace,’ woos Europe and trashes Biden in Munich Call me an American, but it's transparent that both Xi and Vlad would like to foster division between Europe and the United States. I agree that if China really wanted peace, they could have worked hard to stop Vlad from invading Ukraine in the first place. One thing China does have going for it is the "see no evil" principle that we'll trade with you without being a hypocritical moral prude. Like the US is. As long as you leave us alone, too. But it's hard to argue that Vlad is simply leaving Ukraine alone. It does put China in a bind. Asian nations in particular seem to be working very hard to navigate some type of middle ground between two economic and military superpowers. One of my favorite thinkers on the subject is Kevin Rudd, former Australia PM and China scholar. He would like his country to have the best of both worlds. Which, he says, will be anything but easy. Is China for peace, or Putin, or somehow both? And how should the US manage the global competition?

Maybe, maybe not. An alternative vision is that we actually have a great global economic boom. To put another somewhat eccentric thinker out there, there is stock market pundit Glenn Neely. His claim to fame is back in 1988, right after the 1987 Dow crash, he said the bull market was fine. And the Dow was gradually headed to 100,000. Not 1,000. Most Wall Street types were pessimists at the time, and thought he was nuts. In fact, we now know a massive bull market followed. Now Neely says we'll likely get to Dow 200,000 in a matter of decades. His main point is he is bullish on global capitalism, and rising global prosperity. He hasn't been proven wrong so far. Right now he is predicting the S & P will be back to 5500 by next Summer. (His technical analysis-based stock voodoo is in the last five minutes of that video.) And he predicts we are entering one of the biggest bull markets in history. I would not bet on that. But I would not bet against it, either. Did I mention it's February, and my stock portfolio is up 25 % YTD? I blame the right wing for some of our economic problems, as well as the reckless wars like Iraq. America lost 6 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2010 or so. Most of that was during the eight years of W. And the great incentive to automate factory jobs. Or move them to someplace like China or Mexico with much cheaper labor. A bit of the factory jobs freefall was inherited by Obama during The Great Recession. When Biden voted for NAFTA, in the early 90's, he predicted it would be a jobs wash. If you go by the math, he was correct. Factory jobs were flat in the 90's. Then in the 00's, when China joined the WTO and the millions of jobs were going away, Biden started ranting about "fair trade." He voted against W.'s free trade deals. The irony to me is that while the jobs were definitely lost during a Republican Administration, Trump turned Hillary into Madame NAFTA. And made himself look like the anti-W on both Iraq and free trade. But he did not bring the factory jobs back. So I read articles from conservative economists today that say we are quickly and globally dismantling the key things that created The Great Moderation. Like global free trade, and loose immigration policies. These economists see economic nationalism as mostly toxic. They say this is a recipe for the new Great Stagflation. Regardless, it's not like Trump or the MAGA Republicans are fans of free trade with China. Biden is the one who keeps saying we want to manage competition with China. Not conflict. And if I had to name one thing that resulted in MAGA, gloom and doom, and the election of Trump, it would be the loss of the millions of factory jobs and industrial base in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Which of course were the states that elected Trump. Even though he lost the national popular vote. At least as of 2022, the Democrats in those states are winning the debate about how to rebuild an industrial base and factories that create good paying jobs. California is pro-trade, pro-immigration, pro-Democrat, and the 5th largest economy in the world. The reason I could see Neely's stock market optimism to be on target is that under Biden I think we are getting our economic shit together. There is the bipartisan stuff like the infrastructure and chips investments. There's the partisan stuff like the climate change/green energy bill. Skeptics are raising good questions about whether the US can just pass one bill, albeit a massive one, and beat Taiwan at something they are extremely good at. There's also big questions about whether industrial policy even makes sense. Although China sure has a national industrial policy. Europe is freaking out that the incentives for green manufacturing in the climate change bill will allow the US to outcompete Europe. So all of these are very complex economic issues. But I don't get the sense that the US currently suffers from economic malaise. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. Massive investments are being made in public/private partnerships on new technologies. China may want to be the leader in every emerging technology in the world. But they are not there yet. And whether they will ever get there is a good question. These days, my read is Biden is the voice for economic competition with China. The people who seem to be most eager to race into conflict with China are MAGA Republicans. So now that the COVID pandemic is over and the global supply chain and inflation issues are unwinding, I think Neely - as one somewhat eccentric example - has a good case for optimism based in flourishing global capitalism. If the economy has recovered and inflation has further dissipated by November 2024, that is wind at the back of Democrats. As Lichtman says history proves. If Neely's optimism about global capitalism (including China's state capitalism) and rising stock markets is correct - like it was in the late 1980's - that would help make a second Biden term look like an economic success story. Even if the guy presiding over it is old, and seemingly in decline. Great line by Jimmy Carter. And Biden was one of the warmongers on Iraq, in my view. One of the reasons I was not a fan of his in 2020. That said, the worst you can say about Biden on Iraq is that he went along with the gang on something very wrong that was going to happen, anyway. Thanks to Cheney and Rumsfeld and WMD. I was in the 25 % or so US minority that opposed the Iraq War. My guess is I'm now in a 25 % or so minority that thinks Biden did the right thing in Afghanistan. Early in the Obama Administration he tried hard to talk Obama into pulling the plug. Instead, Obama listened to the generals, and did the surge. Obama of course knew that whichever President pulled the plug would be perceived as weak. So my read is that Biden knew he would be perceived as weak. Even if there weren't the theatrics about a bomb exploding and people chasing airplanes on tarmacs to get out. Which made him look really weak. But I think it was an unwinnable war. So he was right to stop trying to win it. He did not pay a price for it in 2022, at least. I suspect that is because, while they blame him for the way he did it, most Americans are glad to be out of Afghanistan. Ukraine is a whole different matter. The funny thing is that some Republicans are saying that Biden is both weak, on Afghanistan, and a warmonger, on Ukraine. There is an argument to made. Especially about how much we spend on war in Ukraine. And how we avoid escalation to World War III. But most Americans are strongly behind helping Ukraine defend themselves from Putin.

Plus they are mostly just a great bunch of guys. As you know from going to Oliver's pool parties, among other things. The site works well as a support system and source of information for people who hire escorts. And, to some degree, escorts as well. I've posted there on lots of other things. And I will again. Except I figured I should just avoid that for a while, lest I be perceived as trying to make things in other forums political. There's a thread on Jimmy Carter's health right now. It will be interesting to see if people can edit themselves to avoid it from getting locked down. The idea that it's a group that just has to avoid talking about politics kind of fits. My guess is that the typical "client" over there is center to center/right. An older White guy who is relatively affluent, and may not even identify as Gay. I've been in settings where I was with a group of them, some of whom I knew to be liberals and some whom I knew to be conservatives. It was natural to just talk about other things, since politics isn't what really brought us together. Which is what is a bit weird for me, being as political as I am. If I'm volunteering for a LGBTQ rights group like EQCA, politics is what brings us together. And in just about any other setting where it is a bunch of Gay friends it isn't unusual for something political to come up. And it almost always seems to be left of center. Because they're people who identify with LGBTQ as a political movement. The one other thing that is obvious is that politics and escorting is not a particularly good match. At least not in public. I've gone to LGBTQ fundraising events with several people who frequent the board. You don't bring up the fact that you hire escorts. Or that you are an escort. One of my close friends for many years was one of the top organizers of the same sex marriage movement, who happens to be Straight. So coming out as Gay to people like her is like a celebration. When I came out as an escort, I don't think she could ever quite get her mind around it. There are of course politicians who hire male escorts. They don't talk about it, either. Or, if they do, they're in trouble. The awkward mismatch really came to the fore after the Rentboy raid. It was almost shockingly divisive among a community that all uses sites like Rentboy. What I decided at the time is that being someone who hires escorts is kind of the same thing that being Gay was half a century or more ago. Better to be discreet and not talk about it. There's no impulse to make things political. If anything, the opposite. Whereas with just about anything else Gay these days, you do try to make it political. So you can lock down rights and freedoms. I'd argue that, in the bigger LGBTQ community, the people who utilize that website are the minority. Not a tiny minority. Since sex and escorting seem to be popular among The Gays, for some strange reason. 😍 But it is kind of like a closeted part of a broader community that came out of the closet a long time ago. But if my perceptions are accurate, all that is why that website has a good reason to exist, and is thriving. It gives people a place to discuss something that doesn't flow easily off the lips in public. Whereas if you are naked in private with an escort, it flows off the lips much better. 😉

I actually enjoyed Bnac's posts. He illustrated the difference between reality-based conservatives, which he is, versus clowns who seem like Steve Bannon cultists. Who are just going to keep blaring the same shit out of bullhorns, ad nauseum. Auggie repeatedly challenged me on facts (e.g. we now have the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years.) Then he'd support his argument with a CNN (!) article that confirmed what I said, and added more facts to support my argument. To me, at least, much of it did seem like what Trump and Bannon learned from Goebbels. Tell a lie long enough, and it becomes the truth. My adorable BTC was particularly good at being Bannonesque. Plus, they even look like sisters. Arguably, as you have said, @Lucky, people like me should have just kept our mouths shut, and not engaged them. But I think this discussion has illustrated that would have also left them more space to fill with propaganda and lies. It's a good question whether any of the posters there came off QAnon conspiracy sites. Or Russian troll farms. I decided a long time ago it doesn't particularly matter. I do think Putin's goal is to do anything he can to use democracy and free speech to divide Americans. Arguably, he has succeeded. And Trump's whole MO is that he has to divide Americans to maybe win a minority of the popular vote and an electoral college victory. If it is on a day he is lucky. So now most Americans don't want to marry or share dorms with members of the opposite party any more. Something like 1 in 5 Americans say it would be better if members of the opposite party just died. All that said, that which does not kill us makes us stronger. So I'm viewing the glass as half full. And taking what happens over at Company Of Men as reasonable people just getting sick of it. Besides, over there I get friendly fascism. Over here I get fashion, in the form of my dearest and most darlingest long lost sister, @Suckrates. Who always was better than me at both fashion and fellatio. I'm okay with that. Like Kamala, I don't mind being #2 to The Big Guy.

Bitch! If you are going to tell all, you have to tell all. How good is he on the job? 😋

Did Ronald Reagan Have Alzheimer's Disease While in Office? I put that as a second post to address the dementia question separately. If we simply go by age, and assume Biden becomes demented at the same age as Reagan, I think the math works out that he would begin to shows signs of cognitive impairment in tests early in his second term. Assuming he runs and is re-elected. The formal diagnosis, if it played out the same as Reagan, would come in the middle of his second term. You can also argue this the other way. People may have thought Reagan had Alzheimers. There may have been awkward moments that were in part characteristic of Reagan being Reagan. Just like Biden is a perpetual gaffe machine who has a lifelong challenge with stuttering. But if you go by actual cognitive tests, Reagan's doctors still argue there was no there there. Until about five years after he left office, when it began to show up in cognitive tests. This makes sense to me. Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein are both 89. No one says Grassley is senile. Republicans urged him to run again in 2022, since they knew he would win. Grassley brushes off the issue of age, saying voters watched him in 2022 and made their verdict. Meanwhile, everybody says Feinstein is in cognitive decline. This goes back to my judgment that all roads lead to Kamala. Let's play out that this happens to Biden in the same way it did to Reagan. In 2025 he takes a test, and the doctors say he is in the normal range. In 2026 he takes the same test, and the doctors say there appears to be a problem. Presumably that is when a serious discussion occurs about the President resigning based on a solid medical diagnosis. Fetterman is more of an issue to me right now. His argument was that he had a stroke, and he is recovering. Elect me, and I'll be fine. Just watch me, and I'll be fine. Well, we are watching. And he is not fine. So you can view this as a blip during a recovery. But Fetterman has pushed it to the limit. That said, Democrats wanted the seat. And if he does resign, a Democratic Governor will decide who will replace him until a special election is held. To stretch it just a bit further, I'd put Herschel Walker in the same pot. I view him as an idiot who never should have won. My judgment is that in 2022 Biden on his worst gaffe-filled day was still a better leader than Walker at his most eloquent. And Walker had a history of mental illness he was open about. So there is something to be said for the fact that until Biden is diagnosed with mental illness, he is not mentally ill. If he tests for cognitive impairment at some future point, we deal with it then. It's exactly the same standard that was used with Reagan.

I lived and organized in Portland in the 1990's and part of the 00's. But by 2002 I'd transitioned to being a real whore, rather a political one. And I was living in San Francisco most of the time. Oregon is beautiful. I was a Warren fan boy in 2020. But I voted for Sanders in the California primary. Because by that time it was clear Elizabeth was toast. One of the truly unfathomable things ever to happen in Presidential politics is that Biden won the primaries in Massachusetts and Minnesota in 2020. Even though he basically had no money or organizing there. And home state Senators Warren and Klobuchar were also on the ballot. I viewed that as a spontaneous tidal wave in US politics about what center-leaning Democrats and Independents wanted, and did not want. That said, my vote for Sanders was essentially saying, "Lean left, Joe. Lean progressive." Which I think he has. He is certainly acting and talking more progressive than Reagan Era Joe Biden. Part of my reluctance about redoing the 2020 primary is I don't see what changes. If Biden runs, and there is a primary, I think he wins. If he does not run, Harris wins - which many people think is exactly the problem. Warren in polls is now at like 10 %. Behind Harris and Sanders and about where Pete is. So I don't see the point of having a primary that could be divisive, just so we can end up where we started. The talking heads love the idea of (pick a name like Polis or Whitmer or Newsom) running. And if Biden were clearly demented and the Democrats lost 60 house seats and the Senate in the midterms, all those Guvs might be running. But now they've all said they are NOT running. Whitmer just said she is grateful to Biden for creating the political environment where Democrats like her are winning in their states. Which, by the way, suggests Biden still has his skill set of reading the national tea leaves and unifying his party intact. I strongly agree with @lookin that having a POTUS that unifies rather than divides is important. That said, I don't think any President can really unify America right now. I view Trump as symptom, not cause. Biden is at least trying. His mostly unifying and populist messages during the SOTU address - pointed in part at the disgruntled White working class, but also at Black Moms who want their kids to come home safe at night - worked for me. You frame the question differently than I would. And for the way you are framing it, the conclusion makes sense. You frame it as a choice election. So the idea that Biden looks old and tired next to DeSantis makes sense. That said, I'm starting to wonder whether Ron will simply come off as a mean or even extreme culture warrior in 2024, if nominated. The Florida polls suggests people think he managed the hurricane well - like over 70 % approve of that. And they tend to agree with how he managed the Florida economy during COVID - like well over 50 % approval and around his winning 2022 vote total. There is no evidence in polls that he won in a landslide because Floridians want culture war. And how he managed the hurricane or COVID won't really matter outside Florida in 2024. So I don't buy the idea that Republicans are really better off with him. Besides, as of now Trump beats him in most Republican primary polls. My Plan A is that Trump wins the primary in a divided field with his base vote intact, just like in 2016. I frame the election the way Lichtman frames all Presidential elections. Which is that they are a referendum on Biden and the Democrats. His basic argument is that Americans give the person and party in power a thumbs up or thumbs down. He'd argue in 2020 Trump was going to lose anyway. Had Warren been nominated, his system argues she would have won as well. Speaking of Alan, coincidentally I just happened to read this article yesterday: Data says: Democrats need Biden to run for a second term It's interesting that someone other than Lichtman is writing an op/ed that is essentially all about Lichtman's keys system. But pundits have apparently caught on that if it helps predict every Presidential election since 1984 correctly, and in advance, maybe there is something to it. And it makes common sense. The basic idea is that voters are smart. And in the past, when there were these similar situations - like a recession, or a war, or an impeachment scandal - here is how it played out in terms of who won. The framing in that article is an interesting way to put it. Because the basic idea is that Biden or Democrats can afford to lose five keys. So they need eight of 13 keys to win. The author spells out the seven keys Biden/Harris appear to have locked up for 2024. So that statement I quoted above suggests that if the short-term economy is strong in Fall 2024, a Democrat other than the incumbent could win. The strong short term economy provides the eighth key. Except, it doesn't. Because one of the eight keys the author counts is the lack of a primary fight. But if Biden does NOT run, there will be a 2024 primary fight. So as the author lays it out, Biden and Harris are likely down four keys now. Biden not running would add two more: losing an incumbent, and gaining a primary fight. In that situation, Lichtman would argue Democrats will lose. And it doesn't really matter whether Republicans run Trump or DeSantis. On the other hand, if you assume that Biden wins some military victory in Ukraine, and the economy is good, and there is no big scandal other than whining about Hunter, the keys would favor any Democrat to win. Even if Biden does not head the ticket. The main point I think Lichtman would make about the bed wetting by pundits about Biden is that they are simply wrong. US history tells us being an incumbent is always an asset. Period. Now, add that the incumbent has dementia, and that's different. But then the issue is dementia. Not being the incumbent. Lichtman gets lots of pot shots sent his way. But, to me, the system he developed with a Russian seismologist (who was fascinated by US democracy) is almost common sense. But also built on sound statistical principles. He trusts voters, not pundits or pollsters. We know that the polls that said in 1983 that Mondale would win in a landslide and 60 % of Americans didn't want Reagan to run again did not do a very good job of actually predicting what would happen in November 1984. Lichtman says US history suggests voters are pretty good at sorting through multiple variables that really matter. Like: it's the economy stupid.

That thread proves @njf's point. The only minor surprise is that the "apolitical" tone of the forum didn't even get through one week. Note the warning at the top from one of the moderators to to take a deep breath and tone down the rhetoric.. That moderator is someone I know personally to be a really sweet, thoughtful guy. Then Cooper locked the thread yesterday. Which arguably made sense, since the "debate" was essentially about how a right-wing brick thrower is "spot on" arguing that the goal should be to "defeat and humiliate" those Queer types who want to "wage war on the foundations of human society, and truth itself." Damn! Who knew? You can take the boy out of the country. But some boys are just going to be cunts, anyway! Oops! Did I just call Matt Walsh a name? Someone in that thread argued that the T part doesn't belong in LGBTQ. The interesting thing to me is how many guys over there don't even relate to the G part. Just because they like to have sex with men, and have their entire life, that doesn't mean they are Gay, right? Or, it certainly doesn't mean they relate to any political movement based in something like "Gay Pride" or "Basic Rights" or even - what's the word? Empathy? And, honestly, I don't blame them. One, I'd be a hypocrite to, since escorting was profitable for me. Two, it all does speak to an era when Gays were viciously discriminated against, or "cured," or whatever. I spent enough time being an escort for pay and being a volunteer for same sex marriage that I just got used to thinking about these as two different and compartmentalized things. Thankfully, we won our political fights in part because there are so many Straight allies with vision and values. Who are willing to go to bat - and go door to door - for us. Even if we are not all willing to go to bat for ourselves. I'm glad that the problem today is that Chasten is perfectly willing to talk about the stories he hears from Gay politicos about how challenging it is for Gay men to have careers and kids. While his hubby probably still just wants to internalize it all. Since most people just want the trains to run on time. It's so fucking ............. normal! I guess that means The Gays are now gonna be for subsidized child care, too. God damn it! 😉

No shit? 😉 By the way, you left out possibly homophobic, too. 🤫 'Black history is not inferior': Black leaders object to Florida's 'culture war against African Americans' Pence moves to claim culture war lane before DeSantis gets there (Note to Mike: You're too late) But this is why the question is complicated to me. Given that Trump, DeSantis, and Pence - in that order - are the only candidates who are not single digit in polls, it seems like the Republican nominee will offer one of three choices in Fall 2024: 1) Traditional Culture War, 2) Culture War, God's Edition, or 3) Culture War, Sunshine Edition Since you're making the cautious argument, I'll flip and make the "let's roll the dice" argument. My caution on this issue surprises me a bit. I can't say this without sounding self-promoting. But it does speak to my tolerance for risk. I was known in my organizing career for picking unwinnable fights. And then winning. There was the City Council member who told me privately that publicly attacking all the big banks in town to cough up a $1 million down payment assistance fund prioritizing Black home owners was a great idea. But they'd never actually do it. A year later we got $1.2 million, and a permanent citywide coalition of housing advocates. And, arguably, a US Senator. Since Jeff Merkley was the lowly head of Portland Habitat For Humanity at the time. Same city, different lefty. The Multnomah County Chair, an actual prior Socialist, said privately she could not propose a progressive business income tax on large corporations to fund schools. Because the business community would run her out of office next election. We did it anyway. We won a two year progressive business income tax. Bev Stein won re-election handily. Even though the corporations did try to run her out of office for messing with them. Then she ran for Oregon Guv, and almost won. It took 20 years for a different Democratic Guv to get a highly popular progressive state income tax on big corporations passed. And then there was the time we occupied the headquarters of Fannie Mae and got a $1 billion Community Home Buyers Program, which Bill Clinton later turned into a model for Black and Hispanic grassroots wealth creation. But I digress. Point being, sometimes the best thing is to say fuck it. We'll have the courage of our convictions, and go big. Just like the culture war people do. Running a Black woman (married to a Jewish White man) and a Gay man (who is married with child, since The Gays went big and won) would be a good way to trump the culture warriors, so to speak. If this were 1968, and there were riots in the street that turned off the Silent Majority, that might actually be a really stupid idea. That time, we got Richard Nixon. In 2020, polls showed the Silent Majority actually favored Black Lives Matter. And elected Biden and Harris. So we may actually have the wind at our backs this time. Kamala and Pete are despised by the culture warriors. But that may be because they don't come off like scary radicals. Either way, it's a gamble.

This is a subset of my point above about the potential risks and rewards of a 2024 Democratic primary. There's a good argument that Biden inherently pissed on Kamala and promoted Pete in his choices. Yeah, The Veep is more powerful than a Cabinet Secretary. But Biden gave her immigration. Which was almost 100 % sure to be divisive and unpopular. No matter what she tried to do, the likely outcome is gridlock and complaints. Meanwhile, Pete gets to dole out gazillions of dollars and talk about how he worked with Republican Guvs and Mayors to build bridges and roads. To offset that, I just read a right wing article about how he is the worst Transportation Secretary ever, bar none. Because all he gave us was supply chain problems and train wrecks. While he and his hubby took off paid parent time. Even moderate Republican politicos wonder whether America is ready for a POTUS who kisses a guy on stage. So how Kamala and Pete would play out in a primary is anyone's guess. But the polls right now say she gets maybe 25 to 30 % of the vote. And Pete gets about 10 to 15%. The #2 in most polls is Bernie Sanders, in the high teens. So then you have to factor in that we'll redo the primary fight between progressives and more Establishment liberals/moderates. Who Republicans will say are all socialists. My best guess is Biden tried to create an orderly transition in his 2020 choices. Kamala got to be Veep. If he dies in office, she will be POTUS. Pete got what was likely to be a highly visible Cabinet job, if Biden got the infrastructure package he wanted. Which he did. So it positioned both of them well. And Harris/Buttigieg would be a ticket that I'd be excited about. But the best laid plans - if that is what they were - can always go awry. There are aspects of 1980's Reagan/Bush that are very similar. Oldest POTUS ever. Who polls in 1983 say most people don't want to run again. Because he's old, and the economy is rocky. But he runs in 1984, when the economy is better, and wins. Serves out two terms. Even though we know in retrospect he ended up actually having dementia. His # 2 runs to replace him after eight years, and wins. Democrats should be so lucky! I know I'm being my typical verbose, or detailed, self. But an interesting historical side note. 1984 was the first election Lichtman and his Russian partner in voodoo publicly predicted, way in advance. He said Reagan would win, since almost all his keys worked in Reagan's favor. In the moment, Reagan was not viewed as a particularly strong incumbent. So Lichtman tells an anecdote of how Republican political hack Lee Atwater invited him to the White House to game out what would happen if Reagan DID NOT run in 1984. Lichtman, a lifelong liberal Democrat, says he told Atwater it would hurt Republicans on three of his keys. They'd lose an incumbent. They'd lose what he judged to be a charismatic leader. And they'd gain a primary fight, which could hurt them. Even so, in retrospect, even if they lost those three things Lichtman would probably argue they'd still only have five keys out of 13 against them. As that Broder article I hyperlinked details. And history says you need six against you to lose. So my point is this. If you make a set of favorable assumptions for Democrats about 2024 - growing economy, a "victory" in Ukraine - Biden could do what Reagan did not. Step aside. And Democrats could win, anyway.

Poor things! This is an optimistic generalization. My favorite organizing phrase is, "The action is in the reaction." So I view this reaction through that lens. First, it may be another tiny little sign that people are just sick of Trump's Divide And Conquer America. He never really conquered, anyway, even in 2016. The most MAGA-like posters over there are the ones who reacted with a pity party. The posters I consider the most thoughtful all hit the "thanks" or "like" button. Second, same goes for specific LGBTQ issues, like transgender. I personally think that some of the medical providers may go too far. And there is a need for oversight. Whenever there is a system for getting insurance claims when you do expensive therapies, oversight and accountability are issues. That said, mostly the culture war attacks on The Gays or The Blacks or The Trannies or The Baby Killers has playing out in our favor, over a long period of time. It is a battle of hearts, not minds. And progressives like me are winning. And it's hard to keep talk about the political dimensions of The Gays or The Trannies off an LGBTQ website. So it will be interesting to see where this goes. But, for now, they get a nice vacation from conflict. Hopefully the moderators are out at some strip club in South Beach, celebrating. 😉

I know I stated the question in a complicated way. But it is a complicated question. As I said, I posted this on Company Of Men. And the predictable reaction was, "Biden should not run," for a bunch of reasons. But that still leaves us with: okay, what then? @njf's answer is a good one: it leaves us with a primary. That is what primaries are for. I'm not sure what you mean precisely about not saying the quiet thing out loud. That could mean at least two things. One, Biden's mental decline is more serious than thought. Although that was not clear at the SOTU address. Or, two, lots of Talking Heads thinks Kamala would be a disaster heading the 2024 ticket. Many of the same Talking Heads thought Biden would just embarrass himself by running in 2020. I for one could live with something like a Kamala/Secretary Pete ticket in 2024, if Biden surprises us all and steps aside. I'd vote for Kamala in a primary in part in the hopes that my party would avoid a bitter and divisive primary fight by rallying around The Veep and The Gay Guy everybody likes (Well, Republicans don't like either of them). What did you mean exactly by the quiet thing? The main thing I keep coming back to is this. If it ain't broke, why fix it? So it depends in part on whether you think Biden is broke. I don't see him as broke. And if he does break, the likely fix is Kamala, anyway. As I said above, that's true whether he steps aside now, or gets re-elected and dies in office, or he wins in 2024 and ends his term in 2028. The one scenario in my mind that likely finishes Kamala's political career is if Biden/Harris loses in 2024. But even then she may run in 2028. It is objective to say she is unproven as a national or international leader. And her run in 2020 didn't go so well. Then again, Biden's prior Presidential runs didn't go so well, either. If I flip that last paragraph around, I think the best argument for Biden stepping aside now is that it lets Democrats pick a new generation of leaders in 2024, not 2028. And the premise I would have to add is that by Nov. 2024 the economy is good, the stock market is good, jobs are good, and Democrats have the wind at our backs. And Putin has either lost, or is at least not winning. So in that happier world Democrats could afford to lose an incumbent. Which I think is just historically a downside - as Lichtman argues. And still win almost no matter who we nominate. That would be a happy outcome, for me. I'll add one other thing I put in the COM thread that just further complicates things. But for me, as a liberal Democrat, it is happy news. At about 42:00 in this hour long interview between Never Trump Republican Bill Kristol and centrist worrier AB Stoddard, she goes off about the looming public conflict among Democrats over: 1) replacing Pelosi, and 2) replacing Biden. That interview was from last Summer. I like AB a lot as a solid go-to center/right thinker. But she was pretty much wrong about everything she said. The supposed public fight between progressive and moderate Democrats over replacing Pelosi never happened. Which I think was a good thing. Let the public drama be MTG saying whack job things and screaming, "Liar!" instead. Same with Biden, in my mind. Let the Democrats seem calm and orderly and on course. Let Biden tease Republicans about really unpopular things they say about wildly popular programs for seniors. Let the Republicans have their Ron/Don/MAGA shit show instead. Again, all this follows from my premise that Biden is not broke. AB Stoddard clearly thought last Summer that Biden was broke.

MTG is in many ways a perfect example of how a MAGA minority came to power. And why they lost power in 2018 and 2020 and 2022. And what they need to do to hold whatever power they have. Her district is R+22 on the Cook Partisan Voter Index. Which is even more ruby red than your lovely slippers, Oz. She won in her first 2020 primary with 40 % of the vote. Just like Trump won by simply cobbling together a plurality in 2016. Which is my guess of how he'll win the R nomination again in 2024. It's all about the base. MTG's district may be one where the most inflammatory candidate wins the primary. It may turn off the country as a whole. But it works in that district. In 2022 she won her primary with 70 % of the vote. The surprising thing is that, according to one legislative tracker, she is among the most moderate House Republicans. Not the most extreme. Ideology–Leadership Chart That chart isn't based on numbers. But if you put numbers on the x axis, with 0 being most liberal and 10 being most conservative, she'd be at 5.5. Not far from Josh Gottheimer, the least liberal "Wall Street" Democrat who is right in the middle. They come up with those rankings based on legislation. So it's not based on her QAnon-ish rants. Or her taste in fur. 🤫 Trump was also perceived in 2016 by many as a centrist/former Democrat/moderate type. So that is part of the mystery of MAGA to me. In theory, you could build a majority coalition combining White working class voters and Main Street capitalism. There's a rich tradition of that kind of populism in Georgia. Which didn't always work out so well for Blacks. But it did produce results. My biased answer is that the main result Trump and MTG are interested in is power for themselves. MTG recently complained that she made a lot more than her $174,000 salary before being elected. And the work her job requires leaves her "miserable." Poor thing! Maybe the voters will take that to heart next time and let her get back to CrossFit and QAnon. Georgia today is a great example of how NOT being extreme works. On the one hand, Gov. Brian Kemp's 2022 campaign hammered away at it's the inflation, stupid. Instead of buying into QAnon, he took on Trump's lies. And he won. Meanwhile, Warnock - using the same legislative tracker - was one of the most moderate voting Democrats. According to that tracker, Joe Manchin is the Senator who is smack dab in the middle. Warnock is just slightly to his left. Meaning more centrist than almost every other Senate Democrat. He spent half his time playing the role of Georgia's pastor. And the other half focusing on bipartisan deals to build roads in Georgia. Yeah, he's really a liberal. But he hides it well.

This was actually the last thread I started on Company of Men before the political forum involuntarily retired. (Maybe that answers my question about Biden? 🤫 ) So I thought it would be interesting to see how it goes here. Since a few of you already posted on this question over there, I also added the second part about Plan B. A lot of Biden supporters or sympathizers said he's a great guy. But his age is showing. So it's time for him to move on. Speaking as a Democrat, that begs a big question. How do we avoid electing Trump II, or Culture Warrior in Chief Ron DeSantis? My answer was, and is, YES. Biden should run again. I'll list three reasons. First, it increases the odds that we won't elect Trump or some other Culture Warrior In Chief. Some people think it's voodoo. But I overweight Alan Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency. It's a system he developed with a leading Russian seismologist geared toward using mostly objective data to detect patterns which help predict earthquakes - in this case, political earthquakes. Since 1984 he has guessed the winner of every Presidential election correctly, and months in advance. The other key component of his system is that he believes voters are smart. They make decisions based on things that matter: the economy, war and peace, major accomplishments, leadership, big scandals. So having the power of the incumbency and avoiding an intraparty brawl are two of the 13 things that help determine victory. He says once you lose six of these 13 keys, you're done. So this takes away two keys from the Democrats. Incumbency, for sure. And if Biden does not run, there will likely be a party nomination fight that could be very divisive. Second, the most likely outcome no matter what happens is Kamala becomes the new leader to face Don or Ron. Which is what lots of Democrats are afraid of. If you leave Biden out, the polls show she's the preference of up to 1 in 3 Democrats. The next tier - usually Sanders and Secretary Pete - are far behind. Like maybe 10 %. So who knows what will happen. But if Biden steps aside, the most likely outcome is she replaces him. On the other hand, if Biden/Harris wins and he dies of a heart attack in 2016, she replaces him. On the other hand, if they both serve out a second term, she'll run to replace him. All roads seem to lead to Kamala. Under any of these circumstances, I'm fine with her leading when the time comes. That said, like many Democrats, I'd rather not risk it now. We do know that in the last century there were six contested nominations in the party that held the Presidency. In all six cases, most recently Bush in 1992, that party lost. So it would definitely be better for Biden to step aside than to be forced out in a primary, like LBJ was. Third, I'm not sure I even understand the logic. Yes, he's old. If he were clearly senile, or a joke like George Santos, that would matter. But the idea among at least some Democrats goes like this. "You've won all these bipartisan legislative victories and done a great job. But you're too old." The first statement kind of disproves the second. With Ukraine, even moreso. Age - aka experience and relationships - did put Biden in a position to build a global coalition I don't think Trump, or someone younger like Kamala or Secretary Pete, could have built. The biggest fear is that Biden will lose us the 2024 elections. Like Trump lost lots of 2022 races for his election denying partners in crime. But if that's the fear, didn't Biden just help pull a rabbit out of a hat? Obama, who was younger and dynamic, lost 63 House seats in his first midterm. Biden lost 14, and gained a handful of Senate and Governor seats. One poll showed that, among Democrats, about half want Biden to run, about a quarter are not sure, and about a quarter are against him running. I think it's a given that, if he steps aside, anyone running to replace him will be less popular. And have less experience. How does that make winning in 2024 easier? I've never bought the idea that Biden was the only Democrat who could beat Trump in 2020. To go back to Lichtman, he says Presidential races are thumbs up or thumbs down votes on the party in power. Trump was going to lose, anyway, he said. So if we wanted someone else to lead the charge, 2020 was the time to fight that out. We did. And Biden won. A lot of this depends on your assumptions about other BIG THINGS THAT MATTER. If we're in a deep recession in Fall 2024 and Putin has won in Ukraine in a way that makes Biden look like a weak loser, Lichtman's system says Biden would probably have at least six keys against him, anyway. Which is enough to lose. If the economy and stock market are booming, and Putin lost or is barely holding on in Ukraine, Lichtman's system could suggest the Democrats have enough going for them to win, anyway. Then a younger President than Biden - presumably Harris, but maybe not - could win in 2024 and run as the incumbent in 2028. But his key point would be that losing an incumbent and inviting an internal party fight is simply not going to help, at best. At worst, it hands the Presidency back to Trump. Or the other Florida Culture Warrior In Chief. Should Biden run? And if he does step aside, what's the Plan B for the Democrats to keep the Presidency?

My guess is it's more that they just don't like the noise and conflict. I know that as a fact for several of the most prominent posters on the website overall. The ethos is: "We're gentlemen. And we don't like all this noise." When Bill died a member of the forum stepped forward and said he could fund the operations of the site. I'm not sure how that played out. If that in fact happened, it was a very nice gesture on the part of that member. And it's the kind of thing that is best left in the background. So they may accept donations, which is always a wise things to do. But I don't know that they need them. If my read is correct that transition very much reinforced the vibe that this is a bunch of guys who have this particular hobby. And that is what the website is primarily about. Like, maybe let's go hang out at a strip club together. Or compare notes on our Fidelity accounts. Other than that, we are not particularly political. We just like our hobby. We want to be left alone. And we will keep our heads down. That certainly was a big part of the reaction when Rentboy was busted. The vibe among the core people who hire a lot and are friends or acquaintances off the Web was we just want to keep our heads down. And hope we are left alone. Mostly, these are NOT the folks who are going to be on the LGBTQ political cutting edge. As an escort that interacted with them a lot, I just accepted it for what it was. I've always wondered how that website would survive without the companion review website that Bill ran on his own. And that I think always got much more traffic than the forum. The other ticking time bomb, though, is age. It's a group of mostly older or middle-aged men who came of age before The Gays won the culture wars. So I'm not sure most younger Gays, even ones who hire escorts, would buy the notion that we don't talk about politics here. One poster said it very well when the forum was shut down: "As Gay men, our very existence is political." I sure feel that way. But many people there don't. Funny, or not so funny, story. In early 2017 I took one of the most prominent posters there out to dinner. It was the first time I'd seen him since Trump won. I knew he'd voted for Trump. His main reason being the all purpose, "Of course, I couldn't vote for Hillary." So on the car drive there he started ranting a bit about how he just didn't even like opening up his Yahoo webpage. Because since the election there was all this noise and conflict. I asked him if he was upset at all the anti-Trump people bitching and moaning. And he said, No, it's not that. Okay. Is it that you think Trump is being divisive, and creating conflict? No, it's not that. Okay. Well, then what is it? I think he may have just blurted out, "I just don't like all the noise!" I'm not sure, but I think I may have asked him, "So what exactly did you expect when you voted for Trump?" Or maybe I just thought that, and politely kept my mouth shut. We changed the subject, and had a nice dinner. Since many of them were clients, and friends, I am pretty sure he speaks for a bunch of people. They just want to be gentlemen left to their hobby. That said, for a niche market, they may be doing - and continue to do - just fine. I hope so. It's a great place to meet up and share information and experiences about the core interest that brings them together.