stevenkesslar

This is me being long-winded and repetitive. So many of the points I will quote below are basically a different way of saying what was said in the post above. But Ron Brownstein is my favorite political pundit. And I think he spelled out why this is not only bad news for Trump. It is bad news for Republicans. Attacks on Manhattan investigation show GOP still can’t break from Trump Analysis by Ronald Brownstein Brownstein is, as always, sniffing out powerful movements underneath the surface, I think. The House GOP in particular is happily making itself busy smearing Trump's mean-spirited and authoritarian bullshit all over themselves. Because that convinces people like my niece that they are NOT RINO's. That's what she cares about. She likes Trump, who fights the pussies who are weakening America. Poor Kevin McCarthy. I think he deserves a huge amount of credit for going out and finding really good Black male and Latina female candidates who he convinced to run for the House as conservatives. They mostly won in 2020. They mostly won again in 2022. I keep telling my niece that if she wants a Republican President in 2024, Republicans should nominate a multi-racial Main Street conservative capitalist like Tim Scott. They won't. Instead, Trump will bathe McCarthy and House Republicans in his lies, divisiveness, and soon to be indicted criminal behavior. If I had to bet, Trump will be nominated in 2024. Because the Republican Party will be too split to nominate anyone else. But even if DeSantis proves to be the Golden Boy, he will still be the golden boy smeared head to toe in Trump's lies and culture war divisive bullshit. That's not a way to grow the party, either. Again, Republicans have lost the popular vote in every Presidential election in this century, except 2004. I don't see how a celebration of lies, hate, divisiveness, and indicted criminal behavior is the path to victory in 2024.

Stop Overthinking It: An Indictment Would Be Bad For Trump I thought that headline provided a nice bumper sticker for anyone who is not for Trump and his lies and divisiveness and hate to think about. True, Trump always seems to manage to step on third rails and not get electrocuted. There are maybe 1 in 3 Americans who believe the 2020 election was stolen. They will gladly believe any lie Tucker Carlson tells them so that he can get rich making them look stupid. I recently spent a week with a niece who believes whatever Tucker says. So he can get rich and powerful making her look stupid. I did not tell her she seems stupid, and why. I didn't point out, for example, that RINO Mike DeWine is actually STILL Governor of Ohio, the state she lives in, which she did not know. She mostly knows he is a RINO, because people like Tucker say so. I did not ask her to explain why RINOs who at least try to govern toward the middle like him win in landslides, even on the same night that election denying flame throwers fail. The funny part is she is an executive with a Fortune 500 compan. And her and her husband live in a nice fancy house in a red state. So they are hardly poor, or academically stupid. And we can simply enjoy going on hikes and going out to fancy restaurants. Fortunately, she is not the kind of stupid that thinks I prefer to dine on the livers and hearts of Republican children. But were I mention that almost every Democratic Presidential candidate in this century (except Kerry) got more votes than his or her Republican opponent, and Biden beat Trump by about 7 million votes in 2020, I probably might as well say that the blood of Republican children is a really nice vintage. My niece actually thinks she is in the Silent Majority. And she probably is, in her own state. In California, not so much. In the US, not so much. (See 2020 election.) I don't think there's any way to convince her of that. Trump and Tucker have done a good job pushing the limits of how rich and powerful they can get making millions of people look stupid. All that said, the basic idea of that article is that being in trouble with the law is NEVER a way to grow your support. Trump is not going to grow his support by having to explain past actions. Like paying hush money to prostitutes. Or trying to get Republicans to steal elections. Or trying to stop a peaceful transfer of power by inciting a riot at the US Capitol. Yes, there are people who will rally to him. Some of them will actually be people who think I drink the blood of children. So it won't be a stretch for them to believe Trump and Tucker are the innocent (and rich) victims of political persecution. As opposed to just being mean-spirited liars who get rich making them look stupid. Did you hear that Dominion is owned by Martians who took over the body of Hugo Chavez and eat children like those fungi in The Last Of Us? It's true! I think lots of Democrats overthink a lot of things about Trump, because of 2016. But two good political whores can explain that. Morning Joe Scarborough, who knows more than most of us about winning elections, points out that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. And he led Republicans to losses in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Alan Lichtman has called every US Presidential right since 1984, in advance, He argued in September 2016 that Trump would win because there were just enough things wrong with the Democratic Administration - like the economy, stupid - that voters would give "four more years" a thumbs down. They did. Had the Republicans nominated someone like Kasich, he probably would have won the popular vote. We should probably stop overthinking the fact that Trump won once, barely, despite losing the popular vote by about 3 million votes in 2016. Trump is a mean-spirited liar who is taking US democracy off the rails to serve his own ego. We should not overthink that. Every time he is indicted and has to explain why he pays hush money to hookers, or why he starts riots to undermine democracy, he is not growing his base.

South Park, which gloriously and hilariously makes fun of everybody from left to right, got an unusual amount of pushback for taking on China a few years back. Who'd a thunk that Murderous Vlad and Pooh-Xi were so sensitive?

My dearest and darlingest Sister In Cock, I'm just not quite sure this is a good idea. As you pointed out, we'd all be alcoholics in no time. Isn't my life tragic enough already? May I suggest a more pleasing alternative? How about every time Trump says WITCH HUNT we perform fellatio? 👄 (Not on Trump, of course.) When you think about it, it actually is a bit like washing our mouths out with soap. 😋

Thanks to Florida's Top Gov, we now know this whole indictment thing is a false narrative. Probably cooked up by the same people who spawned CRT. And Nasty Books By The Gays. First, Biden can't pardon Trump. Since Biden isn't really President. Second, I predict in the interest of national unity, Trump will pardon Biden for stealing the 2020 election. But, that said, my real point is that Trump is dragging the country increasingly away from democracy and truth. So I don't think it's time to pussy foot around. Call him out for being the lying and criminal piece of shit he is. The only person who should NOT call him a lying and criminal piece of shit is Joe Biden. Biden should talk about unity. We don't know why Democrats beat all the odds and were not red waved in the midterms. But it is a reasonable theory that The Silent Majority does sense that Trumpism represents a latent threat to US institutions and traditions. Specifically, all kinds of conservatives who tell the truth and stand behind the institutions of democracy did quite well, thank you. DeWine, DeSantis, Kemp, Sununu are four who represent different shades of conservativism, and all did great. It was the Republicans who basically sounded like Trump that got their asses kicked. I think indicting and prosecuting Trump would reinforce people's unfavorable views of Trump. And underscore the reasons to feel the sequel would be even worse than the original.

Bingo! In the run up to Murderous Vlad's invasion of Ukraine, @tassojunior posted all kinds of photos claiming they were things they weren't over on Company of Men. And, no, Tasso, "US hegemony" is NOT what forced murderous Vlad to illegally deport children to Russia, earning him a rare arrest warrant for a nation's leader from the ICC. You do realize how easy it is to reverse image search on Google. Right, Tasso? So here again we have a picture you posted that has nothing to do with what you claim it represents. I was fanatically against the Iraq War. So if you want a cheerleader on the point that the US went way too far, lied to the US public and the world, and weakened our military, political, and moral force, I'll cheer that idea. That mouthful said, I don't mind being the kettle to Murderous Vlad's genocidal pot. Or should I say genocidal plot? The picture you posted above has nothing to do with your alleged US soldiers killing 4 year old Iraqi boys. You know that, right? You know you just made shit up, right? Why do you just make shit up, Tasso? Usually disinformation has a purpose. What's yours? The picture is worth a paragraph on, since it both demonstrates and refutes your point. That picture ran in Der Spiegel as an example of US war crimes in Afghanistan. That's an innocent and dead 15 year old Afghan boy who was farming in a field. The soldier pictured is Cpl. Jeremy Morlock,, who comes from Wasilla, Alaska of all places. He was part of a self-appointed "Kill Team" who murdered three innocent Afghan civilians, In the boy's case they threw a grenade at him and opened fire with a machine gun. That's a war crime, for sure. The guy who did that, along with chopping a few of the boy's fingers off as a souvenir, got life in prison. Morlock got 24 years. About a dozen US soldiers were investigated for the crimes. A number of them were dishonorably discharged and punished based on the severity of what they did. For example, Sgt. Darren Jones got seven months in prison for assaulting another soldier and firing on (but not injuring) innocent Afghans who did not pose a threat to him. So, yes. War is hell. And it does bring out both the best and worst in people. So why did Murderous Vlad start a hell of a war in Ukraine? The above example demonstrates that the US military does hold its own accountable. By this standard, you would surely agree that, based on the ICC, Murderous Vlad should be held accountable, too, and spend the rest of his life in prison for the horrific things he has done to Ukrainian children. Right, Tasso?

Even though he was not part of his administration, Lindsey Graham would be my choice for "moral worm" poster child of the Trump era. His flip flopping was even more craven than most. Like when having a mob attack the Capitol he serves in was just a bridge too far for his ladylike sensibilities. Until MAGA world turned out to be okay with Jan. 6th, and Miss Graham was, too. Fiona Hill is an example of a real lady. And I'd even argue John Bolton was a real gentleman, too. Both worked for Trump thinking they could do some good. Both acted like adults in the room. Gen. Kelly is another. I admire Hill in a way I don't admire Bolton. She was willing to testify. He saved his judgments to make money on a book. But whether I agree with every conservative thing they say or not, I feel they were working for the American people. Instead of just working for Trump and advancing his lies.

Kudos to Wilkerson for being a voice for diplomacy. And for applauding Chinese and Russian diplomats like Wang Yi he worked with closely. He also makes a good case for why Ukraine may well end up not regaining all, or any, of the territory it has lost. His idea of putting it to a vote is not a bad idea. That said, there was a vote in 2011. Other than Crimea, in every oblast - including the four Putin says he owns now - over 80 % of the people voted for Ukrainian independence. I have to assume from that election that if a fair election were held today, they would still say they don't want to be part of Russia. It is funny listening to that. Much of what Wilkerson said about US militarism and "hegemony" has been catnip to me all my life. I was rabidly opposed to the Iraq War. So I can say with fairness that Wilkerson has a problem being the guy in the glass house throwing stones. He is the one who prepared Colin Powell's UN speech on WMD. Powell was later furious he was lied to. So Wilkerson has very good reason to be suspicious of the CIA. I could have told him that two decades ago. When he was basically scripting Powell to cheerlead the warmongers. To be blunt, Wilkerson's credibility on the matter is shit. Because he completely fucked it up and bought the bullshit on WMD when it really mattered. Maybe this is now his way of atoning for the fact that HE PERSONALLY COMPLETELY FUCKED IT UP AND FED THE US PUBLIC LIES ABOUT WMD. So I can say with credibility that I'm tired of hearing that the problem in Ukraine is "US hegemony." That sounds like a good Maoist rant to me. But people in Ukraine who had their babies bombed or had to flee don't see the problem as US or NATO hegemony. Sorry, but as much as Germany always wants to be in the middle - because it literally is in the middle - there is no evidence that Germans are protesting "US hegemony." They are protesting Putin's invasion. Period. Vlad has united the US, the EU, and NATO in a way no US President could. He has made Ukrainians detest Russia and Russians - probably for the rest of their lives. I'd love to see a referendum in these oblasts. They'd probably vote to slowly torture Murderous Vlad to death, if they could. Not very diplomatic. But very human. I applaud Wilkerson's honesty in his applauding W.'s policy of "strategic competition" with China. But, it should be pointed out that it was precisely that policy that helped destroy 6 million US factory jobs. And led to the rise of Trump as the cynical gadfly who promised to help those factory towns. But completely failed to do so. Zhou Bo says that the word "cooperation" sounds better than "competition." Great. But I basically view that as diplomatic bullshit. If China prioritized cooperation with the US over all else, the no brainer move would be for Xi to cooperate with the US and EU in condemning Putin's invasion of sovereign Ukraine. He can't do that. Why? Because he views China as being in "strategic competition" with the US. Hence his marriage of convenience with Putin. If he wants to ally with Putin to compete with the US, great. But he shouldn't be surprised when Europeans greet his pleas for cooperation and peace with skepticism, or just outright cynicism. Nobody forced Putin to invade Ukraine. I don't even buy the idea that NATO "provoked" Russia by allowing a lot of former Iron Curtain nations to seek their own security arrangements against Russia. And even if you are sympathetic to the Idea that NATO expansion "provoked" Russia, Murderous Vlad is still a strategic Bozo. He got exactly the opposite of what he wanted from NATO. That's his own fault. And nobody forced Xi to align himself as closely as he has with a strategic Bozo. If Wilkerson wants to take a hard line against US hegemony now, great. But I have been there my whole life. I wish he would have felt this way back when it mattered, and he helped Powell cheerlead at the UN for our own WMD warmongers. Defending Ukrainians after an unprovoked attack from Putin is just not the same thing.

Actually, I did answer that. Even that right-winger on Fox who thinks that China wants a two theater war - which I view as over the top conspiracy thinking - says that Putin is not suicidal. He will not start a nuclear war. In particular, he will not start a nuclear war with NATO. So you'd have to game out the small and vanishing chance that he would drop nukes on Ukraine, thinking it would end there. But, again, even that would be suicidal. In part because it would demolish Putin in the EU. And the question is not only how the US and NATO would respond. How would China respond? How would India respond? I think it would be suicidal for him. Period. But as that New Yorker article @alvnv posted states, there are endless amounts of other bad things Putin could do. Cutting underwater cables. Poisoning water supplies. So we should all be worried about what Vlad might do. I think this Politico article asks what is probably the most critical question: The West Is Avoiding the Big Question About Ukraine Until the U.S. and allies decide what victory looks like for Kyiv, Europe isn’t likely to have peace. There are limits to the comparison of Ukraine today to Poland in World War II. One good comparison is that both can be blown up easily enough. As the New Yorker article points out, the costs of reconstruction will be massive, and take decades. But Vlad is no Adolph. Germany and Japan were two of the fastest growing countries in the world in the 1930's. Because they were ramping up a war economy. Vlad may not have been hurt by sanctions as much as we'd hoped. But his economy (like his penis, rumor has it 🤫 ) is a tiny joke in the bigger scheme of things. The situation in Poland was pretty hopeless, since they happened to be between Hitler and Stalin. Ukraine has friends on one side that are rushing to protect it. Including Poland. So Ukraine is in a much better position than Poland was. That New Yorker article is a good example of the ambiguity. It does a good job of sketching out how the war will end. For example, Ukraine is unlikely to take back all its territory. Which probably means there will be more of a cease fire than peace. Ukraine will join the EU. But the article is somewhat vague about what a "security guaranty" actually means. It will be hard to rebuild Ukraine, which should be the priority, when Vlad could just decide to do the whole thing over again in two or five or ten years. So I'll be broken record that I think Kissinger is right. And people on the left and right are coming to that conclusion, it seems like. Whatever Ukraine is has to be absorbed into both the EU and NATO sooner rather than later. NATO is already proving that it won't let Putin win in Ukraine. So NATO and Ukraine are already married, even if it was a shotgun affair. So what's left to be determined is precisely how Vlad does not win what he wanted. And precisely what kind of marriage between Ukraine and NATO prevents him from trying to get what he wants again. And that is, as the New Yorker article states, a victory. It is exactly what he didn't want. Nor did he want a revitalized NATO. Nor did he want Americans and Europeans embracing and agreeing with what a murderous fascist small-dicked sadistic piece of shit Putin is. Russia is still fucked with Putin as its leader, as the New Yorker argues. Turkey and China can make money trading with him. But his economy is tiny. Maybe he looks strong to some with all his nukes. And people fear that. But everybody still knows he is a sadistic small-cocked sadist. Who actually respects Russia? Nobody. Who wants to live in Russia? Nobody. Team Vlad can kill as many children and rape as many women and torture or deport as many innocent civilians as they want. And the sooner the fighting stops, the less of that will happen. But none of it changes the fact that small-cocked, small economy Vlad is just that. Not The Big Man On The Block he wants to be. China's trade with Russia is about the same as either Australia or Canada. Vlad is a teeny teeny little economy that is pathetic and small and can't even grow anymore. It's just a fact. Sorry, Vlad. Your economy may not be as pathetic as we all hoped. But you are still an impotent little cry baby with a loser economy that can't grow. Nothing changes that. A united front: How the US and the EU can move beyond trade tensions to counter China That is just a policy paper by ECFR, the same group that did that poll above that shows that India and Turkey don't want to take sides. But it probably reflects how lots of elites and leaders in the EU view this. And it is not good news for China. If Vlad had not invaded Ukraine, it would have left a huge opening for China to play Europe against a protectionist America. But small-cocked, small economy Vlad has created a big problem for China with the West. The EU is seeing the same things Americans are. And they don't want to be dependent on China for computer chips or rare earths in the way that they were dependent on Russia for gas and oil. So it is predictable that the renewed military romance between the US and Europe will be the model for the renewed economic marriage between them as well. China could end all trade with Russia and be just fine. It can't end trade with the US and EU and South Korea and Japan and be just fine. So what does China get out of the bargain? Small-cocked, small economy Vlad. Woo hoo! What a guy! What a murderer! Poor Xi. I almost feel sorry for him. In the end, I think economic right makes right. China has a massive property bubble and an impending debt crisis. Vlad can't fix their problems. A growing, peaceful, and orderly global economy can. One more reason Xi and Modi and Erdogan are a hard NO on nuclear Armageddon.

Excellent point. What I keep reading is that Biden is driven by two things, above all else: 1. No US ground troops. 2. No nuclear war. I think it is a safe assumption that China and India are adamantly opposed to the use of nukes. They have pretty much said that publicly. Here's a Fox News piece I found interesting. Because it's basically a debate between the more normal Fox right wing, and the even further out there anti-China, anti-Biden right wing, who kind of view Joe Xiden as being in bed with China. Weird stuff. Koffler to Kilmeade: Our Ukraine Strategy Will Not Work There's a 12 minute video embedded in that article. I've never heard of Koffler before. But I assume her views align with the most saber rattling part of the right. Who now assumes that China is the enemy, even more than Russia. And Xi would be happy to start a two theater war. She is pretty far out there. A majority of 56 % of Americans see Russia as an enemy. A minority of 42 % of Americans see China as an enemy. 30 % of Biden voters see China as an enemy. 66 % of Trump voters see China as an enemy. And many of the hard core Trump MAGA types see Joe as Xi's puppet. Who knew? That said, Koffler says several things that make sense. First, and most important, Putin is not suicidal. So the idea that he can't win a conventional war in Ukraine, but he would trigger a nuclear war by invading Poland, is a logical disconnect. You'd really have to stretch it to an extreme, and argue that Putin's own life is at risk. And China would be okay with a nuclear strike as a last resort to prevent Russia from being run by some pro-US leader. It sounds more like a Hollywood movie than even a remote possibility in the real world. Second, she is right that a win/win for Putin could be that if he can't win a ground war in Ukraine, at least he can demolish it. I could not read those paywalled articles @njf posted from WaPo above. But this recent article by one of the authors, Graham Allison, underscores the huge devastation in Ukraine. 35 % of GDP gone, 40 % of energy capacity gone, over 13 million people displaced. Koffler barely mentions the drain this has on Russia, as well. As Allison notes, the long term costs to Russia will be massive. But you can also argue that Putin can afford to mostly not give a shit. Third, Koffler is also likely right that Putin would agree to some land for peace deal. Whether Ukraine would is a whole different question. But if both sides are now so dug in that Ukraine can't take back the Donbas, let alone Crimea, that will determine the outlines of what land for peace means. The burden is on Ukraine to prove whether it can actually push Russia back on its own territory, or not. The biggest problem that Koffler does not address is Kilmeade's point that if Ukraine agrees to some type of land for peace deal that allows Putin to have up to 20 % of what was Ukraine, he has every reason to go for the other 80 % as soon as he can. And while Putin is not suicidal, so he won't invade Warsaw and start World War III, that doesn't mean he can't try for Kyiv again. This is why I like Kissinger's revised thinking. He is more than likely right that some type of land for peace deal is going to be how this war ends. Unless Ukraine again surprises everybody by just rolling through to Crimea. But the cost to Ukraine has been huge. And they can't keep fighting this way forever. Arguably, Putin can. If it's true that Putin is not suicidal, so he won't invade a NATO country, the way to prevent him from going for Kyiv again is to make Ukraine a NATO country. I take that to be why Kissinger flip flopped. It makes sense that a neutral Ukraine simply invites Vlad to try again later. A NATO Ukraine means he's not going to try again, because that would be suicide. Which brings us right back to Koffler's point. It is arguably a win for Putin to just keep destroying Ukraine. Whatever the cost to Russia's economy or future trade, Vlad may view that as less bad than having a democratic Ukraine that is a member of NATO. And if that's true, Putin can keep this going as long as he wants. Until Ukraine dangles some peace plan in front of him that he can accept. Which they won't, of course. That's what I see as the somewhat likely recipe for permanent war. Or permanent stalemate. The good news is it at least avoids nuclear Armageddon. Because I think Koffler is right. Vlad is not suicidal. And while it may be Vlad's least bad option, compared to tolerating a democratic Ukraine in NATO, it still means Russia ended up worse than it started. I keep coming back to the idea that Vlad started the war, and he will decide when he is willing to end it. And Kissinger make a lot of sense in thinking that the only way to really end the war now is for Ukraine to end up in NATO. Not gonna be easy at all.

I think the verdict is in. China's diplomatic tightrope walk is not going well. You ain’t no middleman: EU and NATO slam China’s bid to be a Ukraine peacemaker Von der Leyen says Beijing ‘has taken sides’ while NATO’s Stoltenberg says ‘China doesn’t have much credibility’. In fairness, we are talking about two different things. It was completely predictable that just about anyone in the EU (expect Hungary, which MAGA folks love) would say - in blunt terms - that China is not a middleman, and is lacking in credibility. Europeans are circling their wagons against Russia. Arguably even moreso than the US, which more than anything doesn't want to get directly dragged into this war. That said, those ECFR survey results also document that India and Turkey and China have zero interest in taking sides. And you are right that this fight is forcing China and Russia into a closer embrace - whether that's what they actually want, or not. My own view is that Putin is fine with embracing China. He can hardly portray himself as a Western leader advancing the cause of democracy, or global peace. Xi is in a difficult position. No matter how much his trade with Russia grew, it is a fraction of what trade with the US and EU look like. And here we have it: China's GDP unlikely to surpass U.S. in next few decades: JCER That chart is based on all kinds of assumptions. This year looks worse for China. Maybe next year will look better. And the idea that China simply won't overtake the US has more to do with China's internal policies - like zero-COVID and labor shortages. But it doesn't help China at all if trade with the US keeps going sideways. The perception that China is siding with Russia on a war that Americans and Europeans detest and view as Russia's aggression is not going to help China's economy.

So these are various reactions to points made in a number of threads. Starting with @njf's point about "resentment against the United States." How Global Public Opinion of China Has Shifted in the Xi Era The dramatic shift in global opinion since Xi came to power is a huge spike in unfavorable views of China by almost any country that falls under the "Western" category. Before Xi, Americans were split 50/50 in terms of viewing China favorably. In the US a plurality of Americans had favorable views of China, until Xi took power. Now the overwhelming majority have unfavorable views. You can blame that on superpower rivalry, if you want. But the same thing has gradually happened all over the "Western" world. Including Japan, Australia, South Korea. A whole bunch of things seem to have added up. Including perceived military threats, Hong Kong, and COVID. The exact opposite has happened with the US. But that's again mostly measuring "Western" nations. They did not like W., or Trump. Wonder why? I'm guessing "resentment" about things like the Iraq war, or just Trump being Trump, help explain it. They liked Obama a lot. Biden, almost as much. Trust in the US and NATO is high right now. Again, that's the EU and other allies like Australia and South Korea. Of the other big countries in that ECFR poll, it's interesting that only one country has a majority of people that see Russia as an "ally": India, at 51 %. Only 35 % of Chinese and 14 % of Turks see Russia as an ally. So it's clear that what matters more in these countries is that Russia is seen as a "necessary partner." In India about half the population also sees the US as an ally. And over 80 % of Indians see BOTH the US and Russia as either an ally, or a necessary partner. So what comes across loud and clear is that lots of countries don't want to, and won't, take sides. It about their economy, stupid. We agree. My point was that the US and EU are "circling the wagons," including militarily, and the rest of the world like China and India and Turkey are not. But you and several others have made these important points about shades of grey in a multipolar world. So from the UN vote on condemning the attack, it's clear that the world overwhelmingly disapproves of what Russia did. But, as you stated, countries like Turkey are not going to let that fuck up their economy. As I said above, I think that this is mostly a good thing. Even if it complicates the world. When the US was the top dog, what did we do? Invade Iraq. If China were the overwhelming top dog, I assume they would force Taiwan into reunification. Including by military force, if needed. In a world where India or Turkey can work against such uses of force, or the use of nuclear weapons by anyone, that is probably a good thing. As opposed to a world in which everyone has to pledge fealty to one or another superpower. It's also interesting, and probably good, that none of these big countries surveyed by the ECFR think either the US or China will be globally dominant. In the US, only 1 in 5 think either country will be globally dominant. In China, about 1 in 3 think one power will be globally dominant, with about 1 in 4 Chinese saying China will dominate. But most people in the US and China see themselves living in a bipolar (US and China) or multipolar world. Or they just don't know. India is the only country where a slight plurality (31 %) think the US will dominate. In China and Turkey slight pluralities see a multipolar world. All of this is why I think Russia is in trouble. And China has to be careful about how it takes the moral high ground in standing for peace. One thing that is interesting is that majorities in the US and EU say Ukraine shows Russia is weaker than thought. Whereas Indians, Chinese, Turks, and Russians all think Ukraine makes Russia look stronger. We'd have to have a whole thread on propaganda to unpack that. Including what you could call Western propaganda by the MSM. But just based on hard facts in this poll, maybe Putin can think he is winning the war of perception of global strength. That also could explain why countries like India don't particularly care to mess with Vlad. But if the idea is that in a multipolar world right makes right, that's a big problem. Which is why the US, NATO, and the EU are unlikely to back off. And China is not in a position to show, through actions if not words, that it's okay to ignore sovereign nations like China/Taiwan. Oops, I meant Ukraine. 😉 My liberal Democratic perspective is that the biggest cause of the growing chasm between the US and EU on the one hand, and China on the other, is the perception that China was supposed to transition into a democratic capitalist trading partner. It's a bit rich that the same Republican Party that was a cheerleader for big multinational corporations and "free trade" when millions of US factory jobs were going down the shitter while W. was President now want to blame it all on Joe Xiden and Hillary Clinton. Regardless, both parties got the memo that people in swing states like Michigan care about these things. And they are not fans of seeing their middle class jobs go to China. Even if they like cheap Chinese toys, and stuff. Most in China Call Their Nation A Democracy, Most in U.S. Say America Isn't To me, that's a surprising and almost incomprehensible finding. I went looking for that Newsweek article to see how it might be explained. And one possible answer could be that it's just what people say to not piss off their authoritarian leaders. But I think another more likely explanation is that many Chinese believe what Zhou Bo said in that DW interview I posted above. That "Chinese democracy" means Team Xi and the CCP is looking after the interests of the people. And has made great progress in eradication of abject poverty and hunger, and development of a middle class. The US and EU deserve a lot of credit for that. If China were still stuck in The Great Leap (Not) Forward, and all that US and European (and Indian) capital and know how had not flooded into China (and Asia in general), there would be a lot more poverty and a much smaller middle class in China. The American ex-factory workers who came out worse of course don't view that as an achievement. So this is a big problem. Meanwhile, Californians in Rho Khanna's district in Silicon Valley, which is majority Asian American, kind of like the idea of global trade. At the very least, if democracy in China means poverty eradication and building a middle class, World War III does not help achieve that. So I think that still leaves us in a place where rising and dominant economic powers like the US, China, and India all have an interest in peace and stability and order. Even if we have very different views of what order means Vlad simply doesn't prioritize peace and order. And he is proving it. Despite the complexities of an emerging multipolar world, I just don't think this is going to work out well for him. And Russia. I take it that all the Russians fleeing Russia so as not to become Ukrainian fertilizer agree with me.

Problem solved. Set Sarah loose. (No, I don't mean Palin.)

How about Tim Scott? Not in 2024. But I think he would be a good President down the line. And I think it would be good for America if we had a Black liberal Democratic President, and then a Black conservative Republican President. Of course, it would be good if we had a woman President, too. Not sure where that fits in. The interesting thing is that, among Blacks, the polls suggest it is the most well educated and younger Blacks that tend to vote Republican. Which kind of makes sense. It at least used to be the case that college-educated and more affluent Whites tended to vote more Republican. I can see how young upwardly mobile Blacks look at Tim Scott and say, "Yup. I like that." What I particularly like about Scott is that he champions a brand of multi-racial Main Street capitalism. And he temperamentally leans toward compromise. He is perfectly happy to call out racism. And the fact that he is a Republican Senator from South Carolina speaks to the fact that there is path for moving beyond racism. There is no way Republicans will nominate him in 2024. And I hope he would not be Veep candidate for Trump or DeSantis in 2024, because that would taint him. I see him, or someone like him, as where Republicans might turn in 2028 if they get their asses kicked in 2024. That might be the thing that would lead them to say maybe we want to stop this MAGA nonsense and election denial and playing with authoritarianism. And get back to traditional Main Street capitalist values. That was the Republican Party my Dad, a small businessman, felt at home in. That's what I think Tim Scott is for. Meanwhile, a new poll out today says that Trump does best among Christian evangelicals, and rural and small town types who are not college graduates. I think that means in 2024 the Republican Party is stuck with fear mongering culture war and some version of MAGA lies and rants. Whether it is actually Trump or DeSantis leading the charge. I've had a theory since 2020 that this decade will be somewhere in the ballpark of the 1960's. Some of it was Black Lives Matter. Those kinds of political earthquakes don't happen that often in US politics. It is interesting that one of the keys Lichtman uses that rarely turns is his social unrest key. The last times he said they contributed to a change in Presidential power were 1932 and 1968. And then 2020. So I took that and ran with it. 1932 was a huge political earthquake, that gave birth to the New Deal coalition. 1968 was not quite as big an earthquake, since Nixon won in a fairly close race. But, especially in retrospect, it was the beginning of the end of the New Deal coalition. Which Reagan slammed the coffin shut on in 1980. It does seem like we're in a period where a new coalition is trying to be born. And age is the biggest driver. The youngest Americans vote 2 to 1 Democratic. So that is not bad news for Democrats in 2024, and 2026, and 2028. In 2022, as one would expect in a midterm when Democrats are in power, Democrats lost a single digit of vote share in almost every demographic group. What happens if Democrats get them back in 2024? Which is similar to what happened in 1996, and 2012. Presidential years tend to be good turnout for Democrats. Plus there's this whole new group of Gen Z voters who are overwhelmingly Democratic. And I'd bet the stock market and economy will be in better shape in Fall 2024 than they are today. That theory I described in the paragraph above seemed almost laughable around Fall 2022, when it looked like Democrats would get their asses kicked. But we didn't. So I think part of it might be that this is a period when progressive ideas and policies have the wind at their backs. If that is anywhere near true, either Trump or DeSantis are going to be facing headwinds in 2024. And, if either of them loses, somebody like Tim Scott is the type of candidate Republicans might suddenly find attractive. If they are tacking back to the center and core conservative values to actually win a Presidential election.

United West, divided from the rest: Global public opinion one year into Russia’s war on Ukraine by the European Council On Foreign Relations War in Ukraine defining new world order, says thinktank That's a really interesting new poll on "global" attitudes about the war in Ukraine one year in. The first hyperlink is a summary by the European CFR, that did the poll. I also included the second hyperlink, a Guardian article, since they have a bunch of easy to read graphs summarizing key polls findings. I have my own spin on this, which is not quite the same as the headlines. One thing both articles emphasize is that while the US and EU are circling the wagons and unifying, the rest of the world is not. Although in this case the rest of the world really means other big countries, like China, India, and Turkey. I actually view that as more good news than bad news. If we now live in a world where big countries - like China or India or Turkey or all three - are not on board immediately when the US invades Iraq or when Russia invades Ukraine, that's probably a good thing. Even the US and EU are NOT united around the most hardline military position. Which is that Putin must be completely defeated, including being driven out of Crimea. Even if it means lots more Ukrainians are killed or displaced. 34 % of Americans and 38 % of EU9 members agree with that hard line. That's a polling error margin, but it does suggest to me that - because it is Europe being invaded and feeling threatened - the EU is actually a bit more hard line than the US. Which is why I think China is naive if it thinks it can paint the US or NATO as the aggressor to Europeans. Meanwhile, the rest of the world basically wants the children to stop fighting. Which is arguably a good principle to build global security on, if we assume neither the US nor China will be the uncontested big guy (or bully) on the block anytime soon. I'd argue Putin has weaponized hunger and heating oil. Whether the average Turk or Indian would blame Putin like I do, nobody likes what this war is doing to food prices or energy costs. Or their economy. I just watched one of Bill Kristol's great interviews, this time with Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama argues that China's economy is slowing to a crawl. For lots of reasons. But this war doesn't help. You don't become a military superpower based on being a stagnant or slow economy. Neither the US nor the EU have anything close to a majority that agree that either: 1) Ukraine should end the war as soon as possible, even if it means land for peace or 2) Ukraine should fight until it regains all its territory, no matter how long it takes. For that matter, the only country that has a majority for either one of those positions is India, where 54 % of people support ending the war ASAP, including land for peace. The Chinese are split, just like the US and EU. Although in different proportions. And that poll is NOT bad news for the US, or the West. It's surprising that even in Russia, only 29 % of people say "Western dominance of the world needs to be pushed back." in China, only 12 % do, the same percentage as India. The way that question was posed as a choice probably does not fully reflect the depth or breadth of anti-US feeling. But I take it to reflect the fact that people around the world see this is an attack BY RUSSIA on a sovereign country. A poll I posted above says about 70 % of people in 28 countries all over the world support the idea that "my country" should oppose any such attack on a sovereign nation. To the extent that China wants the EU to see the US or NATO as the troublemaker, I think they will be greeted with skepticism, at best. More likely, it will be viewed cynically by nations that see Russia as the warmonger and China as complicit. But to the degree that a peace plan allows China to take the moral high ground with nations like India and Turkey, good for China. I kind of like the idea that maybe in the future when anyone like Putin or W. starts a war, all these other economic heavyweights like India or Turkey will say, "Stop it now, kids. You're fucking up our food supply, and energy costs. Go to your rooms and figure out how to stop the fighting for a long time!" If only it were that simple!

That is a great thread. And way more succinct than I could ever be. 😉 Henry Kissinger would agree with your "arranged marriage" concept. Meaning he thinks the US is helping drive China into Putin's arms. But Bertrand seems right that it is hardly a warm embrace, or happy marriage, despite the rhetoric about "friendship without limits." To me, this tweet of his is probably the single most important principle - or lack thereof. Beyond that, I would also say it undermines China's sought after image as a peacemaker. China already took a huge global hit in public opinion due to perceived BS about COVID. It doesn't need to take another hit by cheering on or participating in Vlad's war crimes. And what Russia has done in Ukraine will be seen as war crimes by much of the world. I would argue Bertrand is saying something similar to my point about how 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..." Here's how he says it: I actually don't think it's clear that the US wants a "fight" with China. I think Trump did, more than Biden. The most strident anti-China rhetoric is coming from MAGA and the right wing. But however you want to characterize the US's complex positions on China, which is hardly a consensus, I think it is "naive" for China to think it can walk this tightrope with the EU on sovereignty and Russia's invasion with Europe. China of all nations should know this. Because they don't want Russia to do to China what it just did to Ukraine. My own perception is that if the audience is specifically Europe - not the US, not ASEAN, not Africa - China would be far better off publicly condemning the invasion, sympathizing with Europe's desire to defend itself from Russia, and saying we're in the same boat. But China can't do that. So, as Bertrand argues, I think Europe essentially ends up siding with the US view of China, whatever that is. That Munich conference workshop I posted above gave a good summary of where the center seems to be at in both the US and Europe right now. It is to push Putin back. And send the message that this kind of aggression is not going to work. Sorry, Vlad. I think Betrand stated that point better: That makes complete sense. Again, you'd have to get into a lot of details about who in the US is "ill-intentioned," and why. But Joe Biden is the one that the MAGA diehards like my BTC refer to as "Joe Xiden." If there is competition between the US and China, it is in part because China wants to compete, too. (It's called capitalism, by the way. 😉 ) That's why China is not going to condemn Russia's invasion. Xi was almost certainly hoping things would go better, and quicker, for Putin. I don't blame him. W. was hoping things would go better, and quicker, for the US in Iraq, too. Again, China is the one who has mostly been waging peace, while the US and Russia have waged war. I think Zhou also said it quite well in that interview @njf posted above. Putin won't win, but he also can't lose. Arguably, it is NOT in the interest of China, or the US, or the EU for Putin to lose. At least if losing means we don't know what the fuck is happening to all those nuclear weapons.

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.