stevenkesslar

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.

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! 😉